User talk:Zeraeph

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive1

Hi Z, I think your decision to limit the AfD is a good one, but I have a question. Did you mean to strikeout the original page as well as all the others? Is your intent to cancel the whole AfD and start from scratch, or keep it open but limited to the single page as your text seemed to indicate? Sorry I'm so dense...it's getting late here. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 03:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries, you should see what my first AfD nom looked like; it was pretty screwed up. Fortunately one of the Admins with experience gave me some useful tips. The situation now is defintely a bit muddled and and the key would be to avoid making it worse. Looking at the "votes" (which aren't really votes, BTW), it seems like the final verdict will be "Keep" regardless. Maybe the best course is to let it go for now and take some time to reconsider. If you still feel strongly about it after some time has passed, then you call always open another MfD with narrower scope. I wouldn't personally recommend pursuing it, but it's definitely your option. Hopefully though, the situation might change in the meantime. Anyway, thanks for clarifying your intent; you probably need to remove part of the strikeout if you haven't already. Good luck. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 04:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the whole dialog has moved to my Talkpage. Let's just continue there. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 04:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You were so incredibly gracious, Zeraeph. By comparison, I was the most noisome little gnat. Stressful. Counter character. But you weren't being treated nicely or fairly, and it really inflames me, to see people being mistreated. Hope you had a pleasant day. I want some real weather to get here - still way too warm. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 22:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Invitation 2 RFMF on Benis AfD 3 RfM 4 Inclusion of Benis/NPA Theory AFD 5 just checking in 6 Your New Userpage 7 WP:PSY 8 Benis/NPA AfD 9 Aarwangen 10 Psychopathy 11 Namespace 12 Re: Bullying OTRS 13 Narcissism 14 Rating the ToK 15 Malignant narcissism 16 Non-BPD 17 User:Grace E. Dougle 18 Request for peer review 19 Reversion 20 It is quite unexpected ...

[edit] Invitation

I'm inviting you and the other editors I've been talking with recently to visit this Talkpage which I've just created. While I'm hoping it will help, I'm also open to the possibility that I'm just an obnoxious busybody :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 00:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I signed on for the mediation, although I rather wish I hadn't been named in the first place. Still, I'd like to see things resolved and I'll do what I can to help. Since this is my first involvement in an "official" process I may respond a bit slowly in an effort to make sure I'm doing things right. I'll also need to make a major effort to curb my runaway (and sometimes wretched) sense of humor :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 03:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's okay Doc. Just get heavy-handed with the smiley faces. ;o)

I, at least, have a sense of humor that is exceeding obscure to thes two gentlemen :o( so am in DESPERATE need of every possible visual indicator of state of mind.

Don't feel pressured about the mediation. It truly is not scary or stressful. A supervised environment with admins to oversee us 8-)

No pressure to say anything except as the spirit moves you. :oP

Thank you for joining us. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 03:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Z, don't worry it's not a problem. I'm sure it will be a...learning experience :)

Kiwi, you make me laugh. ;)

Maybe we could collaborate on an article sometime; remember working on articles? It's been a while for me and I'd like to feel productive again. It seems to me we could probably work well together, and have some fun in the process :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 04:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Glad you don't mind TOO much...articles...now I AM niffed off, because you have reminded me that there was some really great editing happening to the BPD article, which has all halted :o/ --Zeraeph 04:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

When I want tranquility I like to work on articles about State Parks, National Forests, or possibly Gardening. When I want mental stimulation I work on Alcoholism articles. When I want controversy, name calling, and irrational ad-hom attacks I visit a page about Religion or Politics, change my mind without editing, and go back to Gardening...tranquil is better :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 04:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFMF on Benis AfD

I'm puzzled by this edit of yours. None of the links within the template lead me to anything that's informative. As it stands, it's merely confusing (and I've therefore commented it out). While the idea of a request for mediation on an AfD strikes me as very strange, I don't want to prevent you from asking for it. However, if you do make the request (or have already made it, in some place that I haven't noticed), please ensure that the template points to it properly. Thanks. -- Hoary 04:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfM

When you tweaked the RfM all the sigs in "Agree to Mediation" were lost. I'm not sure what the intent of your edit was, but I'm pretty sure that wasn't it, so I reverted to the signed version. If I'm mistaken and you meant to remove the sigs, just restore your latest edit. Sorry for any confusion. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 18:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you posted to my Talkpage I've replied there and I'm going to copy my initial post there as well. I tend to be anal-retentive about keeping threads together; just one of my many little eccentricities :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 18:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, WDragon responded on the mediation page, but I'm not sure how it will affect the Mediation Request itself. Possibly it will be rejected since he has technically refused to participate. If it is rejected, then it would probably be acceptable to submit a second, seperate request that's formulated somewhat differently. I'll try to clarify my position in case things go that route:

Since I am not involved in the primary issue I think Mediation could reasonably proceed without my involvement. However, I have had relatively significant secondary involvement, and at this point I consider myself an "interested party". If you feel my participation is appropriate and/or would benefit the mediation process then, by all means, include me.

I didn't mean to sound grumpy yesterday, I just have a slight allergy to anything with the word "official" in it :) Once the initial reaction passed I realized this would actually be a valuable learning experience. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 03:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of Benis/NPA Theory AFD

(copy/pasted from Hoary's talk page)

Zeraeph, I completely concur in the necessity of including the AFD because, for one, it helps demonstrate the PRIOR exchanges between you and Psychonaut, demonstrating how you conducted yourself with decorum. Secondly, it helps demonstrate how you and I related, as well as how I typically conduct myself and express myself. As we stand accused of being, our deepest characters and intentions having been vilified, the vital role of the AFD absolutely MUST be included. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 21:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

==Wizardry Dragon Attempts to Misuse Mediation Request Page==0

I have removed Wizardry Dragon's "testimony" and his invalid signature from the RFM brought by your (and, if I may, myself). I have posted to this Talk page explaining that the stated rules on that page do not provide for anything but acceptance or refusal and that comments, in any case, are not allowed. I have deleted both signature and his testimony in the case and am hoping that an admin will permanently delete the latter from the page history. How do we do request that? --A green Kiwi in learning mode 04:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC) Two words - Aversive Conditioning

[edit] just checking in

Hope you are well and that the quiet on your end is your enjoying the fall weather. On my end it is simply the emotional stress quiet of rabbits and other grass-eaters. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 11:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Z, i posted a suggestion to Kiwi's Talkpage. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 18:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your New Userpage

I couldn't resist; I just couldn't. If you really don't want that page to exist, just let me know...I can have an Admin delete. Next time, don't stuff beans up your nose. :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 04:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:PSY

I think that might be overkill. There are probably hundreds of psychology articles on Wikipedia, and I doubt that most of them require extensive discussion. Anyone can rate an article, and anyone else can contest that rating. A system of having provisional ratings is probably too bureaucratic, not to mention that no other WikiProject is doing it. I think that most discussions are fine to just take place on an article's talk page, and if something does get controversial, it can then be brought up at the WikiProject page or other dispute resolution areas. —Cswrye 05:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Benis/NPA AfD

Benis' astroturfing campaign just got slashdotted[1]. Thought you might be interested. Kaldari 21:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 23:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aarwangen

I hate to burst your bubble, but I didn't make it work. I did some mass-editing with AWB recently that included "general fixes", but the only thing I changed in Aarwangen was the {{commons}} template, replacing it with the tidier {{commonscat}} category. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psychopathy

Hi. I'm new and actually don't have that much experience. I thought about sending you notice of what I was about to do, but then I was shy, and I also felt that you might tell me not to bother. It must be hard to let others mess with your hard work. So, I decided to just show what I could do, and let you hack it up later, which you did. As for my edits, I have attempted to balance sensitivity to those of you (especially you) who have worked hard to create the article as it stands, and "being bold." I do respect yourself and the other major contributors. Anything that took out was redundant as far as I remember. Redundancy is bit of an issue with this article.

I did try to incorporate most of what I deleted, just as you said you did with what you deleted from what I wrote. I think the links that you added are good, and I can easily imagine how the PCL-R could dominate the article. I felt that a little more was (is) appropriate because of how it helps to distinguish the disorder from APD. As, the discussion area makes clear, people such as ourselves who believe in the validity of psychopathy will constantly criticized by those who believe in APD. They do have the DSM4 on their side. I also wanted to say that the PCL-R is proven to be both reliable and valid, which I'm sure you know, have specific meanings in psychology and scientific research.

Now that I have you, a couple of other things:

• The "Childhood" area. It is lacking references, and is not esthetically pleasing. Do you think it should be edited? The list part is the part I am referring to.
• The "What is psychopathy" area. Is there any way to make the list into two columns so that it doesn't appear to be as long? (This is yet another of those things that I haven't learned yet) Also, do you think a list from the PCL-R would be better than the one from Cleckley? Don't get me wrong, I am a supporter of his, but psychology puts a heavy emphasis on recent work.

Anyway, I appreciate your efforts to make the article into what it is.

Best regards, Moomot 22:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As other users have told you before, you do not own that article. You do not need to edit everything I write. You could stand to let other do some of that, and see what develops. You have misquoted me. I said that the PCL-R has "proven to be both reliable and valid" which is significant. The article needs work, and I will continue to contribute, because I have the ability and right to do so. If you wish to be adversarial then so be it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moomot (talk • contribs) 03:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

"Wild inaccuracies" is and exaggeration, I do have references for everything I wrote, unlike some of the material in the article already. Anyway, I do not want to continue to snipe at each other. This is Wikipedia, and yesterday worked like its supposed to. I think the article is better today than it was yesterday. There was some rough parts in what I added, but I expected you and others to help. You said yourself a lot of it was good. Your edits made it better (it is very difficult not to have some POV stuff sometimes). So, let's agree we are on the same side here. I do wish to make the article better and I have read and understand Wiki rules very carefully. Finally, Zeraeph, it is obvious you are intelligent, and I say again I appreciate your efforts on the article to make it what it is. Peace. Moomot 13:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

PS, I changed your user page by accident. It doesn't seem to let me delete it, I already copied it here when I realized my mistake. My apologies.

[edit] Namespace

Hi. Just letting you know that I changed "namespace" to "article namespace" in your comment on Talk:Bullying. If you're not OK with that, feel free to revert. We have several namespaces here. The article namespace is one of them. --GunnarRene 00:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Bullying OTRS

Hi - you've done a good job there, thanks! I emoved one more thing just now (and the tag) which the correspondant found objectionable (and which was unencyclopedic). As the issues brough up seem to have been dealt with, as I said I've removed the tag, though I do feel that it could do with another fine going over at some point from someone (I'll try some time - don't know when I'll have a minute). Thanks again, Martinp23 19:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Notification

Ans on Fabartus#Part_II. Have a good day. // FrankB 16:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

          New Ans on Fabartus#Part_II, soon to be Fabartus/Archive06#Part_II,
   ...go ahead and change that. Have a great weekend. // FrankB 02:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Narcissism

You just deleted something I took from the Malignant narcissism. Should the same line be removed from that article also? I was just trying to make the articles consistant with each other. --Gbleem 15:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rating the ToK

Hi. I'm trying to get members of the Psychology Project to get together and rate the both the quality and importance of the Tree of Knowledge System, along with discussing ways to improve the article. Hope you're interested. Have a great day! EPM 14:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malignant narcissism

Hi. I'm the author of the Malignant narcissism stub and just have noticed you deleted a line I wrote and said it was an inaccurate, uncited startement. Though I didn't put the reference to the line you deleted, this reference is further indicated for a quote I made, and I didn't put it to the prior line for fear of being redundant. The reference used is Kernberg's essay "The Psychotherapeutic Management of Psychopathic, Narcissistic, and Paranoid Transferences", in which Kernberg treats Antisocial Personality Disorder, Malignant Narcissism, and Narcissistic Personality Disorder as being part of the same spectrum ("I now formulate, from a psychodynamic viewpoint, the characteristic structural aspects of the antisocial personality disorder, as well as of the entire spectrum of narcissistic pathology with antisocial behavior - rangind from narcissistic personality disorder proper, to the syndrome of malignanat narcissism, to the antisocial personality disorder proper"; "The antisocial personality disorder proper as defined here constitutes the most severe form of patholofical narcissism"; "The syndrome of malignanat narcissism is a somewhat less severe form of pathological narcissism"; "The next step in this continuum from most to lest severe psychopathology is the narcissistic personality disorder proper") and restores Cleckcley's concept of APD in opposition to the DSM's ("I am defining "the antisocial personality disorder proper" here in the sense of Robert Hare's and my own work, which reestablishes the direct connection with Cleckley's classical description, and avoids dilution of the concept of the antisocial personality disorder that has ocorred as a consequence os the DSM system"). Had you verified the references I indicated, you'd not considerer that statement "inaccurate". So I'm going to restore the original form of the stub. 201.50.226.153 17:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-BPD

I think you should take a break. The term is in wide usage, not only used 'sometimes'. It is more of a kitchen-psychology/pop-culture term as of now, research is only just starting. So a redirect to Borderline Personality Disorder can't be maintained. The whole topic should probably be moved to a better title, I'll try to come up with one in the next time. If the topic triggers you, don't work on that article.--Grace E. Dougle 18:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The link you gave me points directly to a discussion that starts with you admitting that you took the liberty to redirect and merge (merge? there's no mention of the topic in Borderline Personality Disorder). You should have a discussion on this first, on the talk-page of Non-BPD — I checked, there was none. Then, your answer sounds just as if you were one of Master Verifiable's socks — I know you're not but his (should I say their?) culture infects everyone discussing on mental health topics. You just give links to policies in order to avoid having to argue your position. The book by Kreger/Mason for instance, which you deleted, is a reliable source. It is published, the authors are academics, it's relevant for psychology, though not for psychiatry. It is not trivial and — it's verifiable. ;-) --Grace E. Dougle 19:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Mason's credentials. Some people cannot write in a way that the public will understand them, so they have to collaborate with a journalist. I have no idea what the educational background of Kreger is.

To quote you from my talk page: The book is not supported by any scientific studies or "peer reviewed" in any academic sense. The book is agenda driven, verges, at times, upon incitment to hatred, and appears to be virtually unknown outside a tightly knit and rather self appointed online culture of psychology in it's loosest sense. Self-help books are never peer-reviewed. If the author has a decent background that's already pretty good for that kind of popular literature. Of course the book is unknown to people who do not have the problem.

I do not see it as agenda-driven however. The author builds a theory that is hard to substantiate by empirical evidence but by common sense not unlikely to be true in essence — of course it is difficult to live with a disordered person. Every sociologist can confirm that a mentally ill person likely has some effect on the group, but that the field is under-researched. The development of these theories is vital for the people who have to live (and interact) with a mentally ill person. Lots of people seem to understand the point of the book and also understand that nobody else can understand (see the forums on this topic).

There is a plethora of (self-help) books that appeal to this group. (Kreisman: I hate you don't leave me, Lawson: Understanding the borderline mother, to name a few) These are not additional sources, the writer of the text in Non-BPD has obviously read them or knows their contents. Proof: You will notice that on the talk page of Non-BPD Randi Kreger states that according to her book the non is not helpless. But the'non' feels helpless according to Kreisman.

(Counterborderline btw has zero google hits). Formica is only a therapist who does online counseling in just that community. I doubt that his book would be any different in terms of credibility to natural scientists, which psychiatrists are.--Grace E. Dougle 21:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

According to your reasoning (empirical evidence) we would have to put up for deletion all the articles in categories like category:Psychology, category:sociology, not to mention category:Business, and many more. Think about Philosophy - most science is not empirical. Scientists build theories, often based only on other theories, and if they are allowed to publish it in a peer-reviewed journal than that is 'real' science. I don't think Mason's ideas are worthless only because he did not publish them that way. They just don't really belong in a psychiatry-article (let's not start to discuss now whether Borderline personality disorder should be a psychiatric article).

Wikipedia has many articles that have sources that aren't peer reviewed and still encyclopedic. Pokemon or as you said Mein Kampf have an entry because they are important phenomenons. I've seen so many entries here that are really only a book report. If these are valid, the article about BPD relations is also encyclopedic. Even conspiracy theories seem to be encyclopedic on Wikipedia, maybe the non-community (making up neologisms as I'm typing, I should take a break) is one.

...do I know you from somewhere? You seem awfully familiar? No, I don't think so... --Grace E. Dougle 22:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No it is not 'Wikipedia protocol'. The relevant guideline is reliable sources. There is no mention of 'empirical' there (unless you just added it). Most of the encyclopedic articles on here are not based on 'empirical evidence', and many not even on evidence that is published in peer-reviewed journals/books. It is of course a requirement for some articles but not for all. Which sources are applicable varies with the subject. Original research would occurr, if, say, this theory that relationships with borderlines are difficult were on a single website with virtually no traffic. If you look at new pages this happens all the time. WP:OR is there to prevent that.--Grace E. Dougle 23:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't understand the argument. I am saying it again: psychology is not one of the natural sciences (unlike psychiatry). (The term you use above, 'sciences', is used short for natural sciences). Psychology is one of the social sciences, and so is psychosociology which the issue we are talking about now would belong to. Therefore, most of it isn't based on empirical studies. You will not be able to support your argument here until you get deeper into the philosophy of science. There is no single policy on wikipedia that says only empirical studies are allowed as sources. Can you link to the section in the policy that you believe disallows these authors (as named above: Mason, Kreisman, Lawson, Judowsky) from appearing on Wikipedia? Or alternatively: undelete the article and don't blank it again.--Grace E. Dougle 08:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, By all means let's discuss this on the Non-BP talk page. I don't know that I can be much of a contributor. This is certainly not an area in which I have any expertise. I'd be more like a gunshot survivor discussing ballistics.

[edit] User:Grace E. Dougle

Thanks for your kind words. It seems she has left for now and so the issue may be over. DPeterson^talk 16:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for peer review

The article Clinical psychology has just been listed for peer review. You are invited to lend your editing eyes to see if it needs any modifications, great or small, before it is submitted to the Featured Article review. Then head on over to the peer review page and add your comments, if you are so inspired. Thank you!! Psykhosis 20:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion

This was entirely an accident of mine. I apologize. Thems are the perils of editing in tabs and saving the wrong tab. It seems that the problem has sorted itself out now. Thank you for notifying me about it. Bobo. 12:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It is quite unexpected ...

... that the asperger pages should be the target of unsourced POV from the NT world. Just ... didn't expect that at all :) I have followed your example of sticking to wiki policies and not engaging in debate on content. Sure saves a lot of typing! CeilingCrash 08:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)