Hello. Yes, of course. I'm a 3rd year Psychology student and am working on narcissism as both my dissertation and as part of a module which involves this wiki article. The bit on healthy narcissism was wrong and the relationship between narcissism as a personality trait and nariccissm as NPD wrong. I covered that in the section I added. Basically, it's a raging debate whether or not narcissism is healthy or not and whethere of not NPD and high carcissism are the same. My attempt today has been to outline some components or narcissism which are key to it and thus, essentially, define it as it stands today. I've also made clear that which is uncertain and still a matter of debate rather than fact. I hope these things are helpful I'll be adding findings from a few more journal articles over the next few days, to that section. Information on narcists and self-enhancement most readily comes to mind. I'm not focusing on NPD but rather the other side so my stuff won't effect yours at all, hereon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AGEdmunds ( talk • contribs) 17:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if you COULD just find time to pop to the bottom of this page Talk:Bully and formally express your opinion on merging Workplace bullying into the article? It works like a kind of poll, so that whatever opinion you express will affect the eventual outcome? Thank You -- Zeraeph 17:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
You may find the following helpful in your future editing of Wikipedia:
Here is another helpful link Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not.
I really hope that when you have read these links there will be no cause for further unpleasantness and instead a new spirit of appropriate co-operation. -- Zeraeph 17:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I am very, very concerned about comments like
this one - calling another user a "blatant narcissist" "malignant narcissist" is not acceptable; it is a personal attack, and personal attacks are not tolerated here. I am also concerned about your comments on
Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_September_25#Sam_Vaknin, where you repeatedly give as the only rationale for undeletion, that it has been "poisoned by Zeraeph". Please
be civil and
assume good faith in future.
David Mestel(
Talk) 06:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
It's ironic that Zeraeph herself is currently under Wiki suspension for personal attacks.
Your statement that "you repeatedly give as the only rationale for undeletion, that it has been "poisoned by Zeraeph"." is patently untrue. I have currently made 7 separate comments on Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_September_25#Sam_Vaknin and only two even mention Zeraeph. Most of the discusion has centered around whether Sam Vaknin self published or not. I personally discussed numerous rationale. -- Penbat 08:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Also calling someone a "narcissist" isnt necessarily an insult.-- Penbat 10:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Penbat, Two times? Two individual? I know people may talk about Vaknin in insulting terms, but they are talking about what they have been led to believe about him. Maybe this is really hitting you close to home? I know Sam's book has helped so many people who have been bullied by seriously disordered serial bullies.
I know you feel strongly about this. Maybe you should write Sam and vent in his direction for awhile. If I were working as hard as you, I'd be pretty burned out by now. For me, I find it easier on my PTSD/CFIDS to just debate issues by supporting my POV.
You are doing a tremendous amount of good hard solid work on NPD and other articles. You have really moved this article forward in adding citations, and I have seen other people helping along with rewordings, corrections and such. I am happy for all that is going on. Focus on the positive and let things that bug you just flow on by.
Take Care - I am Kiwi 15:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Zeraeph 19:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Can you provide diffs for these assertions? If you need help, please message me. Jeffpw ( talk) 10:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Concerning your contribution, Psychological manipulation, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.manipulative-people.com/psychological-manipulation-an-overview//. As a copyright violation, Psychological manipulation appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Psychological manipulation has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.
If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:
However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Deconstructhis ( talk) 04:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello Penbat, I know you must be disappointed at the deletion of the material and meant well when you initially posted it, however when other editors encounter instances of the unambiguous copy and pasting of text from other websites without any indication of permission to use the material from its author, policy is clear that it should be removed. Since the stub didn't contain any material apart from that derived from the other website, it had to be deleted in its entirety. One other issue that concerns me somewhat regarding the subject of your proposed article, is that I am having a difficult time differentiating between the concepts of "psychological manipulation" and psychological abuse, for which an article already exists. (IMO Another potentially strong area of overlap between your proposed subject and an existing article might be the "psychological" section of the Coercion article.) You might want to consider using your research to improve that existing article, rather than commencing an entirely new 'free standing' article. Getting the opinion of other editors beforehand on this matter might prove useful to you, perhaps a posting to the discussion page of the psychology portal or Village pump (miscellaneous) in attempt to determine whether or not other editors can see any 'daylight' between these two concepts could save some potential disappointment, or offer advice on how to make your proposed distinction between the two more obvious. Good luck and happy editing. cheers Deconstructhis ( talk) 16:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
-- Cybercobra (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Appendix B is a list of proposed disorders not officially included in DSM-IV.
"The DSM-IV Task Force and Work Groups subjected each of these proposals to a careful empirical review and invited wide commentary from the field. The Task Force determined that there was insufficient information to warrant inclusion of these proposals as official categories or axes in DSM-IV.The items, thresholds, and durations contained in the research criteria sets are intended to provide a common language for researchers and clinicians who are interested in studying these disorders. It is hoped that such research will help to determine the possible utility of these proposed categories and will result in refinement of the criteria sets." [1] Ward20 ( talk) 21:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your recent to Passive–aggressive behavior. The resulting wording was a bit clumsy. Also, it appears from the context that the change is not accurate. I've reverted your change. If you still think a version of the change is appropriate, please provide citation(s) when you re-add it or discuss it on the article's talk page. Thank you, -- 4wajzkd02 ( talk) 16:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Please comment on content, not on the contributor. Below are some of your comments in this section.
"It is absolutely disgusting that you have the cheek to do this"
"I can easily explain the two lines you picked out except i would be in danger of giving you a lecture in psychopathy. It baffles me how you can possibly not understand it. It says a lot about your misunderstanding of psychopaths (which i suspect is probably based on various mythologies)."
"It sounded like you saw this article and instantly thought "bizarre" without thinking about it more deeply and getting past common mythologies. The only prejudices around here are from people must have only a tiny fraction of the knowledge of psychopathy to Kantor and are more influenced by the psychopath mythology. How would you get on if you sat in a room with Kantor and argued your disagreements with him ? You wouldnt stand a chance."
Thanks, Ward20 ( talk) 20:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Please see my comments here regarding the "Kantor dispute". Cheers, -- 4wajzkd02 ( talk) 15:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
This kind of edit summary, and the many following it, is really unnecessary. After looking through the history, I still cannot figure out who you are yelling at. There is no call for yelling in the first place, and remarks not made at a specific editor should be placed on the article talk page; remarks made at a specific editor should be placed on the article's talk page or on the user's talk page. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 18:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
(cont'd from User talk:S Marshall:
Hi -- it isn't clear to me that "attention seeking" properly belongs in the attention article, it seems more of a social than psychological construct. If you aren't planning on filling this out yourself, I'm a bit unhappy about having that empty section sit there potentially indefinitely. Regards, Looie496 ( talk) 20:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
If you suspect another editor of being a sock of Zeraeph I insist that you demand a CU to review your allegations; Jimbo determined that Alamanth was on a different continent, after lobbying by her. Per WP:AGF, having an editor express a difference of opinion with you on related subjects, which Zeraeph also did, is not an indicator of sockpuppetry but simply an interpretation of sources. This requires discussion and consensus, not quick use of the banhammer. Should Z bring to my attention another case where you suppress dissent from your interpretation of sources (and per WP:AGF I have no opinion on whether you hold to the only, majority, or other viewpoint on these matters) by reference to Zeraeph without using all facilities available then I will block your ass, pending an investigation. You have my encouragement to report my comments to whichever venue you choose. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 23:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
For the comprehensive and long-overdue overhaul of the Abuse article. JaGa talk 23:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC) |
That one had been in dab/non-dab limbo for at least a year that I know of. Thanks much! -- JaGa talk 23:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for asking - please do what you think is best. There seem to be a lot of contenders to put a name on the idea, but none seem to pinpoint it. The Japanese concept of "power harassment" is probably closest. Anyway, I'm just here to address some hijacking of the article by another consultant engaging in self-promotion and making a few other minor edits if a problem catches my eye. If you're interested in exploring the idea of rankism further, I suggest getting in touch with Fuller through his web site. He's very approachable! -- Theano2 ( talk) 20:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Template:Abuse has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 11:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi - I'd like to revert the change you made to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teen_dating_abuse in order to change the topic back to "teen dating violence." You note that Google hits are higher for "abuse" than for "violence" but the phrase "teen dating violence" is 3x greater than for "teen dating abuse." Additionally the U.S. Congress has formally supported "National Teen Dating Violence Awareness Week" since 2006. In general this is the term that has greater acceptance and is being adopted by new organizations.
I'm unsure as to how to revert this change - would you mind doing it if you agree with my stance? 24.126.193.118 ( talk) 22:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi again - here is a Google Trends comparison of the terms without the quotation marks: http://www.google.com/trends?q=teen+dating+violence%2C+teen+dating+abuse Again, there is a huge gap and "teen dating violence" is clearly the more commonly used term. In less than ten days the US will be recognizing its National Teen Dating Violence Awareness Week and it would be helpful to have this article properly categorized prior the awareness week. Thanks! 24.126.193.118 ( talk) 00:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I had no idea it'd cause this much trouble. -- User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 17:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I saw that Attention seeking is linked in the first sentence of Munchausen by Internet. While attention seeking is certainly an integral concept to the MBI article, the attention seeking article concentrates on that behavior in children. This is not related, and the sources for MBI indicate the people who demonstrate MBI are later adolescent or adult. Do you plan to expand the attention seeking article to include adults? If not, I think the best way to link to attention seeking would be in the See also section of the MBI article. -- Moni3 ( talk) 15:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Howard Fredrics, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Fredrics. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for undoing the page move. The previous discussion can be found here in case you are interested.
I also noticed you have been adding {{ abuse}} to a variety of day care/SRA-related page; I would suggest caution as in many cases there was never any confirmed abuse. I would also wonder about adding such a high-level template to a lot of specific incidents; in some cases it might work but in others (particularly the day care sex abuse hysteria-related ones) it might not be appropriate. I generally use a rule of thumb that if the page appears in the template, it should definitely be there; if it doesn't, I would question adding the template to the page. Just my opinion.
And thanks again, I think it was a good bold-revert-discuss move. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 18:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Just wanted to let you know I saw your revisions to Victimization and it looks good. I withdraw my previous objection to the wikilinks for the term re-victimization since it now indicates what was intended. Legitimus ( talk) 19:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
While i have your attention, i have ambitiously been trying to do abuse and template:abuse but it is tough going as the research is very fragmented and there is no agreed taxonomy to classify the different abuses. There are however quite a few common strands for abuses in general. This is a very long term project but if you can find any half decent taxonomy for abuse or an academic source covering the generalities of abuses please let me know. Thanks.
I am also trying to develop User:Penbat/exaggeration_(psychology) - it is in its early stages and tough to get right but please let me know if you can provide input or relevant sources.-- Penbat ( talk) 21:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Just a heads up that wikilinking a word within a quotation is discouraged, as it risks giving inappropriate emphasis to that term. If a term in the quotation genuinely needs explaining and linking, it should be mentioned in the surrounding prose. Relatedly, wikilinking a word in an external link will break that external link. -- McGeddon ( talk) 17:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Please see talk page. Thanks. Makana Chai ( talk) 19:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
...for your help at that copyright problem situation. A potentially sticky situation. Sorry I misunderstood Sandy; I could have saved some time if I had realized what she meant. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you fixed some vandalism at "Criticism". I looked and it doesn't appear that you have the "rollback" permission, which I find useful from time to time. It's easy to get, read about it and how to apply at Wikipedia:Rollback feature. Cheers, Jason Quinn ( talk) 20:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks i will consider applying for it.-- Penbat ( talk) 20:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I should first sorry if I misread the changes made. But for Minimisation (psychology) it seems to me that Jojalozzo is separating internal processes of cognitive distortion, from externalized processes(more specifically, directed at others) for manipulation. To me, this seems to be more correct. I noticed he uses the term "unconscious" for distortions and yes that is incorrect in my opinion, but the result of his changes does seem to have merit. Now that said, worded things as "Observed in" seems like a strange way to state the other lines. For exaggeration, I am having a difficult time comparing the changes he made. It seems like everything is still there but just rearranged and sometimes reworded slightly. I could be wrong, so if you have a specific example of a problem please let me know. Legitimus ( talk) 22:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for taking my imperfect attempt and creating a substantially better imperfection! Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 17:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you are in error with the secular "other". The Catholic header is not an "other", rather it is a set of articles that, of themselves will never be wholly classifiiable as abuse cases but are part of the template nonetheless. I feel that you shouldreconsider that edit. While you do that, note the * on the Jersey entry. You missed it. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 21:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I noticed a reversion of some linking and a large set of see also stuff you performed, later a reversion by you of that. I wonder if you would look at the situation again. Some of the wikilinks, while they linked to valid areas, were definitely overlinked within the confines of the WP:MOS. I'd suggest restraint when wikilinking because it reduces legibility.
With regard to the See also stuff, may I suggest restraint for a different reason. I can see how important the area of abuse is to you, certainly currently. However, there is a risk of your work being devalued of you put everything that moves into every topic. What I would suggest is that you consider what is genuinely a see also and what is something that really has no relevance to the article, and add solely the truly relevant ones. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 16:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I was editing at the moment you reverted my first edit. I still think that linking with the abuse template confuses because one might think that some of the abuse by humanitarian workers could have been non-sexual. I opted for the other link to humanitarian principles because it reduces this ambiguity. There are certainly other abuses by humanitarian workers, but all of the work cited related only to sexual abuse. Joel Mc ( talk) 18:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Listen, we disagree on this but please try to be a little more respectful. I may not know as much about psychology as you but that doesn't mean you should talk to me like i'm a total idiot. I stated my reasons for moving/deleting certain articles and saying "i don't have enough time to make a counter-point" isn't a valid argument.
If you present me with decent reasons why those articles should be included i'll be more than happy to listen, but until then, the articles remain off the template —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.62.45 ( talk) 21:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Can you please not re-add removed articles in 'Template: Bullying' without first justifying it on the talk page, thank you 188.223.62.45 ( talk) 13:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
What is your rationale here? I see nothing but a list of potential signs or symptoms of Victimization, and no evidence that this theory is either notable or separate from the concepts discussed at Victimization. Do you have any 3rd party sources? -- Fiftytwo thirty ( talk) 19:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Yes, of course. I'm a 3rd year Psychology student and am working on narcissism as both my dissertation and as part of a module which involves this wiki article. The bit on healthy narcissism was wrong and the relationship between narcissism as a personality trait and nariccissm as NPD wrong. I covered that in the section I added. Basically, it's a raging debate whether or not narcissism is healthy or not and whethere of not NPD and high carcissism are the same. My attempt today has been to outline some components or narcissism which are key to it and thus, essentially, define it as it stands today. I've also made clear that which is uncertain and still a matter of debate rather than fact. I hope these things are helpful I'll be adding findings from a few more journal articles over the next few days, to that section. Information on narcists and self-enhancement most readily comes to mind. I'm not focusing on NPD but rather the other side so my stuff won't effect yours at all, hereon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AGEdmunds ( talk • contribs) 17:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if you COULD just find time to pop to the bottom of this page Talk:Bully and formally express your opinion on merging Workplace bullying into the article? It works like a kind of poll, so that whatever opinion you express will affect the eventual outcome? Thank You -- Zeraeph 17:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
You may find the following helpful in your future editing of Wikipedia:
Here is another helpful link Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not.
I really hope that when you have read these links there will be no cause for further unpleasantness and instead a new spirit of appropriate co-operation. -- Zeraeph 17:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I am very, very concerned about comments like
this one - calling another user a "blatant narcissist" "malignant narcissist" is not acceptable; it is a personal attack, and personal attacks are not tolerated here. I am also concerned about your comments on
Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_September_25#Sam_Vaknin, where you repeatedly give as the only rationale for undeletion, that it has been "poisoned by Zeraeph". Please
be civil and
assume good faith in future.
David Mestel(
Talk) 06:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
It's ironic that Zeraeph herself is currently under Wiki suspension for personal attacks.
Your statement that "you repeatedly give as the only rationale for undeletion, that it has been "poisoned by Zeraeph"." is patently untrue. I have currently made 7 separate comments on Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_September_25#Sam_Vaknin and only two even mention Zeraeph. Most of the discusion has centered around whether Sam Vaknin self published or not. I personally discussed numerous rationale. -- Penbat 08:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Also calling someone a "narcissist" isnt necessarily an insult.-- Penbat 10:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Penbat, Two times? Two individual? I know people may talk about Vaknin in insulting terms, but they are talking about what they have been led to believe about him. Maybe this is really hitting you close to home? I know Sam's book has helped so many people who have been bullied by seriously disordered serial bullies.
I know you feel strongly about this. Maybe you should write Sam and vent in his direction for awhile. If I were working as hard as you, I'd be pretty burned out by now. For me, I find it easier on my PTSD/CFIDS to just debate issues by supporting my POV.
You are doing a tremendous amount of good hard solid work on NPD and other articles. You have really moved this article forward in adding citations, and I have seen other people helping along with rewordings, corrections and such. I am happy for all that is going on. Focus on the positive and let things that bug you just flow on by.
Take Care - I am Kiwi 15:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Zeraeph 19:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Can you provide diffs for these assertions? If you need help, please message me. Jeffpw ( talk) 10:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Concerning your contribution, Psychological manipulation, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.manipulative-people.com/psychological-manipulation-an-overview//. As a copyright violation, Psychological manipulation appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Psychological manipulation has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.
If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:
However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Deconstructhis ( talk) 04:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello Penbat, I know you must be disappointed at the deletion of the material and meant well when you initially posted it, however when other editors encounter instances of the unambiguous copy and pasting of text from other websites without any indication of permission to use the material from its author, policy is clear that it should be removed. Since the stub didn't contain any material apart from that derived from the other website, it had to be deleted in its entirety. One other issue that concerns me somewhat regarding the subject of your proposed article, is that I am having a difficult time differentiating between the concepts of "psychological manipulation" and psychological abuse, for which an article already exists. (IMO Another potentially strong area of overlap between your proposed subject and an existing article might be the "psychological" section of the Coercion article.) You might want to consider using your research to improve that existing article, rather than commencing an entirely new 'free standing' article. Getting the opinion of other editors beforehand on this matter might prove useful to you, perhaps a posting to the discussion page of the psychology portal or Village pump (miscellaneous) in attempt to determine whether or not other editors can see any 'daylight' between these two concepts could save some potential disappointment, or offer advice on how to make your proposed distinction between the two more obvious. Good luck and happy editing. cheers Deconstructhis ( talk) 16:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
-- Cybercobra (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Appendix B is a list of proposed disorders not officially included in DSM-IV.
"The DSM-IV Task Force and Work Groups subjected each of these proposals to a careful empirical review and invited wide commentary from the field. The Task Force determined that there was insufficient information to warrant inclusion of these proposals as official categories or axes in DSM-IV.The items, thresholds, and durations contained in the research criteria sets are intended to provide a common language for researchers and clinicians who are interested in studying these disorders. It is hoped that such research will help to determine the possible utility of these proposed categories and will result in refinement of the criteria sets." [1] Ward20 ( talk) 21:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your recent to Passive–aggressive behavior. The resulting wording was a bit clumsy. Also, it appears from the context that the change is not accurate. I've reverted your change. If you still think a version of the change is appropriate, please provide citation(s) when you re-add it or discuss it on the article's talk page. Thank you, -- 4wajzkd02 ( talk) 16:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Please comment on content, not on the contributor. Below are some of your comments in this section.
"It is absolutely disgusting that you have the cheek to do this"
"I can easily explain the two lines you picked out except i would be in danger of giving you a lecture in psychopathy. It baffles me how you can possibly not understand it. It says a lot about your misunderstanding of psychopaths (which i suspect is probably based on various mythologies)."
"It sounded like you saw this article and instantly thought "bizarre" without thinking about it more deeply and getting past common mythologies. The only prejudices around here are from people must have only a tiny fraction of the knowledge of psychopathy to Kantor and are more influenced by the psychopath mythology. How would you get on if you sat in a room with Kantor and argued your disagreements with him ? You wouldnt stand a chance."
Thanks, Ward20 ( talk) 20:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Please see my comments here regarding the "Kantor dispute". Cheers, -- 4wajzkd02 ( talk) 15:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
This kind of edit summary, and the many following it, is really unnecessary. After looking through the history, I still cannot figure out who you are yelling at. There is no call for yelling in the first place, and remarks not made at a specific editor should be placed on the article talk page; remarks made at a specific editor should be placed on the article's talk page or on the user's talk page. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 18:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
(cont'd from User talk:S Marshall:
Hi -- it isn't clear to me that "attention seeking" properly belongs in the attention article, it seems more of a social than psychological construct. If you aren't planning on filling this out yourself, I'm a bit unhappy about having that empty section sit there potentially indefinitely. Regards, Looie496 ( talk) 20:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
If you suspect another editor of being a sock of Zeraeph I insist that you demand a CU to review your allegations; Jimbo determined that Alamanth was on a different continent, after lobbying by her. Per WP:AGF, having an editor express a difference of opinion with you on related subjects, which Zeraeph also did, is not an indicator of sockpuppetry but simply an interpretation of sources. This requires discussion and consensus, not quick use of the banhammer. Should Z bring to my attention another case where you suppress dissent from your interpretation of sources (and per WP:AGF I have no opinion on whether you hold to the only, majority, or other viewpoint on these matters) by reference to Zeraeph without using all facilities available then I will block your ass, pending an investigation. You have my encouragement to report my comments to whichever venue you choose. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 23:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
For the comprehensive and long-overdue overhaul of the Abuse article. JaGa talk 23:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC) |
That one had been in dab/non-dab limbo for at least a year that I know of. Thanks much! -- JaGa talk 23:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for asking - please do what you think is best. There seem to be a lot of contenders to put a name on the idea, but none seem to pinpoint it. The Japanese concept of "power harassment" is probably closest. Anyway, I'm just here to address some hijacking of the article by another consultant engaging in self-promotion and making a few other minor edits if a problem catches my eye. If you're interested in exploring the idea of rankism further, I suggest getting in touch with Fuller through his web site. He's very approachable! -- Theano2 ( talk) 20:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Template:Abuse has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 11:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi - I'd like to revert the change you made to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teen_dating_abuse in order to change the topic back to "teen dating violence." You note that Google hits are higher for "abuse" than for "violence" but the phrase "teen dating violence" is 3x greater than for "teen dating abuse." Additionally the U.S. Congress has formally supported "National Teen Dating Violence Awareness Week" since 2006. In general this is the term that has greater acceptance and is being adopted by new organizations.
I'm unsure as to how to revert this change - would you mind doing it if you agree with my stance? 24.126.193.118 ( talk) 22:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi again - here is a Google Trends comparison of the terms without the quotation marks: http://www.google.com/trends?q=teen+dating+violence%2C+teen+dating+abuse Again, there is a huge gap and "teen dating violence" is clearly the more commonly used term. In less than ten days the US will be recognizing its National Teen Dating Violence Awareness Week and it would be helpful to have this article properly categorized prior the awareness week. Thanks! 24.126.193.118 ( talk) 00:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I had no idea it'd cause this much trouble. -- User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 17:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I saw that Attention seeking is linked in the first sentence of Munchausen by Internet. While attention seeking is certainly an integral concept to the MBI article, the attention seeking article concentrates on that behavior in children. This is not related, and the sources for MBI indicate the people who demonstrate MBI are later adolescent or adult. Do you plan to expand the attention seeking article to include adults? If not, I think the best way to link to attention seeking would be in the See also section of the MBI article. -- Moni3 ( talk) 15:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Howard Fredrics, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Fredrics. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for undoing the page move. The previous discussion can be found here in case you are interested.
I also noticed you have been adding {{ abuse}} to a variety of day care/SRA-related page; I would suggest caution as in many cases there was never any confirmed abuse. I would also wonder about adding such a high-level template to a lot of specific incidents; in some cases it might work but in others (particularly the day care sex abuse hysteria-related ones) it might not be appropriate. I generally use a rule of thumb that if the page appears in the template, it should definitely be there; if it doesn't, I would question adding the template to the page. Just my opinion.
And thanks again, I think it was a good bold-revert-discuss move. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 18:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Just wanted to let you know I saw your revisions to Victimization and it looks good. I withdraw my previous objection to the wikilinks for the term re-victimization since it now indicates what was intended. Legitimus ( talk) 19:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
While i have your attention, i have ambitiously been trying to do abuse and template:abuse but it is tough going as the research is very fragmented and there is no agreed taxonomy to classify the different abuses. There are however quite a few common strands for abuses in general. This is a very long term project but if you can find any half decent taxonomy for abuse or an academic source covering the generalities of abuses please let me know. Thanks.
I am also trying to develop User:Penbat/exaggeration_(psychology) - it is in its early stages and tough to get right but please let me know if you can provide input or relevant sources.-- Penbat ( talk) 21:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Just a heads up that wikilinking a word within a quotation is discouraged, as it risks giving inappropriate emphasis to that term. If a term in the quotation genuinely needs explaining and linking, it should be mentioned in the surrounding prose. Relatedly, wikilinking a word in an external link will break that external link. -- McGeddon ( talk) 17:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Please see talk page. Thanks. Makana Chai ( talk) 19:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
...for your help at that copyright problem situation. A potentially sticky situation. Sorry I misunderstood Sandy; I could have saved some time if I had realized what she meant. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you fixed some vandalism at "Criticism". I looked and it doesn't appear that you have the "rollback" permission, which I find useful from time to time. It's easy to get, read about it and how to apply at Wikipedia:Rollback feature. Cheers, Jason Quinn ( talk) 20:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks i will consider applying for it.-- Penbat ( talk) 20:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I should first sorry if I misread the changes made. But for Minimisation (psychology) it seems to me that Jojalozzo is separating internal processes of cognitive distortion, from externalized processes(more specifically, directed at others) for manipulation. To me, this seems to be more correct. I noticed he uses the term "unconscious" for distortions and yes that is incorrect in my opinion, but the result of his changes does seem to have merit. Now that said, worded things as "Observed in" seems like a strange way to state the other lines. For exaggeration, I am having a difficult time comparing the changes he made. It seems like everything is still there but just rearranged and sometimes reworded slightly. I could be wrong, so if you have a specific example of a problem please let me know. Legitimus ( talk) 22:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for taking my imperfect attempt and creating a substantially better imperfection! Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 17:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you are in error with the secular "other". The Catholic header is not an "other", rather it is a set of articles that, of themselves will never be wholly classifiiable as abuse cases but are part of the template nonetheless. I feel that you shouldreconsider that edit. While you do that, note the * on the Jersey entry. You missed it. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 21:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I noticed a reversion of some linking and a large set of see also stuff you performed, later a reversion by you of that. I wonder if you would look at the situation again. Some of the wikilinks, while they linked to valid areas, were definitely overlinked within the confines of the WP:MOS. I'd suggest restraint when wikilinking because it reduces legibility.
With regard to the See also stuff, may I suggest restraint for a different reason. I can see how important the area of abuse is to you, certainly currently. However, there is a risk of your work being devalued of you put everything that moves into every topic. What I would suggest is that you consider what is genuinely a see also and what is something that really has no relevance to the article, and add solely the truly relevant ones. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 16:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I was editing at the moment you reverted my first edit. I still think that linking with the abuse template confuses because one might think that some of the abuse by humanitarian workers could have been non-sexual. I opted for the other link to humanitarian principles because it reduces this ambiguity. There are certainly other abuses by humanitarian workers, but all of the work cited related only to sexual abuse. Joel Mc ( talk) 18:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Listen, we disagree on this but please try to be a little more respectful. I may not know as much about psychology as you but that doesn't mean you should talk to me like i'm a total idiot. I stated my reasons for moving/deleting certain articles and saying "i don't have enough time to make a counter-point" isn't a valid argument.
If you present me with decent reasons why those articles should be included i'll be more than happy to listen, but until then, the articles remain off the template —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.62.45 ( talk) 21:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Can you please not re-add removed articles in 'Template: Bullying' without first justifying it on the talk page, thank you 188.223.62.45 ( talk) 13:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
What is your rationale here? I see nothing but a list of potential signs or symptoms of Victimization, and no evidence that this theory is either notable or separate from the concepts discussed at Victimization. Do you have any 3rd party sources? -- Fiftytwo thirty ( talk) 19:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)