User talk:Sticky Parkin/Archive 2

Re: Revering Vandalism

Glad you liked it. I noticed it on re-reading it just after I had added it, and fell over laughing so much at it, I decided to leave it in. So far, you are the only one to spot it! Well done! I see you are interested in Alternative Medicine. Some bits of that were areas I researched in before I was retired early. It was plagued by two extremist kinds of people: (a) the people who were so credulous and believing of everything without any critical thinking being applied, that in terms of the saying "We should all keep an open mind, but not so open that our brains fall out", they were suffering from neural insufficiency; and on the other hand, the closed minded scientists, who should have been ashamed that they were confusing scepticism with prejudice, and thus just being poor scientists as a result. I used to get attacked by both of these extremist camps.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Email

Hi, I've enabled email, should you want to email me Herd of Swine 00:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Yes, normally I would create the page first. But this is a case of a banned user with extremely good evidence. The user signed a comment on my talk page with the banned users sig. IPSOS (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but...

On the Rebirthing-Breathwork you merged backward. The one with "duplicate" in the title had the oldest edit history. It should have been merged there, the one without "duplicate" deleted, then moved into the correct location. That's why I had a db-move tag on the original. I did all the research to figure out which way it should be done, but can't do it myself b/c I'm not an admin and to do it correctly required a delete.. IPSOS (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the reason I put speedy delete on one was so that an admin would do it correctly, not a non-admin. The problem is that we have to keep the history of the oldest article to satisfy the GFDL. I guess I will let you find someone to fix it. I thought I'd set it up so only an admin would do it. IPSOS (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

BOTA

I think it's OK to base the article on their own publicity, as long as we make it clear that these are their claims. I'm sure we could find a few third-party publications that describe them, but that would involve me going to the library... I know, I know, poor me, but in reality it may not happen soon. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet tags

The process can be found at WP:SSP. It's a formal process and is not restricted to admins. I've verified and shut down a number of sockpuppet rings. I only open them when the evidence is compelling, and I've only been wrong once or twice. Tagging the user pages of the suspected puppets and notifying the suspected puppeteer on his or her talk page are part of the process. The process was recommended to me by an admin as the correct way to deal with suspected sockpuppets. The worst part is that there is such a backlog that the reports hardly ever get looked at, leaving the suspects to languish. IPSOS (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.

I don't know if you have noticed, but the deletion has been overturned and relisted. IPSOS (talk) 00:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've referred the AfD to another admin to close, hope that helps. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 16:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Afd

Regarding the comment I made on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/White_British - apparently my meaning was unclear to you. The issue was not the bolding, the issue was the "Strongest Possible (position)" - closing admins don't care how strong your position is, they care how strong your reasoning is. Adding "Strongest possible" to the bolded text - the position, or view, you state in an Afd or any similar venue - not only does not help, it actually makes it harder to parse and read, and in some cases harms your "cause", as it indicates possible emotional involvement rather than a dispassionate view. Please re-read my comment and let me know if you are still unclear on what I was saying, or if you still find it objectionable in any way. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:KillerChihuahua:

Hi you mentioned CAPS as well is all, and I for one didn't use caps. I didn't like your comment as I don't think having strong views about something means people's comments don't count (except in cases of extreme COI or something). Anyway, closed now as no consensus. :) Thanks for your message.Merkinsmum 10:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did mention caps, and didn't address that to any particular person, but the reasoning is the same - caps and characterizing your position by degrees of "strongness" rather than actually making a strong argument don't help and can hinder the process. I did not state, nor did I mean, that using either of these meant "people's comments don't count" - only that the "strong" or caps don't make your view count more than if you hadn't used them. Its the content, not the emphasis, which "counts" - clearer now? KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Signature

Hello, thanks for your comment and perhaps I shall change it soon. Also remember to add new comments at the bottom of the page. To create go to your preferences and just below the signature select the raw signature box. Then add a signature of your choice such as the following one, Merkinsmum ^{Talk to me!} the code being '''[[User:Merkinsmum|<span style="color:Green;">Merkinsmum</span>]] [[User talk:Merkinsmum|<sup style="color:blue;">Talk to me!</sup>]]'''. Hope that helps. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 17:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dearest Merkinsmum,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 96 supports, 1 oppose, and 3 neutrals. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. I'm a new admin remember, so if you have any suggestions feel free to inform me of them. I would like to give a special shout out to Hirohisat, Wizardman, and Husond, for there original co-nominations. Thank you once again and good day.

Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor

Credits

This RFA thanks was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks. So unfortunatly this is not entirely my own design.

Greek Challenge

Decipher this, Συγχαρητήρια. By the way, you answered the puzzle correctly. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 12:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations is right, I was congratulating you for your first deciphering job. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 19:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Steven Cook

I disputed the speedy deletion on this and started a discussion on the talk page. It was speedied anyway and that has been reversed and tagged with copyright violation tags. The discussion is ongoing on the talk page if you want to add your opinion. (Emperor 23:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC))

Psychiatric Abuse

I like your new intro. Please replace the original with it, if there is consensus. S. M. Sullivan 20:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do put in your new version, I'd love to see it. It can't be worse than some of the edits I've seen so far. lol!S. M. Sullivan 22:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I am genuinely delighted to be getting along with you. S. M. Sullivan 23:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Psychiatric abuse AfD personal attacks

Ah, good. I wasn't really worried. KP Botany 00:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Harvesting time

Well, he has been warned about the 3RR. I notice that he has made two (small) edits since the date changed to October 1. So he only has one more in the bag. It is very interesting if you start following the links in the article Psychiatric abuse under See also, and also look at the articles in the Category:Psychiatry abuse. The guy has been very busy. I went and removed the Psychology header from a bunch of his articles because nothing he is saying has anything to do with psychology and tagged them for references etc. He has a complex of articles around certain themes. He was flying under the radar, but I think he has been outed. --Mattisse 00:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thoroughly. Now we need to tackle all of his articles. KP Botany 02:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Out with it. What do you think I am? By the way, I 'm not capable of editing anything with incredible speed, so that was a false report. If you removed the psychology header from a bunch of articles just because I put it there, maybe you shouldn't have. I did not write the articles in question, most of them were about mental hospitals and I just put the header on because I like the way it looks (and mental hospitals are under the psychology heading). What a lot of makework you are putting KPBotany to, just because I wrote an article you hated.S. M. Sullivan 05:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. No, by outed on Wikipedia editors usually mean that someone has revealed their true name, an editor using a pseudonym for example.

The concern here is that you are agenda pushing on Wikipedia, abusing the editing process to promote an idea or personal cause of your own. This is always investigated by Wikipedia editors whenever this appears to be an issue on Wikipedia. This is what Mattisse means by outed, that she seriously suspects you of pushing your own agenda on Wikipedia rather than neutrally editing articles. She posted this here as an alert to other editors to investigate your past posts to articles to see if this is true. If you don't have an agenda, it's not an issue. But if you do, editors will attempt to undo the harm caused by agenda pushing on Wikipedia. People don't like being used. KP Botany 05:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes by 'flying under the radar', then outed, Matty meant sometimes people do stuff on wikip and because it's a big place it doesn't get noticed- then one day people spot a piece of it, then find out the rest. Well that's what I think she means.:)12:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)--Mattisse 16:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what I mean. You can stumble across a whole body of articles all tied into one subject or person with a definite agenda that Wikipedia has not noticed. --Mattisse 16:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

what interests me

I dont like to see articles for which there conceivably might be sources rushed through afd without giving someone a chance to find them. That seems to happen to some of the paraphilia articles. Very few of them interest me, except as oddities of the human imagination. I go just far enough to see there is something, and stop. Quite possibly for this one there isnt actually enough there, but I'm not going to go about paying weird pornography sites to discover whether that's the case. wikifur & wikpipedia are as wild as I'm willing to get. I'll admit a bias to you--I personally find most pornography a very strong turn-off.DGG (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Shrink worship

Yes, I see his user page. None of this matters to the content of Wikipedia. It was clear where he was coming from by the completely 100% biased POV OR synthesis that he posted without any references to replace the current article--and I didn't bother to revert because someone else would with something so obvious. This isn't what Wikipedia is, and the article cannot be written from either POV OR synthesis viewpoint, and it was tiresome enough dealing with the psychiatrist as devil camp without having to show how balanced they were in comparison to the psychiatrist as god camp. There are plenty of more controversial areas than this on Wikipedia where people have managed to write articles without asking readers to buy their personal opinions on the topic and an article that is a synthesis of their personal opinions on top of that. KP Botany 16:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have come across a nest of new antipsychiatry articles:

• Sluggishly progressing schizophrenia
• The Gene Illusion
• Laura's Law
• Antipsychiatry

I can't even begin to list them all. And they all link together, much like the Scientology articles but these are a different group. Most of them are a miasma of confusing and misleading statements. I think it is hopeless. People just want to write this stuff. Mattisse 23:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

You recently commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychiatric abuse, which was closed as delete. The article has been nominated for a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 5#Psychiatric abuse. Please feel free to comment on the decision there - as a contributor to the original AfD, your input would be welcomed. -- ChrisO 09:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Spiritualism

Give me some ideas! I am very mad at Wikipedia right now. Help me channel myself in a constructive way. Please! --Mattisse 02:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for sticking up for me on the ANI. It is much appreciated! --Mattisse 01:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Pix expert

I may have have gotten the names wrong and meant User:Jmabel‎ as the picture expert! --Mattisse 01:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Anthony Robbins article

I'm taking a break from looking after this article for a while, as I have major disagreements with a new editor who has started making lots of revisions to the article. (The new editor of the article is a huge fan of Anthony Robbins, which is fine, but most of her edits reflect that significantly, and I'm honestly frustrated trying to keep the article NPOV.) Anyway, I knew you were interested in the subject and though I'd give you a heads up that if you're interested you might keep an eye on it, because I'm taking a Wikibreak from that article in particular for a while. Rray 18:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again!

I wish I could have your good and kind spirit. Thank you for been nice to me. I so much appreciate it. If you could give me some tips on how to stay out of these messes maybe I could improve. I wish I were you. With thankfulness, Mattisse 20:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Please continue to be my friend. --Mattisse 20:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

List of alternative wiki site

Would you send me a list of alterntive sites by email? I have no clue to any other sites but Wikipedia. I would love to have other sites and get away from here. Especially if there are sites critical of Wikipedia, I am at the point that I will plenty to add to that.

In case you think I am over reacting, (and perhaps I am) this is the culmination of almost two years of almost continual harassment. A sock puppet ring was after me since last summer, but I could get no relief, until well into the first of the year. The first mediator on the case (before it reached Arbitration) was a sock puppet, the second mediator exercised his right to vanish with no explanation after one week on the job, an Arbitrator on the case voted in favor of keeping articles on which he was mediating by voting keep on AFD's on those articles of which he was an Arbitrator.

I traveled for a couple of months and was on Wikipedia almost never. When I came back to Wikipedia I stayed to myself, as I have always tried to do, but in working for the Medication Deletion team (big mistake) I alienated Cyborg Ninja and the trouble returned again. My respect for Wikipedia has plummeted so now I am much less cautious of what I say. Strangely, that does not seem to make much difference. I am harassed as much as when I was polite as now when I am more outspoken.

I am beginning to think outspoken is the way to go. And what is an occasional ban or so. I seem people get multiple bans so who cares. An editor told me to stick a razor up my ass and twist it. He got the same punishment as I did this time from LessHeard. All because I help Blueboar with his sock puppet problems. I am no longer going to avoid trouble. Trouble brings no worse consequences than trying by abide by Wikipedia policies. Previously I was blocked for mentioning the "dark side" in the past. Lets see if it works this time! --Mattisse 00:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Psychotherapeutic Postural Integration Nutraceutical Irwin Stone Water therapy Asag Cure Autism Now Self-deception Attending physician Yaoguai First Satanic Church Urophagia Cry Me a River (Justin Timberlake song) Positive end-expiratory pressure Beijing University of Chinese Medicine Jim Rose Circus Tertiary referral hospital WCWM Richard C. Tolman Dunfermline East (UK Parliament constituency)

Cleanup Therapeutic touch Anthroposophical Medicine God in Jainism Merge Setianism Applied kinesiology Documentary photography Add Sources Names of the demons Demon Internet Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism Wikify Honeymoon Horoscope Luke Mitchell Expand Prison rape Sex therapy Inflammation

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 14:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your most helpful links

I think I can learn a lot from you! --Mattisse 22:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you did a great job on Barry Cohen. I usually start out over inclusive and try to pare it down. But sometimes I just become bogged. Mattisse 20:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind taking another look at the Barry Cohen (attorney) article? Someone has added a POV tag. Thanks! Mattisse 02:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Medicine

You have listed yourself as a participant of this project. The project has had a minimum of activity. Hopefully this can be changed. I am posting this notice on the user talk pages of those participants that are still active Wikipedians. If you are still interested in getting the project into gear, make yourself heard on the project talk page! Cheers! __meco 09:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Howdy Merkinsmum, thanks for participating in my request for adminship. I am happy to say it was successful, 55/0/0, and I am looking forward to getting to work. Thanks for your vote of confidence. By all means, feel free to check in on my work to come. Suggestions and advice are always appreciated.

--TeaDrinker 05:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The Birmingham Science Fiction Group

... is one of the best-known local science fiction communities on the planet, in part because of its longevity and stability. Brum fandom has a solid reputation among the world's science fiction fans/writers, and has brought a good image to the name Brum or Birming'm or however you choose to pronounce it. --Orange Mike 19:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC) (has never been to B'ham; wishes he had)

Your remarks on my talk page (complete with the continued use of the pejorative term "sci-fi") appear to indicate a total disdain for science fiction. Why are science-fiction-specific publications not reliable sources in a field which has traditionally been disparaged, abused and demonized for its vulgar origins and lack of due deference to the self-designated "real" literature(s)? Minorities worldwide have had to develop their own publications to address those matters the ruling classes with a cultural hegemony wish to ignore. It should be noted that the BBC is unlikely to cover a literary organization, which is what the BSFG is at heart. --Orange Mike 21:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether the sources they cited are considered reliable or not, as I've never heard of them. I'm not a science fiction fan, but I am a romance novel fan, and I would think the fan groups of that genre are probably not notable. You might want to ask at the Wikiproject for Science Fiction. Another option is to list it at AfD as an opportunity to build consensus on whether or not the groups are notable. -- Karanacs (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

With some exceptions, romance novel fan groups do not have the direct influence on their genre that science fiction fandom has had on theirs for some decades. The history of BSFG, like that of many other fan groups, from the Futurians to the National Fantasy Fan Federation, is encrusted with names of people who became respected practicioners in the field, in many cases without dropping out of the "fannish" side of the equation. (Heck, I've been in amateur press associations with several folks who have long bibliographies here: because they were fen first and authors later.) --Orange Mike 21:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Self-neglect

To my way of thinking, the article has to be nailed down first. If you want, I can start working on it. It is a very complicated issue - very. It has to be nominated within 5 days of creation or of five-fold increase for DYK. So there is time. Mattisse 22:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

I don't think your recent edit to G's talk page posted properly. I've reverted, can you try it again? Mercury 17:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

uncle uncle uncle email

I have enabled email. Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 05:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I've got no problem owning up to my own mistakes. If you see inequality here, do something about it. You're a member of the community. Thanks for the sentiment. Durova^Charge! 22:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Blinky signature

Hi Merkinsmum, I have a simple request. Could you please take the <blink> element out of your signature? It is enormously distracting and makes it harder to read anything that's on the same screen. I have no problem with multicolored signatures, just with the blinking. Cheers, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 17:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Flyby agreement... it's rather annoying.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, is this better? Sorry, it amused me for a moment.:)Merkinsmum 17:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, problem solved :) Thanks! Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 18:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Much better. Thank you for removing it Merkinsmum.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I like your new signature. Except it should be bigger. And bring back the blinking please.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the way it should go lol there's not enough blinking on wikipedia, the pages would be so much more interesting with a bit of it.:)Merkinsmum 15:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. One of my favorite (oops, did I just say that?) vandals had a user page that looked like this.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually he was the inspiration for my sig lol. I'd only seen his sig before though, and of course it's only his sig I admire. Though of course I'm not a vandal, I am a respectable mother of three cats, I still love wikis with a bit of life to them.:)Merkinsmum 15:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that particular bloke is the one I was inspired by- he looks like a young boy who's just nicked his sig and is an impostor.Merkinsmum 15:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you please return your signature to the way it looked when you posted above at 17:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC). The use of big text is specifically mentioned as what should not be used on Wikipedia:Signatures. It draws unnecessary attention and breaks the formatting of surrounding text. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 15:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry-fixed it for you. Won't happen again:)Merkinsmum 15:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Spoilsports, all of you.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey ho. If I wanted to have fun I wouldn't be here I suppose lol:)Merkinsmum 16:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Much better, thanks! - auburnpilot talk 16:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections comments

Hi. Regarding your recent comments on candidate votes pages, unfortunately, they are too long and should be made at the voting talk page. This determination was reached on prior consensus on the ArbCom Elections talk page. I've gone ahead and moved them appropriately, but feel free to edit my move to your liking. However, extended comments, like the ones you provided, belong on the talk page. Thanks, and forgive the inconvenience. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 01:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. The hard-line view on commentary section of Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007 details this issue. There was a real worry that extended comments would deviate the purpose of the vote page, and suggested that long comments be made on the talk page. Users suggested short and concise comments, including myself, with rebuttals purely made on the talk page. I made the last suggestion, to which no one opposed, to keep comments purely minimal.

Unfortunately, there is little precedent on this (prior elections), and most agree that prior elections were sort of messy. I've tried to find a happy medium, which is a few short sentences. Anything more than that is more appropriate for the talk page. Users have already expressed themselves by posting either support or oppose. If they wish to add on their rationale, they are welcome to do so on the talk page, as much as they wish. I've also tried to remain open for discussion, allowing users to edit my comments to their liking, as long as they're not overly long.

Hope this helps. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 13:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I was just thanking you.:)Merkinsmum 13:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln

The merge doesn't belong in this article. It's trivial. The information is already in the burial article, and it's better sourced. AOL is not reliable. Rklawton (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

On a related note... if you're interested in this topic, note that Lincoln's coffin was moved numerous times and opened on (as I recall) four different occasions. A bit of research and writing on that would significantly round out his burial article. Rklawton (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

My userpage

Thanks for the super-fast revert of the vandalism on my userpage! :-) IronGargoyle (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiSloth

Well, first things first, I would suggest that you make sure that there really is a good use for "WikiSloths" (and you may well have made sure). The main reason I make this caution is because if the amount of WikiFauna continues to grow, eventually some sensible administrator will begin deleting and consolidating the pages. Next, I can't help but point out that the other WikiFaunae — fairies, elves, ogres, trolls, etc. — are all creatures from folklore, unlike a sloth. Perhaps some other well-known creature (such as a brownie, which remains dormant during the day but works at night — wait, no, that's a whole new WikiFauna — ¡increible! Sorry. Anyway…) would be better suited for the role. And lastly, I suggest discussing it before going ahead to do it. However, in regards to letting other people know about it, all I did was make a link to WikiOgre on every WikiFauna page under See also and put myself in the category itself to set precedent.

— The Man in Question (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Edmund Cusick

Looks notable enough to me. You've included citations to reliable sources. I don't think it would be a likely candidate for deletion, but there are folks around here who do love to delete stuff, so you never know. :) Thanks for asking for my opinion. Rray (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche Movement

You deserve the credit for raising the issue. Sometimes when we get involved in a contentious topic with strongly vested editors we lose track of how an article appears to readers with no prior knowledge. I'm glad the article is better know. Thanks, ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your input was very constructive. What would you think about having a look at Schiller Institute, another LaRouche-related article with very serious neutrality problems? --Terrawatt (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the disambig & merges

I still am upset by the unethical statements in the article and the wrongful links. But you improved the title immensely and I fully support the merges. Also, thank the heavens, the psychology header is gone! The preoccupation with sex offenders is strange and very unbalanced, as they are not representative of population of antisocial personality disorders. Thanks! Mattisse 16:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

link

Would you mind taking that disguised piped link of dissocial personality to antisocial personality out? I am really offended by that. Piped links should not be misleading. In this case, it presupposes that dissocial personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder (as defined by AMA) are the same. They are not. I have now read what a dissocial personality disorder is according to IDC-10. It is unethical, I really feel, to mislead people over this. Plus adding to the already nearly impenetrable confusion. It is dishonest. Mattisse 23:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Psychopathy article move

Please recall that as controversial a move as moving the article on Psychopathy to Hare's theory of psychopathy should be discussed first and a consensus reached before any action is taken.--NeantHumain (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If you really wish to discuss the point further, it is in the talk page.--NeantHumain (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove speedy deletion tags from redirects you created yourself

Read the tag. You are supposed to use {hangon} amd discuss on the talk page if you disagree. Curious Blue (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

erm...I have complied with the tag entirely and have a right to remoove it. Please read the tag closely lol thanks.:)Merkinsmum 14:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, when you move a page, you create the redirect. Check the history. Curious Blue (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe redirects are deleted in a different way, but if this is people's idea of fun and how they would like it, as I explained on your talk page I don't really mind as long as they keep it NPOV. As long as we are all happy lol and enjoying it, as long as the article doesn't seem a POV fork and misleading, which it did a few weeks ago, I am happy too.:) Merkinsmum 15:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Merlinthecat.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Merlinthecat.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I am very sad

...about your cat. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 15:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Curious

I just noticed that some people you have had interactions with are now in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati, including User:Curious Blue (who has an interesting talk page) and User:IPSOS (I'm not surprised here.) These will go on forever, I guess. Mattisse 21:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Miracle of miracles! User:Rosencomet just got blocked![1] Thatcher131 is no slouch either! Mattisse 22:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Images

Please do not replace existing freely-licensed images of living people with fair-use images. We are not permitted to use fair-use images to depict living people, see WP:IUP. Thanks! --Yamla (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I'm sorry I wasn't able to respond, there was something wrong with my computer. But they fixed that now. Thanks, again! :)--Angel David (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad you like my new talk page...

I thought it was kind of a funny way to make a quasi-political statement about how "archive-happy" AN/I (and other Wikipedia pages) get when the discussion gets a bit hot. Mr Which??? 19:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Life coaching

I appreciate your npov work in life coaching - I believe it's good work.--Kiyarrllston 03:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Page???

What page do I need to read?--Angel David (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 19:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay

No more full name for me to post--Angel David (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

muhammad

I think it should be mentioned that it is debated. Zazaban (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom protocol

As I understand it, you are not supposed to respond to somebody's statement in their statement field, as you just did. Could you move your response and label it in your statement as a response to the other user? Jeffpw (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Meetup

Hi there, I noticed you expressed interest in the Birmingham meetup last October. Just letting you know, another UK meetup is in planning stages, here. We need input on where and when we will meet so comments would be much appreciated. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: sniggerfardimungus

Eek, didn't realize that. I've unblocked him. east.718 at 13:15, January 5, 2008

Tony Robbins lead

Thanks for your note on my talk page. A definite improvement, but boy, that article has become a mess. LOL. Hope you're well in the new year. Rray (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice edits! I do like that picture a lot. Rray (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on my talk page today. I had unwatched the article for a while to let MP get stuff out of her system and let the article rest for a while before making any more changes to it. I'm happy that you contacted me about it. It's unfortunate that this article doesn't seem to have very many people interested in it. Rray (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Egads! I don't know that there is much more I can do to help there at the Tony Robbins article. I've left it on my watchlist, and I'll help how I can. If you have any suggestions on how I can best help the situation, please let me know what they are. Rray (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)