User talk:Penbat/Archive 1

Liasion

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)

Merging Workplace bullying

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)

Editing

You may find the following helpful in your future editing of Wikipedia:

"All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to several important rules, including three cardinal content policies: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research, and the copyright policy (Wikipedia:Copyrights). Text that does not conform to all four policies is not allowed in the main namespace."

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)

Personal attacks

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)

I think it's fair to assume that "malignant narcissist" is, though. David Mestel^(Talk) 14:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I will resist the temptation of a long winded discussion with you about Zeraeph.--Penbat 15:00, 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)

Thanks mate. Workplace bullying was my main focus but to do it justice you have to include narcissism so I am certainly interested in that as well. Also I can see that narcissism is a hugely important concept in many contexts. It pretty much shapes the world we live in. --Penbat 22:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks Talk:Workplace bullying

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)

Arbcom of Zaraeph

Can you provide diffs for these assertions? If you need help, please message me. Jeffpw (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. If there are diffs, I will propose a finding that Zaraeph drives away other contributors. See Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 14:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I only read this recently. Really sorry to read that Jeffpw is deceased. Zeraeph is part way through a 12 month ban. Yes the number of contributors (some expert) driven away from bully related articles by Zeraeph is long. What often happened is that a contributor entered a lot of new text but it imediately got wiped by Zeraeph making overzealous use of a Wiki rule, when the contributor was given no opportunity to to try to refine the contribution (if necessary). If and when it ever happens again, i will follow up your suggestion.--Penbat (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I assumed that someone involved in Zeraephs case would have as a matter of course scanned through Zeraephs user contributions record and the frequency of blanking out others contributions would have been apparent. --Penbat (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Psychological manipulation

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:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Psychological manipulation and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and CC-BY-SA, under CC-BY-SA, or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Psychological manipulation with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Psychological manipulation.

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)

I understand the copyright issue but was it really necessary too throw the baby out with the bathwater ? There are well over 100 references in Wikipedia to psychological manipulation and manipulation in the psychological sense. It seems extremely surprising that a psychological manipulation article had not been done before. I also included about 6 See alsos and Wiki categorization which have been lost by deleting the article. I was poised today to develop the text i had already written and would have probably resolved any copyright issues anyway. Also i was intending to include material today derived from a variety of other sources that i would have thought were unlikely to have copyright issues. I dont even have a copy of what was there yesterday so i can develop it. Was it really necessary to completely delete the whole article ? The article is just a stub. Yesterday I just threw a few essentials together to get the article in place as i had limited time. I was intending to develop it properly today and over the next few days.--Penbat (talk) 11:38, 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)

Thank you for engaging. I actually own the Braiker book referred to in the Psychological abuse article. It was one of the sources I was intending to use.

In the Wiki article Psychological abuse in the section "Braiker's methods of manipulative control", it says "Harriet Braiker identifies five “fundamental training methods" of emotional abuse." Actually the Wiki article misrepresents the book as the book does NOT refer to "emotional abuse", "psychological abuse" or even the word "abuse" anywhere throughout the entire book. What the book does say to introduce the above is on page 128 where she says "There are five basic ways in which manipulators control their victims."

The Wiki article Psychological abuse is much broader than just considering manipulation. Manipulation is just one component of psychological abuse, being a strategy often undertaken by the abuser. But manipulation also applies to other contexts other than psychological abuse. "Braiker's methods of manipulative control" is one section in this article and I think should be moved into my Psychological Manipulation article.

In my intended article on "psychological manipulation" I had "See Alsos" for Spin (public relations), Propaganda and Advertising. It is easy to understand that Spin, Propoganda and Advertising involve psychological manipulation but few would put it as strongly as referring to them as "psychological abuse".

As regards "coercion", that word is mentioned very briefly in Braiker's book at the bottom of page 113 as being one of six common manipulative tactics. In no way is coercion synonymous with manipulation - it is simply one of many possible types of manipulation. It is discussed in the Coercion Wiki article some of the contexts in which coercion may arise. Only the first 3 sentences of the Psychological section in the Coercion article have any relevance to Braikers book. If I remember rightly I think I did do a "See Also'd" to Wiki article Coercive persuasion which is probably has a bit more relevance. --Penbat (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I notice that there is little activity in the Psychology Wiki portal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_talk:Psychology I have recently have been doing tons of work on the narcissism and workplace bullying articles almost single handedly. It seems that psychology input on WIkipedia has died off.--Penbat (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Psychology

Hello, Penbat. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Is_nobody_interested_in_helping_with_Wiki_psychology_articles_anymore_.3F.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Cybercobra (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Passive–aggressive behavior

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)

I have made it clear what Appendix B represents and i have given the official title of Appendix B as "Criteria Sets and Axes Provided for Further Study" see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_disorder#Appendix_B:_Criteria_Sets_and_Axes_Provided_for_Further_Study

It is pendantic to have (Appendix B proposed disorders) in the template as anyone only has to click the link to find out what the score is. Also putting the words "proposed disorders" into the template screw up the formatting if you use large browser size.

I have yet to see any serious book on personality disorders not give a lot of space to passive-aggressive PD. There is a lot of academic literature on the subject and whole books specifically devoted to the subject. Millon is generally considered the worlds leading guru on personality disorders and he gives plenty of space to passive-aggression PD. Top clinicians treat the Appendix B status of passive-aggressive PD as a pendantic point. --Penbat (talk) 06:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I will read more of Millon and if I have more comments will put them on the article talk page. Ward20 (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your recent edit 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)

Talk:Psychopathy#Overly_Prejudiced.

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)

No problem. I was initially incensed by the injustice of people who have rubbished a whole book by a recognized expert in his field, simply because they didnt like the sound of some of my highly abbreviated paraphrasing of a few smallish sections of the book and without reading any of the book itself. I have now realized that any perceived issues are down to the limitations of paraphrasing where inevitably some of the meaning in the original uncondensed text would be lost. I was going to refine my paraphrasing anyway but to dismiss the whole book as rubbish i found shocking. To properly understand my paraphrased text and pick up relevant background contextual information, it is necessary to read the book. --Penbat (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Kantor dispute

Please see my comments here regarding the "Kantor dispute". Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks --Penbat (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries

See also: User talk:Alamanth#Concerns about content and User talk:S Marshall#User:Alamanth

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)

It most certainly is.User:Alamanth is whizzing round irrationally butchering various psychology articles and without any prior discussion. --Penbat (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"Irrationally butchering" is not the kind of language tolerated in a place where civility is the norm, and that terminology violates another rule of behavior: the assumption of good faith. All-caps and exclamation marks in edit summaries are simply uncalled for; take it up on the various talk pages. I have left Alamanth a note as well; please refer to their talk page if you care to see it. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think she has mixed in a few minor intelligent edits with wholly irrational ones such as redirecting whole articles without any discussion and for no apparent logical reason. I think that User:Alamanth is a sock puppet of the permanently banned ex Wikipedia administrator User:Zeraeph. It is suspicious that User:Alamanth is a new Wikipedia user yet seems expert on Wikipedia procedures. Also she has homed in on me in particular. User:Zeraeph also used to single me out in a similar way and also had the same particular interest in psychology Wikipedia articles. User:Alamanth was doing radical surgery without any prior discussion such as redirecting the content of whole article. There is no reason to round on my work - about 30% of all psychology Wikipedia articles dont have a single citation and deviate far more to Wiki rules than any of my work. --Penbat (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I never gave indication as to my gender (and do not wish to). Please do not use gendered pronouns for me, or assign other attributes to me; thanks. Alamanth (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(cont'd from User talk:S Marshall:

• I wasn't talking about your work; I was talking about your edit summaries and other use of language. If you think they're a sock (I can't judge that), consider filing a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations--having the sock of a banned user banned is infinitely more rewarding than just blowing off steam in an edit summary. Drmies (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I know you werent criticizing my work but User:Alamanth certainly seems to be singling out and criticizing my work. I will certainly be filing a Sockpuppet investigation. I think it quite likely that User:Alamanth is the permanently banned User:Zeraeph. The issues relating to User:Zeraeph were very serious and far reaching.--Penbat (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to clear this up: I am not (and, until today, had never heard of) User:Zeraeph. I would gladly cooperate in any investigation, as I have nothing to hide. Alamanth (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to respond to the sockpuppet investigation on yourself at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/User:Zeraeph --Penbat (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Penbat, you were right; I'm glad you started the SPI. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers !! --Penbat (talk) 09:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Attention

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)

I was thinking of starting a new article for "attention seeking" as it is an important well known concept and it is amazing that it isnt an article already. I put the blank section in the attention article to try to spur some action as i have found that frequently i have to do nearly all the work myself for missing articles. Attention seeking is actually definitely psychology or social psychology but a different branch to the bulk of the Attention article. For example attention seeking is integral to various personalty types such as histrionic personality disorder (see 1st sentence which ironically links to the Attention article for info on Attention Seeking). I think ideally there needs to be a Attention Seeking section with a 1 para summary within the Attention article with a link to a separate main article on Attention Seeking.--Penbat (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've copied this discussion and replied on the Talk:attention page, which is really where this discussion should be; not on a personal talk page. Edhubbard (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

re Alamanth and WP:AGF

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)

I am happy to talk this through in a measured and courteous way but as i would need to raise sensitive and confidential issues, the only viable platform is via private email. --Penbat (talk) 11:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For the comprehensive and long-overdue overhaul of the Abuse article. JaGatalk 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 ! --Penbat (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Rankism

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)

Thanks i had just gone for "abuse of rank" with a link to Rankism from Abuse as it seems to fit in better with the abuse article and it has more popularity in Google. Incidentally I spotted 2 Amazon books with "Rankism" in the title and 2 with "Abuse of Rank" in the title. Coincidentally i had just entered "power harassment" which has its own article power harassment as a link in the harassment section of abuse. I dont want to delve too deep into Rankism as i am covering abuse etc in general. --Penbat (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Abuse

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)

Btw. As a disammer, I do greatly appreciate the work you did on the Abuse article. I just feel as though the nav template is way too broad to be very useful. Different issue than the work you did on the Abuse article. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 11:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No I was actually. I'm an admin so I have access to the deleted pages. We'll see how it goes in terms of the discussion. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 16:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The template just needs some categorisation that is all. If we separate sexual abuse, discrimination and violence acts it might be a great template. Kasaalan (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I sincerely respect your wisdom. I would certainly slice the template up if i could but as i explained in the deletion discussion it wouldnt be easy but i am open to ideas.--Penbat (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Penbat I looked over the template, and the discussion to delete it, and guidelines for templates. My general sense is: I admire how hard you've worked on this topic and have done a good job. But I think Woohookitty has a good point, and it's something that plagues all sharp writers such as yourself. It's this: the temptation to include everything. Because you're sharp, you can see all the connections among the different types of abuse; but most people can't; and what happens when the template gets too big is that it becomes less useful since people have to wade through tons of stuff before they can find something useful. But my sense is: the template shouldn't be deleted, but rather trimmed seriously, and if you can do this, it will be more effective, and perhaps then you can persuade the others to let the template stay? Or you could make a set of templates perhaps?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Teen dating violence

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)

Yes the Google situation is confusing. google hits for Dating abuse seems a lot higher than dating violence but it is the other way round for teens. Give me a day or two and i will look into it. "teen dating violence" redirects to the article anyway.--Penbat (talk) 23:15, 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)

i hadnt forgotten. I will what i can tomorrow. As i said, if someone types in "teen dating violence" it goes to the right place anyway.--Penbat (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I managed to do it straight away. Are you happy now ? --Penbat (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic; thanks for your assistance! 24.126.193.118 (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Abuse template

Yeah I had no idea it'd cause this much trouble. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 17:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The whole thing is a nightmare and stressing me out incredibly. Is there anything you can do ?--Penbat (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Its really up to the admin who closes it. I think at some point, we forget that we're not THAT important. :) This isn't life or death. I'd withdraw but I'm not sure that'd be accepted at this point. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 17:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It is the straw that breaks the camels back for me and I will exit Wikipedia for good if I lose this TFD. I have done tons of work on Wikipedia and it is just futile carrying on if i have my work ripped apart largely by people who dont understand the subject or dont follow the correct procedure. The work was hard enough as it was.--Penbat (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"...if I lose this TFD". Bam, there's the problem right there. You don't own the template; I understand that it means a lot to you, but frankly, the template is problematic in its excessive scope. If you have trouble accepting that and participating in a truly collaborative environment, well, I hate to say it, but perhaps Wikipedia isn't the place for you. I sincerely hope that you'll be able to put this TfD aside and continue being a valued member of the project, but everyone's contributions are subject to modification (or even deletion); yours are no different than mine in this regard.

If you could perhaps find some common ground on the TfD by working to see how to improve the template (rather than just arguing for your preferred version), it would likely be kept. Personally, I don't think that Satanic ritual abuse is anywhere near the level of importance to the "Abuse" concept that Rape is, and don't see why the template needs to have links for Denial or Lying, which are on the outermost periphery of the concept. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Attention seeking in Munchausen by Internet

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)

AfD nomination of Howard Fredrics

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)

SRA page move

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)

Quite honestly i didnt realise that they were all moral panics - hence the SRA rename would have been good for me - feel free to delete/adjust abuse template and abuse cat as appropriate.--Penbat (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if they were all moral panics - in a couple cases there was probably abuse, but it wasn't satanic ritual abuse. Personally I agree that SRA moral panic makes more sense, but SRA is the more common term and it's arguably synonymous with SRAMP. Templates and cats are all very confusing things to me, I don't play with or worry about them much. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If SRA was renamed as SRAMP, SRA would have automatically redirected to SRAMP anyway - renaming to SRAMP wouldnt have been much of a big deal.--Penbat (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Re-Victimization

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)

I just had a stab at generalising it but it was User:Jack-A-Roe who separated out revictimisation from secondary victimization. Incidentally (as i mention on the victimization talk page) the mechanism behind revictimization seems mysterious and should be explained if possible.--Penbat (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, well that is the harder part: Science is not entirely sure why it happens. Though there are some theories, some based in Freudian psychoanalysis (for example repetition compulsion. Sourcing this might be hard because a lot is from therapeutic rather than experimental circles, but I will see what I can do.Legitimus (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be very interesting to know the answer because quite a few bully victims get continually revictimised and i am sure they would like to know how to avoid it. There are some promising sounding books on Amazon with "revictimization" in the title: [2] --Penbat (talk) 21:16, 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)

Good broad sources for topics like this are university text books, though admittedly they are much harder to obtain and consult than internet sources. I have I few I can look in to.Legitimus (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikilinking issues

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)

No problem - please undo.--Penbat (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Forgiveness

Please see talk page. Thanks. Makana Chai (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...

...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)

Rollback

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)

minimization (psychology) and exaggeration

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)

especially in minimisation he truncated quite a lot of my text. Also whether or not his distinction has any merit he is implying that external processes are not cognitive distortion and that manipulation is not cognitive distortion. I think it is rather like many other things in psychology, you can have internal or external versions, for example criticism and self-criticism, blame and self-blame, pity and self-pity, rationalisation and self-rationalisation, minimisation and self-minimisation. The internal version is just a variant of the main concept and doesnt need to be treated as completely separate as the psychological process is essentially the same but just directed in the opposite direction. --Penbat (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

{{Abuse cases}}

Thank you for taking my imperfect attempt and creating a substantially better imperfection! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

thx - let me know if you want more format changes. Also can you do me a favour and add the "abuse" template {{Abuse}} in all "abuse case" articles as well. --Penbat (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

if you have more to add it might be an idea to have a special Roman Catholic Abuses Cases template.--Penbat (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I must admit I forgot about the abuse template. MY brian is addled right now though! I think I've added every reasonable RC Abuse case I can find, but you can be sure with the news at present that more will arrive. I'll have a potter through and add abuse as well now. Arrghhhh! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've done them all! What might help is if you create template documentation for each of those two templates to indicate that they ought to be used as a paired colleague set of templates. UNless, of course, there is a way of transcluding two for the price of one! Over to you as (I hope) an expert! 20:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks i am not that much of an expert. the abuse template should be useful as it has link to abuse and related articles. It is unfortunate that the abuse types list is very truncated at present but it is very contentious issue at present as how to list them. what i am partly trying to do with abuse is cover the common features of all abuses.--Penbat (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

With the enormous quantity of child sexual abuse in the press currently, I'm wondering if a further subdivision of templates might be appropriate. I've not come to any conclusion yet. If this one is split I think we have it on so many articles now that a bot driven renaming might be required. It really is a pain editing every last article! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

we will see how things develop. Keep me informed --Penbat (talk) 13:50, 27 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)

Put this comment on the abuses cases talk page. I will reflect on this and maybe others will comment. --Penbat (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Overlinking etc

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)

I understand the subject of abuse pretty well and am annoyed that yourself and User:Arthur Rubin‎ have fallen into the common trap of interpreting words like

• opportunism
• humiliation
• criticism
• verbal abuse
• shame
• blame
• exaggeration

as just being pointless links to every day words. All those words have specific specialized psychological meanings and are widely referred to in that context within scientific psychology journals and text books and are essential concepts in understanding the mechanics of abuse. They are not in the same category as pointless links i have seen in Wikipedia to words like church, people and country.

In fact there seems to be a built-in bias within Wikipedia to cover obscure unimportant things like pets with diplomas in great detail yet important every day words which may also have important specialized psychological meanings in the context of abuse etc are often completely overlooked. I had to create the exaggeration article and the criticism article was a major embarrassment before i revamped it but it could still do with much more work. Exaggeration is a form of cognitive distortion which is a very important psychological concept. Even so articles like shame and blame are now quite lengthy and justice is being done to them.

Regarding over use of see alsos, each individual abuse case article uses roughly 10 to 35 instances of the word "abuse" including the article title. All see alsos provide relevant background although some could have been made wikilinks instead. As there were so many abuse case articles i have obviously not finessed every one individually. Links to abuse, religious abuse, spiritual abuse, sexual abuse and probably a few others, are valid in every abuse case article. The concept of abuse of rank and institutional abuse is is referred to in the text of in a fair number of abuse case articles.--Penbat (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

After edit conflict:

You mistake my message as being in some manner disparaging of the importance of these topics. My suggestion to you is simply pragmatic. Since most people do not understand, or can not understand, or refuse to understand things like this, and since experience shows that there is no hope of educating people in an organ like Wikipedia, where the alleged wisdom of crowds is often but not always lowest common denominator wisdom, I am suggesting restraint lest an "I see your reversion and revert it!" followed by "Yes, so do I!" set of circumstances starts and continues.

Better use of edit summaries would help as well, but I still see the virtue in restraint, again simply as a pragmatic approach. Wikipedia is not a learned encyclopaedia. whatever it likes to consider itself to be. It is at best a point of first research to see where to look for authoritative articles.

The Manual of Style is quite often a hindrance as well as a help. It has not been compiled by learned folk and is simply, again, the wisdom of crowds - a good attempt at something that usually helps. While I see your point, especially now you have explained it so clearly, most editors will not be familiar with the topics and will simply cling to that manual.

So, in order not to have your work devalued, I repeat my suggestion. It can be better to lose a battle or two and thereby win a war. I'm sorry you have become annoyed. It was not my intention to annoy you at all. Perhaps I should have been clearer about this being a Manual of Style issue, no more and no less. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sexual expoloitation and abuse

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)

Bullying Template

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)

Reverts

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)

Re. Victimization Symptoms

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)

It is self evident and clearly stated that Victimisation Symptoms is it is a subcategory of PTSD as proposed by Ochberg and is completely distinct from Victimisation as i have already explained. If you were going to move it anywhere I would have merged it with PTSD and certainly not Victimisation.--Penbat (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I have read the article. My question is why this article is encyclopedic. Does it have any 3rd party RSs and is this particular article anything more than a list of symptoms? --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It gets a mention in Frank Ochberg and is related to Stockholm syndrome and PTSD. It doesnt do it justice to say that Victimization Symptoms is just a list of symptoms. It is like saying that PTSD is just a list of symptoms. OK the PTSD article currently gives much more background but the Victimization Symptoms article needs more background as well - because it is short of background info is not an excuse for deleting it. It should be tagged as a stub page.--Penbat (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I put some cleanup tags on the article. One problem that needs to be addressed is the fact that I just don't understand how it is different; maybe that can be explained.

somebody needs to spend some time doing some research to clarify the article but for now i think it is justified as a stub article.--Penbat (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)