User talk:Fainites/archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Fainites. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi reply to your message
Hi mate thanks for your assistance, I am as you can see still very haphazardly using wikipedia and learning the difficult way. As you can see I am trying to get rference 136 to be reference 45, it is the same reference, if you can assist and let me know what i was doing wrong that would be great. Reference 45 is under the title attachment in adults, and 136 under criticisms from 1980's. Also i don't know if this is the correct way to respond to the message you left me or not, please advise.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robboholic (talk • contribs) 01:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Congrats
A well-earned star; you clearly put a lot of work into this. I'm surprised I never did get to support—and I apologize for not being able to devote more time to this review. Let me know when you've got another one in the works :) Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Replied on my talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for everything you did on this page. A hard-earned star! --Laser brain (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Congratulations Fainites on the FA! You certainly earned it. I was constantly amazed by how hard you worked on that article the whole way through. Thanks much for the shiny new award :) delldot talk 01:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Super job on a difficult area! I learned a lot from you. —Aetheling (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC).
(outdent) - you deserve this more than me...
|
The Editor's Barnstar | |
| To Fainites, for what to leave out, what to put in and what to go where on a really tricky Featured Article nominee, Reactive attachment disorder RADical dude... Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC) |
Ya done good, Maggie May/Martin Mike (as the case may be). Jean Mercer (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
RAD FA
... good on you! Congrats! Ling.Nut (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Fanities, Maternal Deprivation, Complaint
I wish to make an official complaint regarding your contibutions.
Can you direct me to the relevant page to make such a complaint?
KingsleyMiller (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Have a look through the policy/WP pages links I put on your other talkpage. You could try the administrators notice board WP:AN, WP:ANI or you can ask for an WP:RfC (request for comment) on the talk page. RfC is the usual forum for content disagreements I believe. If you are complaining about breaches of policies then I think you try ANI or AN. What you are actually supposed to do is try and discuss things on the talkpage though. I don't know which is the right one as a) I haven't made complaints against anyone myself other than in arbitration and b) I don't know what the nature of your complaint is. Fainites barley 23:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
2.Fanities, Maternal Deprivation, Complaint
Fainites I have asked this question in several places with no reply.
Are you an ADMINISTRATOR or EDITOR for Wik? Do you have any connection with Wik?
Do you have any formal qualification in Psychology, John Bowlby, Attachment Theory, Bonding etc?
Further can you confirm that you have no formal training the area of the theory of Maternal Deprivation?
KingsleyMiller (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I've already answered this question on your talkpage - and pointed out my answer to it when you missed it before. I have also advised you more than once to follow threads for a discussion and not keep retrospectively adding comments and headings to other peoples comments making the discussion difficult to follow leading to this kind of thing. Please be careful about the accusations you fling about.
- I am not an admin or anything like that. I am a mere editor.
- I make no claims at all as to expertise in any area. That is my right. Fainites barley 10:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
TRUCE AND ARBITRATION Please do not make any further alterations to the various pages until after the ARBITRATION in accordance with Wik policy.
KingsleyMiller (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Kip you interefered with the talkpage by rearranging things and adding headings retrospectively which included allegations of bad faith. I have put it back to how it was as best I could. Please stop doing it. A talkpage should remain as written as a record of an actual discussion. What arbitration? Fainites barley 10:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Wha?
Invisible indeed. I can't believe I hadn't noticed that! Thanks a million, you're the one who deserved one of these (and got one). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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 (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
That - is a seriously weird list. Fainites barley 21:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Kips complaint
| Kips complaint |
|---|
| This is a formal complaint against the Wikipedia editor known as 'Fainites barley' and the contributor Jean Mercer made by Kingsley Miller and to be decided by arbitration according to the policies and procedures of Wikipedia
I wish to make a formal complaint against the editor known as Fainites barley for using Wikipedia to wage an 'editing war' against my contributions regarding the role of fathers as parents through the following pages, (1) The Maternal Deprivation controversy in 'John Bowlby', (2) The 'Maternal Deprivation' theory, (3) the Critique of The Strange Situation Protocol in 'Attachment in children' and the (4) Critique of the Strange Situation in 'Attachment measures'. In July 2004 I was given the right by Lord Justice Thorpe, Vice President of the Family Division, in the Court of Appeal in the UK to publish the County Court judgments from the family proceedings in my own case because of my, "History of responsible campaigning and writing on issues relating to family relationships". By contrast in these pages Fainites barley has shown 'bad faith' which is defined by Wikipedia as (1) deliberate disruption just to prove a point, (2) playing games with policies, and (3) vandalism. It should be remembered that whilst I am a contributor to Wikipedia, Fainites barley is an Editor and that lately he has dismissed my contributions with sarcasm and rudeness, so much so, that I have felt that I have no alternative but to make this formal complaint. Under the heading of 'disruption to prove a point' on the discussion page for 'Maternal deprivation', Fainites barley has taken a phrase out of context to misrepresent my point of view. In the first instance he stated that I believed the theory of 'Maternal deprivation' and the 'Attachment theory' are the same when a cursory look at the bottom of the Wikipedia pages on 'Maternal deprivation' and 'Michael Rutter' will tell you that the opposite is true. 'Fainites barley' has taken a single phrase from a ten minute video clip to deliberately cause disruption to these pages.. On the second occasion 'Fainites barley' states, "You've put this in the intro. Kip. 'The notion that fathers are necessarily less competent ....' Where does Bowlby say this?" Fainites barley 09:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC) To which I responded, "Please do not make any further such comments until after ARBITRATION as they bring Wik into disrepute". KingsleyMiller (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Fainites barley still goes on, "Kip - this is silly. You have asked for my sources and I have given them. It is perfectly reasonable to ask for sources - and there are several requests for you to provide yours. Everything in an article should be sourced. As for arbitration - I suggest you read WP:DR first. Fainites barley" 10:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC) To which I reply, "The source is cited and the reference is given. Once again you have taken a phrase out of context and as an editor you are bringing Wik into disrepute". KingsleyMiller (talk) 10:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Fainites barley has again deliberately caused disruption to try to prove a point but instead of correcting himself - goes on to try to find something else to complain about. Again I should stress the point that I am only a contributor to Wikipedia and Fainites barley is the Editor. I wish to cite two further examples of Fainites barley 'bad faith' so that the Wikipedia arbiter can be clear about this aspect of the complaint. I am concerned about the way Fainites barley has sought to remove the video clips I have published on YouTube from the pages of Wikipedia. In the discussion page on Wikipedia called 'Attachment measures' Fainites barley states, "Also like you I find some YouTube videos really useful but I have been told that we are not supposed to link to them. Its a real pity as there are two really good ones of attachment therapy in action that would say more than a thousand words on the att. therapy page, here[1] and here, [2]". Fainites barley 15:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC) But I state, "Who has told you not to link to YouTube? Wikipedia policy states the opposite. Please see my User Discussion page. KingsleyMiller (talk)" 18:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Fainites barley replies, "Well its fantastic if you can! Where is the policy that says this?" Fainites barley 21:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC) I again repeat my question, "Who told you there was a blanket ban on connecting to YouTube?" KingsleyMiller (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Fainites barley replies, "I can't remember now who told me about the YouTube. I'll have a search". Fainites barley 20:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC) As a result of this search Fainites barley states without reference to myself, "I have removed the videos as they were not, as I originally assumed, videos of the Strange Situation Procedure or similar but YouTube videos made by Kip expressing Kips personal views on attachment theory and the SSP. I'm sorry Kip but Wiki works on notable sources. I don't think you count as a notable source. (No insult intended. Neither do most Wiki editors, including me)". Fainites barley 15:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC) These video clips are objective and informative. From the beginning Fainites barley knew they were produced by myself and I cite this as another example of Fainites barley 'playing games with policies'. Similarly I made a contribution to the content page on 'Attachment in children' to the effect that far reaching claims are made on behalf of the Strange Situation Protocol. Fainites barley removed these comments because he said they were 'weasel words' again without reference to myself.(# (cur) (last) 15:31, 23 February 2008 Fainites (Talk | contribs) (34,773 bytes) (?Critique of The Strange Situation: Weasel words - who makes far reaching claims? Its always been primarily a research tool) (undo)). In defence for my contribution I should like to state people believe that it is possible to predict how a child's personality will develop into adulthood based on the Strange Situation Procedure. I describe those who profit from such an idea as 'mountebanks' because as the video clip explains there are serious concerns about the validity of the procedure. These are not 'weasel words' and these reservations should to be voiced not simply for the benefit of parents who participate in this procedure but also their children. I have included these last two examples of Fainites barley's 'bad faith' because they go to the heart of my concern. I do not believe Fainites barley wants to allow me a 'voice' in these pages on Child Psychology because he has his own ideas about fathers as parents. This can be seen in the way he has edited other Wikipedia pages. for example before my contribution there was no mention of the 'Maternal Deprivation controversy' on the John Bowlby Wikipedia page. This is an incredible oversight because nobody is more associated with this theory than John Bowlby. So how can such a theory be missing? One explanation is because the pages in Wikipedia on Child Psychology are dominated by feminists who do not believe fathers can make good parents. John Bowlby believed that mothers were far more important than fathers to their children but any examination of the research on the theory of 'Maternal Deprivation' will show that this is not the case. This is an inconvenient truth. However Fainites barley editing has made it appear as though John Bowlby never really believed in the theory at all, or if he did it was, at most, only as a passing inclination and he has removed the word 'controversy' from the heading. The revised contibution reads, "The first volume of Bowlby's trilogy "Attachment", started in 1956 and published in 1969 made it clear that he was not saying that attachment was confined to natural mothers as was popularly supposed, or indeed to women, and that "almost from the first many children have more than one attachment figure towards whom they direct attachment behaviour; these figures are not treated alike; the role of the child's principal attachment figure can be filled by others than the natural mother...It is evident that whom a child selects as his principal attachment figure and to how many other figures he becomes attached, turn in large part on who cares for him and on the composition of the household in which he is living."[6] This is a strange form of citation because if Bowlby were 'clear' on this point there should be a definite date to which the quote maybe attributed. Fainites barley editing has made it appear as though he stated this point over many years but in reality it is written in this way to disguise the fact he does not know when Bowlby made this statement. Also to lessen the controversial impact of the claims made by Bowlby in 'Maternal Care and Mental Health' (1951) he has attributed publication of "Deprivation of maternal care. A reassessment of its effects" (1962) to Mary Ainsworth a colleague. Further research lead to the publication of "Deprivation of maternal care. A reassessment of its effects" (1962) by Mary Ainsworth - a notable researcher in the field of separation.[7]. But the "Deprivation of maternal care. A reassessment of its effects" has six more contributors not cited by Fainites barley, R G Andry, Robert G Harlow, S Lebovici, Margaret Mead, Dane G Pugh and Barbara Wootoon. The preface of, "Deprivation of maternal care. A reassessment of its effects" states, "Because of pressing commitments, Dr Bowlby was unable himself to contribute a paper giving his present views, but this gap has been ably filled by his colleague Dr Ainsworth, with whose paper Dr Bowlby is in full agreement". And goes on to state, "There can be little doubt that the balanced view Dr Ainsworth takes takes of the evidence and the cautious conclusions she reaches not only take the issue out of the area of controversy but also present the research worker with a series of fascinating questions whose solution in the future would go far towards settling the problem of maternal deprivation". Regarding the 'maternal deprivation' controversy the preface also states, "Some of the criticism is based on misinterpretations of his views, which have been widely publicized in often over-simplified, extreme, or distorted forms. Other criticism, however disputes the conclusions he has drawn from the evidence itself. Finally, in the ten years that have elapsed since his monograph was published, there has inevitably been further research into the problem of maternal deprivation, and the problem has come to be viewed in a wider perspective - Bowlby has himself incorporated ethological theories into his views of child development." Fainites barley editing of the section on 'Maternal Deprivation' from John Bowlby bears no relationship to the facts and it should be returned to the original version before his vandalism. The Wikipedia page on John Bowlby refers to the 'Maternal deprivation' main page. This page was originally entitled, 'The 'Maternal Deprivation' theory. As a result of Fainites barley editing the introduction to this page now reads, "It was Dr John Bowlby in Maternal Care and Mental Health (1951)[1] who argued that infants form a special relationship with caregivers, which is qualitatively different from the relationship which they form with less familiar people". But the essential element of this theory is that it referred to 'mothers' not 'caregivers' as in Fainites barley's version. Once 'mothers' is replaced with 'caregivers' the pages loses its meaning as far as the theory of 'maternal deprivation' it is supposed to describe and this must be the purpose of the edit. Similarly an edit made by another contributor and supporter of Fainites barley, Jean Mercer, has changed the generally accepted interpretation of the concept of 'monotropy' in the theory of 'maternal deprivation', which is that children have an innate link to just one person, to a 'small number of other people'. But this is not the theory of 'maternal deprivation'. The reason the theory proved so popular in the first place is because it was assumed that mothers and children had an indissoluble link. To change this concept to a 'small number of other people' makes the page sound ridiculous. It is for this reason these examples of vandalism should not be ignored and the page returned to its original form. There are extravagant claims made on behalf of John Bowlby. One such claim is that he is the, 'founder of the attachment theory'. This is not true because there were others at the time working in this area. In effect the edits have tried to nullify the controversial aspect of Bowlby's work so that his claims to this title may seem justified. To promote this idea the pages of Wikipedia have made it sound as though he never focussed attention on the relationship of a young child to the mother as an important determinant of mental health and that if he did, he did not really mean to do so, or that he quickly changed his mind. To this way of thinking Bowlby never said anything controversial and therefore should be given due credit for the 'attachment theory'. Therefore it is useful to read his actual words written towards the end of his career and published in 1986. This is taken from a publication called 'Citation Classics' in which authors are asked to write an abstract and a commentary about one of their own publications, emphasizing the human side of the research, how the project was initiated, whether any obstacles were encountered, and why the work was highly cited. Bowlby describes 'Maternal Care and Mental Health' as his Citation Classic. (CC/SOC BEHAV SCI (50): 18-18 DEC 15 1986 - Original Paper : Bowlby J. Maternal care and mental health: a report prepared on behalf of the World Health Organization as a contribution to the United Nations programme for the welfare of homeless children. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1951. 179 p. A1986F062900001) (You may see that Bowlby refers to Rutter as his 'erstwhile critic'. In both the Wikipedia pages on 'Maternal deprivation' and 'Michael Rutter' I have included at the bottom a section entitled, 'Significant differences between Maternal Deprivation and the Attachment Theory'. Adapted from 'Clinical Implications of Attachment Concepts: Retrospect and Prospect', Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry Volume. 36 No 4, p551, 1995 by Professor Sir Michael Rutter - You may also be interested to know that my booklet, 'even Toddlers Need Fathers' is subtitled - A critique of the principle of 'maternal deprivation' used by courts in the UK to justify contact orders between children and their parents - Rutter called this booklet an 'interesting and informative guide', 2002). Citation Classic 'Maternal Care and Mental Health' A1986F062900001 John Bowlby, Child and Family Department, Tavistock Clinic, London NW3 5BA, England, September 7, 1986 http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1986/A1986F063100001.pdf Working as a child psychiatrist before the Second World War, I was struck by the high incidence of seriously disrupted mother child relationships during the early years among delinquent and sociopathic children. This led me to make a study of the problem and to publish a monograph 1, 2. After the war, there was much concern about homeless children, which led the Social Commission of the United Nations to make a study of their needs. When the specialized agencies were approached for their suggestions, the World Health Organization offered to contribute a study of the mental health aspects, and, because of my known interests, the organization invited me to prepare a report. Engaged as a consultant for six months during 1950,1 Visited professionals dealing with homeless and/or disturbed children in Europe (Switzerland, France, The Netherlands, Sweden, and Britain) and the US. A proposal to visit Eastern Europe was not agreed to by the authorities there. At that date, there was little recognition in psychiatric or psychological circles that disrupted emotional relationships during early childhood could have an adverse effect on mental health, and those dealing only with adults were deeply sceptical of any such idea. Nevertheless, there was already published evidence additional to my own—e.g., from William Goldfarb 3 and René Spitz 4 —and the problem was well recognized by child psychiatric and child care agencies. In the first part of the report, I therefore reviewed the evidence pointing to a causal connection, and in the second, considered measures to prevent or ameliorate ill-effects, notably by supporting a child’s family to enable it to care for him or her and, if that was not possible, by arrangements such as adoption and fostering. For children in hospital, unrestricted visiting by parents was recommended. My report was accepted by the organization without change and published as a monograph the following spring. Reception was mixed. Those with practical experience of the problem, notably social workers, psychologists, and psychiatrists dealing with children, were enthusiastic. Learning theorist psychologists were bitterly critical, pointing to the deficiencies of the data and the lack of theory to link alleged cause and effect (made good later in my work Attachment and Loss 5). To my surprise and disappointment, most of my psychoanalytic colleagues were also critical Freud had long since turned his back on childhood trauma as a cause of neurosis, and emphasis was now insistently on fantasy. Nevertheless, the report proved a best-seller, was translated into 12 languages, and appeared in an abridged English version 6’. I believe the monograph has become a Citation Classic because it focussed attention on the relationship of a young child to the mother as an important determinant of mental health, with far-reaching practical implications, and has given rise to widespread controversy and extensive research. For a recent evaluation in the field (by an erstwhile critic) see Rutter 7. For my work, I have received many honours, including appointment as a Commander of the Order of the British Empire and an honorary doctorate from Cambridge University. 1. Bowlby J. Forty-four juvenile thieves: their characters and home-life (I & IT). litt. I. Psycho-Anal. 25:19-53; 101-28, 1944. 2. Forty-four juvenile thieves: their characters and home-life. London: Baillitre. Tindall &Con, 1946. 56p. 3. Goldfarb W. The effects of early institutional care on adolescent personality. Child Develop. 14:213-23, 1943. 4. Spitz R. Hospitalism: an enquiry into the genesis of psychiatric conditions in early childhood. Psychoanal. Stud. Child 1:53-74. 1945. (Cited 360 times.) 5. Bowlby J. Attachment and loss. New York: Basic Books, 1969-1980. 3 vols. 6. Child Care and the Growth of Love. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin. 1953. 190 p. (Cited 155 times.) 7. Rutter M. Maternal deprivation. 1972-l978: new findings, new concepts, new approaches. Child Develop. 50:283-305, 1979. (Cited 95 times.) Kingsley Miller, 10 March 2008 SEE complaint at;- http://eventoddlers.atspace.com/WikCOMPLAINT1.html}}
|
Response.[1]
More [5]
Henriks tool +
{{subst:uw-vandalism1|PageName}} ~~~~
| Toolbox |
|---|
Thanks for your editing
Thanks Fainites for your editing of Lavvu. Take Care... Dinkytown (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
hi there. I have addressed your points on the FAC I hope. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 08:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- A picture is located. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 07:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
More Kip
I SHOULD LIKE TO CALL A 'TRUCE' ON THIS PAGE REGARDING THE THEORY OF MATERNAL DEPRIVATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH WIK PROCEDURE FOR ARBITRATION.
I have fundamental concerns about the edits to this section by Fainties
22:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see maternal deprivation talkpage for the substance of this discussion. Fainites barley 00:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I have rearranged some material to put it in a more chronological/developmental form. I think the involvement with evolutionary and ethological concepts should go earlier than details of his later published works. Fainites barley 17:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
No you have not.
You have altered the content as a result of my complaint.
Where are your sources?
You have not included sources because they lie in the complaint.
You are a complete and absolute disgrace!
You have sought to confuse the theory of Maternal deprivation with the Attachment Theory
STOP YOUR VANDALISM!
89.242.80.51 (talk) 10:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)89.242.80.51 (talk) 11:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Kip, you said you were going to arbitration. I gave you the links on WP:DR and how to make a complaint. I waited nearly 2 weeks and there's no sign of any dispute resolution process. User:Thatcher131 has looked at your complaint and said he can't see anything inappropriate in it at this time [10]. There is no requirement on anybody to stop editing pages because they disagree. A truce can be agreed when all parties seek dispute resolution and can see they have reached stalemate. You, however, have consistantly refused to discuss anything on the talkpages - preferring instead to go straight for personal abuse, allegations of ulterior motive and bizarre conspiracy theories. You made inapproapriate edits to other peoples talkpage posts and then demanded a 'truce'. You have been given as much leeway as you have because you are a newbie but your behaviour has breached a significant number of policies. As I said before - if you wish to make a complaint of breaches of policies or seek some form of dispute resolution - then by all means get on with it. I am perfectly willing to discuss content on the talkpage or answer all of your elements of complaint if required. But you might like to ask yourself how easy it is going to be for other editors to assume good faith in respect of you when you never seem to hesitate to assume the opposite with anyone who disagrees with you. Fainites barley 13:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Details of Complaint;-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingsleyMiller (talk • contribs) 01:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
KingsleyMiller (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Bowlby page
Thorough!Jean Mercer (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah but look at it now! Fainites barley 21:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Yow! But what a bizarre discussion to be having--- perhaps there's an article on the moon, where someone needs to produce sources that say it's not made of green cheese. Jean Mercer (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well quite - but would you mind putting your view on the Bowlby talkpage itself - unless you also think I'm making it all up. Are there any sources that say its not made of green cheese? One should teach the controversy you know. Fainites barley 22:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Heres some support from Bowlby for your green cheese hypotheses. "most of what goes on in the internal world is a more or less accurate reflection of what an individual has experienced recently or long ago in the external world. Of course, in addition to all that, we imagine things—imagine the moon is made of green cheese. Ok, that’s imaginary; but most of the time we’re concerned with ordinary events. If a child sees his mother as a very loving person, the chances are that his mother is a loving person. If he sees her as a very rejecting person, the chances are that she is a very rejecting person.” (Bowlby, Figlio, and Young, 1986, p.43)." Where are his sources I'd like to know. Fainites barley 15:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
OFFICIAL CLARIFICATION AT;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Clarifications_and_other_requests
KingsleyMiller (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
| response if required |
|---|
|
Statement by other userKingsleyMiller is an editor with a particular POV on the subject of Fathers Rights. He appears to have formed certain strong views about the respective contributions of Bowlby, Ainsworth and Rutter on the issues of Attachment theory and Maternal deprivation in relation to the respective positions of fathers and mothers. I do not think his characterisations of the contributions of Bowlby etc are correct on the basis of the available sources. This would simply be a straightforward content dispute which should be resolvable given the multitude of sources. The problem arises however because Kingsley Miller will not discuss but instead assumes that those who disagree with him are acting in bad faith in every respect and, it would appear, have sexist motives. He then resorts to personal attack and harrassment over a range of talk and other pages. It would appear that he is now in contact with banned users who are 'dishing the dirt' on myself, JeanMercer and FT2. The choice of banned users here are HeadleyDown and the DPeterson entity - or indeed both.
The easiest way to see the history is to read the talkpage of maternal deprivation and the ensuing discussions on the talkpages of KingsleyMiller, Myself and Jeanmercer, with bit parts on the pages of User:Thatcher131, and User:Doug. The matter is complicated by Kips tendancy to add retrospective "introductions", comments and headings and indeed alter other peoples headings, on the talkpages. However, I shall attepmt to provide diffs. Here [15] expresses his view on by queries about his article. Here [16] to here [17]I respond with some chunks of Bowlby from his main work to show the basis for my concern about his characterisation of Bowlbys theory. Here KM accuses me of "attacking" him and asks aggressive questions [18]. Here I try to respond and explain disagreement is not an attack.[19]. At this point KM turns to personal attack and has maintained that approach ever since.[20][21]Implying I have made up quotes and adjusted dates [22](when it appeared from subsequent requests that he didn't have the book). I have supplied him with the title, edition, page numbers and even cost through Amazon but he has made no effort to respond to this content issue. On the 5.3.08 he said he was going to make a complaint. I gave him the links to [WP:DR]] and so on. He then asked me three times if I was an administrator or an editor, to which i replied, though he accused me of not replying.[23][24][25][26] He then made a formal complaint in which it appeared he thought there was a difference between editors and contributors.[27] This appears in various places. I posted a message saying this was not the case [28] but bizarrely, he then accused me of deliberately misleading him in this issue! [29] KM's accusations of bad faith: His complaint which was posted on several editors talkpages in full (see below)[30] KingsleyMillers talkpage. Most of it frankly from [35] onwards - including copying in accusations also made on other pages. [36][37] Maternal deprivation talkpage. I've already referred to most of it. [40][41] + accusing me of 'bringing Wikipedia into disrepute'. John Bowlby talkpage [42][43][44] The request for arbitration - posted on his talkpage. The appeal of the refusal of the request. This request. Posted on his talkpage. And finally - this posted on the bottom of his talkpage "ALL, I have now been contacted separately by 2 people banned by Fainites and Mercer. If you have more to contribute please e-mail me via YouTube or eventoddlersneedfathers@freenet.co.uk Many thanks, Kingsley Miller Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KingsleyMiller" All in all this has got beyond a minor irritation and into WP:HARRASS Substance Dealing with issues raised: The heading to Maternal deprivation was added by jean Mercer, not me. The main controversy about maternal deprivation (1951) was not that it said mothers were more important than fathers. It was highly controversial in many different domains. I have set those out in the article. Not mentioning fathers much was only one criticism. I have posted chunks of Bowlbys attachment theory from his main work on the talkpage to show he was not saying attachment was a mother thing only. Kips response was to imply I was making it up and ask questions about what book and claim I was making up publication dates. This seems to suggest he has not actually read Bowlby's main work. I have attempted to discuss with Kip the passages from Rutter 1995 he put into several pages which he claims show differences between maternal deprivation and attachment theory. i have the Rutter paper. It clearly sets out these items as being developments in attachment theory between the original publication in 1969 and this paper - not differences between maternal deprivation and attachment theory. I have even typed most of the section of the paper out on the John Bowlby talkpage but got no response from Kip. I have never said I have not heard of maternal deprivation. Kip has claimed "Attachment Theory has become synonyms with the theory of Maternal Deprivation and in many peoples minds they mean the same thing". I disgreed with this. I said I work with people who use attachment concepts all the time and have never heard anybody even mention maternal deprivation. Kips extreme views on Bowlby can be seen plastered over a number of talkpages. He made no contribution to the criticism section however, preferring instead to edit the pages to try and show Bowlby was only really known for maternal deprivation and not for attachment theory. I set out a random selection of quotes from various good, mainstream sources who seem to think attachment theory originated with Bowlby - but again got no response. Thereis nothing wrong with Kips 'citation classic' source as such but it is absurd to claim other editors are engaged in some kind of bad faith behaviour because this was not mentioned. Attachment theory is a huge piece of work which has now accumulated nearly 40 years of research, commentary, controversy and analysis. Its absurd to make accusations of ad faith because one favourite source is not there. Anyway - Kip did not just add the source. He removed all other better sourced information on the issue and used this source (a letter from Bowlby about why Maternal deprivation was a 'citation classic') instead. For example, Kip has added no material from Brethertons paper on the history of the development of attachment theory, for which she personally contacted all of themain players who were still alive, or indeed from attachment theory itself. It would be silly though to suggest this omission was bad faith on his part. The idea that JeanMercer, a professor of child development, would be lead into confusion on the issue of maternal deprivation by any edit of mine is quite funny. |
RE: Attachment therapy
I'm sorry that I wasn't clear. I meant that you have included the page numbers in the article prose. Place the <ref></ref> tags around the page numbers so they move down to the Notes section (where the {{Reflist}} tag is placed. Look at an article I completed awhile ago, Amy Dumas. Scroll down to the Notes section, and that's where you can find the page numbers, not within the article itself. Then, list all the books used under a References header. I hope that explains it. Nikki311 21:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Fainites -- it's been awhile! I should soon (~3 weeks) be in the position to help a small amount with these tedious issues. You and Jean deserve many accolades for the incredible work you've done. It's a shame that such trivial matters should get in the way of recognition, but I suppose that the MoS is important in that is makes wikipedia articles predictable and cohesive. shotwell (talk) 06:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Shotwell! Good to hear from you after all this time. Fainites barley 18:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Shotwell! How's the math world? Sorry, F., I just came over here to ask whether you think Child development needs more topics. E.g. language? Moral development? Jean Mercer (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Howsabout: Play, social - relationships;families and peer groups, language, perception, cognition, theory of mind, social awareness, moral development. Fainites barley 21:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Isn't theory of mind part of cognition?Jean Mercer (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Worth its own little paragraph though don't you think? Fainites barley 17:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Replied about Attachment Theory
Hello there. Sorry about the delay: I've replied to your email about attachment theory: reading it brought back to me why I decided I wouldn't dive into editing that kind of material on wikipedia (along with the other psychological topics on research methods that I could have). I hope the reply makes sense and is useful. Please get back to me with any unresolved issues. DDStretch (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Its certainly a thankless task. I've come across so many psychs who've just given up because you have to waste all your time battling with POV pushers to be able to put in the most basic and straightforward information. Thanks for your help anyway. Fainites barley 20:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Right - so - the 'five key ways' and the 'four elements' in the Rutter 1995 paper refer to attachment theory by reference to the trilogy - but as attachment theory is the attempt to formulate a theoretical base for the ideas put forward in maternal deprivation, its a distinction without a difference as science continually develops with research anyway so what difference does it make? I think thats a summary. Fainites barley 21:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that seems about right. DDStretch (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Fainites barley 22:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
RE: Importance scale
I'm sorry that it's taken me so long to get back to you, but I'm not really involved in Wikipedia much anymore. The importance scale is often misunderstood. It has nothing to do with how important a topic is in the context of society, since that is too highly subjective to use. Instead, it has to do with how important a topic is in regards to its inclusion in a general interest encyclopedia. A top- or high-rated article would probably be found in general interest encyclopedias like Encyclopædia Britannica. A mid- or low-rated article would probably be found only in a psychology encyclopedia, psychology textbooks, or professional publications. The scale can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Assessment and is based on the scale at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team (which is ultimately the reason why the scale exists in the first place). I hope this helps! —Cswrye (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Depending on the situation, that could be considered a conflict of interest. Editing when you have a conflict of interest is not automatically wrong, but it should generally be avoided when possible. I would say that it's probably okay for authors to assess articles themselves, but they should usually conceed to neutral parties if their assessment is disputed. —Cswrye (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- If it were entirely up to me, I would rate attachment disorder low and reactive attachment disorder mid. My general rule of thumb is this: Would the topic be covered in an undergraduate-level introduction to psychology course? If not, it does not qualify for a high rating (with some exceptions, of course). These are topics for people who specialize in psychology and are not familiar to the general populace. My reason for giving a low rating to the former is that it exists in a corner of psychology that even most professionals in the field are not familiar with, although I could probably be talked into giving it a mid rating. However, Wikipedia is ruled by consensus, and especially on controversial topics like these, I would recommend discussing it on the talk page before changing the assessment. People can get defensive about the importance rating, so it is essential to keep the conversation as considerate as possible. One way to do this is to focus on the fact that a lower important assessment does not mean that the topic is insignificant, only that it is not a high priority relative to other psychology articles in regards to its inclusion in a printed encyclopedia. —Cswrye (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
User name
By the way, am I right in thinking that your user name is probably connected to a word used in various parts of the UK by children in various games to indicate that they are temporarily "out of the game", or otherwise immune or "in a place of santuary" in games like tag, etc? (The writers Opie and Opie wrote good parts of at least one whole book about such words if my memory serves me.) DDStretch (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Aha! I knew my memory was probably right about that: I think we used "barley" where I came from (Cheshire), and I can't recall Lincolnshire, which we moved to. There were some isolates (Leicester springs to mind.) My copy of Opie and Opie is currently packed away, but they have a map of the UK with the different regions marked out for different words. Iona and Peter Opie, editors, 1959. The Lore and Language of Schoolchildren (Oxford University Press) is the book I have. Very interesting. DDStretch (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for not replying earlier - a problemsatic dispute arose that I was involved in. I've now managed to get my copy of Opie and Opie's book "The language and lore of schoolchildren" out of a box in the attic, and reading it, I've got a bit interested in it again. The map (and pages surrounding it) on "truce terms" found on page 149 is interesting: London and most of the surrounding area, along with much of teh south coast and south west (excluding the west of Hampshire) use Fainites. The excluded bit of Hampshire uses "Scribs" Much of Yorkshire, all of Lincolnshire, the East Midlands, Norfolk and the northern part of Suffolk uses either "Kings" or "Crosses", though they are much intermingled (I read from the text). There's an area round the west Cotswolds, Bristol and surrounding areas of Somerset, going into South Wales, and including places up to the West Midlands and central Wales that use "Cree". Durham and Northumberland uses "Skinch", western Scotland uses "Keys", and much of the rest uses "Barley", which covers the greatest part of Great Britain. There are local town isolates including terms like"Trucie", "Scrogs" "Cream", "Nicks", "Cruces", "Peril", "Bars", "Keys", "Bars", and so on. Interesting, and an article on it might be good, although I wonder about it having effectively just one source (the Opie and Opie book). One thing I learned from this is that my memory of "Barley" from Cheshire was correct, and from Lincolnshire, we must have used either Kings or Crosses, and I now have a vague and unreliable memory that we used Crosses, but a map for Lincolnshire given by Opie and Opie on page 146 shows that which ever one we used, we lived extremely close to the boundary between Kings and Crosses. Perhaps we used Kinds at Primary school, and then, at Grammar School which was located in a town 7 miles away, perhaps I had crossed the boundary then. Hmmm... DDStretch (talk) 08:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
...really?
Man, you guys are still going at it over at Michael Rutter? Clearly the 3O I gave didn't work, and this has been going on for upwards of three weeks now. Why don't you just take it to WP:MEDCAB or WP:RFM? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Just came across this; thought you might want to know, seeing as how you're listed there. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Looks more like a complaint than a request for mediation to me. Theres another one on Rutter in similar vein. The odd thing about the attachment one is Kingsley only raised this a few days ago and it hasn't really been discussed (see bottom of Attachment theory talkpage. Fainites barley 21:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Sheeesh. I quit... Jean Mercer (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Ridiculous isn't it? A requests for mediation that are attack pages - on the same old crap! He never responds to quotations or sources on a talkpage - just starts the same arguments and makes the same allegations on a fresh page. But on a mediation page is really taking the biscuit! Hands up any mediators wanting to mediate this lot. Fainites barley 20:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Child life specialist page
I noticed all of your work on the Child development page and I value your insight. I'm a relatively new user, and I just created a Child life specialist page. I'm wondering if you would check it out and possible give me a bit of feedback on the page? Thanks a lot for your help! Carleyj (talk) 01:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)carleyj
Memo
Working through Attachment Theory again
I've just reread the lead. It's a great summary. Spot-on with its prose -- clear, minimal jargon, concisely develops basic framework to approach topic. It's far too good and helpful and rightly placed to mess with much.
It's very long for a Wiki lead, though. Perhaps it should be the first section of the main body and called Overview and a two or three paragraph summary could be added above it as a lead?
Reading on, more comments to follow at the topic page. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Done some more reading and a bit of copy-editing. I love the structure. There's so much content in the article that it really needs the structure. And the structure you've given it works for my tastes anyway. Very well done indeed! Alastair Haines (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey thanks Alistair! Re the reworking of the first para of the second section though - alot of what you've added is not actually what the source says which is a bit of a problem. Fainites barley 08:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Feel free to revert it all, it only took about an hour. ;) I'm not sure whose text it was, or if it was correct. I simply tried to rephrase the text to say more straight-forwardly what I thought it was saying.
- I was also trying to phrase it neutrally and appropriately. We're dealing with a controversial theoretical model. It all seems fine to me, but stating theory as theory, in the language of scientific method—observation, data, hypothesis, prediction, etc.—can go a long way to deflecting unnecessary scuffles.
- If what was in the article before was out of line with sources, then what I've done will be too.
- If what was there was OK, then mine should be too.
- If I've misunderstood, then my text must go, but others will also misunderstand the text I changed.
- If my text is factually wrong, then the old text was not sufficiently clear.
- I don't pretend to be an expert at much except reading, so I don't mind being reverted.
- Mind you, perhaps the only thing that's odd is me introducing the language of scientific method. That isn't much different to using "therefore" or "because" etc. I hope I didn't actually make claims that are out of line with the theory.
- Anyway, revert away, I simply don't know enough about AT to object. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 09:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Thats fine. I'm not reverting! The source is a book who's stated purpose is to explain attachment - published by the RCP Research and Training Unit. I was just concerned that we didn't attribute something to them they didn't say. maybe there's a better source that explains things more comprehensively - or explains a few extra bits. Fainites barley 11:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Ethology section of "Attachment theory" page
Fainites - No, I did not write any of this section. Frakn (talk) 07:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
re: image
Hi there. Those image links did not work for me. But, the important first step is determining the current copyright status of the images. If they are free images, you can upload them to Commons using their upload form and choosing the correct license (I can help you determine the license once I know what the images are). If they are under copyright, you have to develop a fair use rationale for using them in an article. I can help with that too. Some more information is available at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. --Laser brain (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe I've addressed all of your concerns. Can you please let me know if you see further ways that this article needs improvement? Thanks for your comments in this process. JRP (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Uriel Sebree
I want to apologize for taking longer than usual to reply to your comments on my FAC. I've traveled to Korea for a week (11 timezones... ugh...) for work and I'm still a little loopy. I'll try and get all of your comments addressed as soon as I can. JRP (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Fainites,
Sorry, I can't help. I'm working on my dissertation. Hope to catch up with you in a few months!
Later, Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 15:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the delay. I've made changes to satisfy all of your points. Can you please take a look and let me know if there is any additional work that I should do before this article will warrant your support. Thanks for all your comments so far. JRP (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
DSM-IV Proposal
Can you check out our DSM-IV proposal and provide any feedback? Thanks Mindsite (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
ICD-9 and ads
By "RAD" I assume you mean Asthma? Yes, {{ICD9|493}} points to a page that has lots of dubious ads. In Autism I see the same problem with ICD-9 (299.0) but not ICD-10 (F84.0). There are similar problems with DSM-IV-TR (both Mindsite and Behavenet). I'd prefer linking to sites without misleading ads but don't know of any. Eubulides (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Practising refs
- ^ Bretherton I, Munholland KA (1999), "Internal Working Models in Attachment Relationships: A Construct Revisited", in Cassidy J, Shaver PR (ed.), Handbook of Attachment:Theory, Research and Clinical Applications, New York: Guilford Press, pp. 89–114, ISBN 1-57230-087-6
- ^ Bretherton I, Munholland KA (1999). "Internal Working Models in Attachment Relationships: A Construct Revisited". In Cassidy J, Shaver PR (ed.). Handbook of Attachment:Theory, Research and Clinical Applications. New York: Guilford Press. pp. 89–114. ISBN 1-57230-087-6.
ForesticTalk
You have a reply. This is just a note, so delete if you wish. forestPIG 22:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Evidence-based
Give it a glance or three, please. Jean Mercer (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Image:Mozambique024.jpg
Your GA nomination of Maternal deprivation
The article Maternal deprivation you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold.
It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Maternal deprivation for things needed to be addressed. Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 23:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
RE: Attachment therapy
I don't have a lot of extra time these days, and I have a whole list of other projects I've promised to help with...so I can't look to much into detail right now. I skimmed it, and it is looking a lot better than when I reviewed it. I would renominate at GAN...it couldn't hurt anyway. Nikki311 00:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, replied to your note. About renominating at GAN, I would hold off, let me finish reviewing it. Peace, delldot talk 15:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
tl;dr
Too long, didn't read. Corvus cornixtalk 21:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I did try. :) Corvus cornixtalk 21:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I have replied to your comments. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
John Bowlby Picture
Hey, Fainites. I don't know that I'm really a picture finder so much as I try to upload public domain pictures when I can find them.
Unfortunately for John Bowlby, his dates seem to be 20th century and post-war at that.
As a general rule, anything prior to the 19th century is public domain. Most stuff in the 19th century is public domain, though you need to poke around to be able to confirm this. 20th century stuff up to WWII is often public domain, though again this can sometimes be difficult to confirm. My rule of thumb is that if you find something online that is post-WWII, it's almost certainly not public domain and can't be uploaded.
So, given the fact that Bowlby was born in 1907 and all of the images of him on Google Image Search are clearly of him when he is at least 50 years old, it seems highly unlikely that any of them are in the public domain.
It's so annoying that we can upload old images to Wikipedia, but newer images are verboten, resulting in the ridiculous Wkipedia coverage where if anything's current, we don't have a pic. Unfortunately, I don't think that Congress will change this law anytime soon.
If you're really into getting a pic of Bowlby up, you should contact whoever owns the pics that do come up on Google Image Search and ask them to release those photos into the public domain. Though these people are often reluctant to do so, for reasons I really don't understand: really, how lucrative is it to own a photo of John Bowlby? I would assume it's virtually worthless, so why not release it to the public domain? And yet, the tight-asses who own these copyrights are often very reluctant to release them. Anyhow, you can try.
Adam_sk (talk) 04:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Google images Adam_sk (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- It'd be great to have a picture of Bowlby in WP. I started the article Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma, which expands Bowlby model into traumatogenic parenting. Cheers! —Cesar Tort 07:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Fainites! I just saw your question on my talk page, and the answer is yes. I am undertaking the second opinion review of Attachment therapy, if that is alright with you... :) I saw yesterday how long it had been tagged for a second opinion...a little scary, and I apologize for how long you had to wait to get what was basically a very nice article passed through the process. The issues I had weren't all that major (at least in my mind), so it shouldn't take that long to get the article up to par. It's a very nice piece of work, and it was an interesting read on a subject that I hadn't heard much about before. Dana boomer (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I have posted major objections to your article, Attachment therapy, being passed as a GA. I have told the person who passed it User:Dana boomer of my intent. He asked for a day to straighten it out with you. A day has past with no action. Therefore, I am posting the article for Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
AGF
Re: your comments on Attachment therapy/1:
And perhaps given this [53] and this [54] its time for a little WP:AGF around here. Fainites barley 20:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I do not know what you meant to imply by your links, but Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Brenda Song/1 was not my doing. The GAR Attachment therapy/1 is the first GAR I have ever done. That is why I consulted GAR editors before doing it. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
RE
Oh ok excuse my ignorance --The.Filsouf (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Do you think we should resubmit it for WP:GAC? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The 'q' word....
Working in emergency departments, everyone was always wary of mentioning the 'q' word ('quiet'), in case stuff happened...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
My editor review
Thank you for your feedback (and sorry for the delayed response)! Your evaluation was thorough, your criticisms constructive, and your advice sound--I'll keep them all in mind. Thanks again, Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Fainites barley 21:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
how is it now? Nergaal (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think I'm done, yeee! Nergaal (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Nergaal (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
GA review of Executive Magistrates of the Roman Republic
I've placed the article On hold, given the fact that you've already completed a formal review - in order to alleviate the WP:GAN/R backlog at GAN. Let me know if you have any concerns or questions on my talk page. Cheers! -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 21:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- my apologies then, if you'd like to take it off of hold status, follow these links to undo the edits: [58] [59] -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 21:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
WP:PUI Nominations
Just dropping you a note about having listed some images you have uploaded at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 December 20#More SXC images, seeing as they appear to be sourced from http://www.sxc.hu and tagged as free licensed without a confirmation that the photographer who uploaded it to sxc.hu has granted permission to use this license. The images are File:320973 8684.jpg, File:151097 color 35.jpg, File:221157 kneeling child on stone floor.jpg, File:597391 pouting child.jpg and File:831462 angry.jpg. --Sherool (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
And now, for Fvasconcellos' traditional nonsectarian holiday greeting!
|
Wherever you are, and whether you're celebrating something or not, there is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! So, may you have a great day, and may all your wishes be fulfilled in 2009! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC) |
- a fine Xmas message for all of us to be mindful of.... hehehe. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Memo
- Wolters, Rudolf. Neue deutsche Baukunst, Berlin: Volk und Reich, 1943.
- Wolters, Rudolf. Albert Speer, Oldenburg: Stalling, 1943.
- Wolters, Rudolf. Vom Beruf des Baumeisters, Berlin: Volk und Reich, 1944.
Rudolf Wolters photo
No, I looked too.--Grahame (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Scan?
Do you have scanning capabilities to get the photo of Wolters which is in the photo section in the Van der Vat book following page 150? I think we could make the case of fair use to identify Wolters. Van der Vat claims copyright, but it looks like a photo from an ID paper of some sort (judging by the stamp on it) but that doesn't affect fair use. He probably just photographed Wolters' ID from the archives or something.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Good idea. There's one at work. I'll give it a try next week. Fainites barleyscribs 20:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
GA2 for Holocaust in Lithuania
See Talk:Holocaust_in_Nazi-occupied_Lithuania#GA_Review_2. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, same to you! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
BDI GAR
Hey thanks so much for doing the work on the Beck Depression Inventory page, I was (and am still!) pretty busy right now so wouldn't have been able to do them in time. Are you a psychologist? --PaulWicks (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Understandable! I run the R&D team at www.patientslikeme.com and was originally trained as a research neuropsychologist at the Institute of Psychiatry. Though I did once mark some horrendous undergraduate essays on attachment theory...--PaulWicks (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Developing new communities (we made a new scale for the fibro site as we didn't like the existing ones), plus scientific research, see http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=patientslikeme for some examples from our group as well as other people talking about us --PaulWicks (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Understandable! I run the R&D team at www.patientslikeme.com and was originally trained as a research neuropsychologist at the Institute of Psychiatry. Though I did once mark some horrendous undergraduate essays on attachment theory...--PaulWicks (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Gentle reminder
When you get a chance, would you mind finishing up the GA review of Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology here? Thanks so much! Awadewit (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Good Article Review of Truce terms
I've reviewed Truce terms and left some comments here Talk:Truce_terms/GA1. I'd like your input (and/or addressing the points I've brought up) before proceeding and passing the article to GA status. Thanks! — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Orphans and Foundlings Project Proposal
Hello we're trying to start up a new project to cover the adoption and related articles. Would you support it?
Tobit2 (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
— LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Federici
Hello F.-- I did some editing for accuracy on Ronald Federici. You might like to take a glance. I provided my rationale on the discussion page. Jean Mercer (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Blimey! Questions - a) is he sufficiently notable to warrant an article and b) isn't there a slight conflict of interest here from the main editor, and c) are there no secondary sources? The only BLP's I've been involved in are of really notable people like Rutter and Zeanah, and even Zeannah is possibly borderline. I think RfD may be the appropriate. Fainites barleyscribs 15:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
uncle
- Where are you from? All my life, children have always said "Uncle!" when they want a truce. I've seen it in print, on TV, etc. I believe I've even seen old versions where people cry "nuncle"... Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 12:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Email, thou hast. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 13:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
— LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Please join
Please join the arbitration against me. All negative comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration under my name. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
FL wikilinks
Ice Hockey World Championships
Will you be interested to join the discussion on topic of Ice Hockey World Championships and whether medal count for Russia/USSR and Czech Republic/Czechoslovakia should be grouped together. The evidence I've provided from a reliable source in support of this argument is being rejected and there is seems to be a questionNeutral point of view. Please join in. Andreyx109 (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Gosh. Why me? I know nothing of ice hockey! Fainites barleyscribs 21:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 08:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Truce term
Missed your post, belated answer here (in case you have de-watchlisted the page in the meantime). Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Children project
- Please see Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial requests. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, Fainites. I've moved all of the subpages of the project, so all of the links (i.e., for the "to do" page or the side banner) have been fixed. As for the categories, those cannot be moved like regular pages. You'll have to go to WP:CFD to get them moved over (essentially, they'll just be deleted and recreated, with all of the links fixed to point to the new categories, something a bot will probably have to do). Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Another avatar
Mental Health Pro, now editing on the ACT page, seems to be someone we've met before. Jean Mercer (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Funnily enough, wasn't there one called mentalhealthprofessional in the old days which he said was your sock? Fainites barleyscribs 21:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't remember that one-- thought they all used "names". But there's been one with this moniker on Amazon.Jean Mercer (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't call themselves LicensedClinicalSocialWorker though.Fainites barleyscribs 08:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Mattisse
You are free to have whatever doubts you want regarding my motivations. I would however notice that you seem to be jumping to conclusions I myself don't think I was even remotely implying. At no point do I think I said that I was disparaging the comments of others not involved in the baseless RfCs, or that the criticism of Mattisse by others is necessarily unfounded. I was simply, like I think I said, pointing out that there might be some just cause for that person to think that there might be some sort of "collusion" of some parties against her. I believe that what I was trying to convey was how Mattisse seems to perceive some of the negative comments against her. At no point did I necessarily say that those perceptions were necessarily completely, or for that matter even partially, accurate. However, it does seem to me, based on the evidence I have seen and my own conversations with Mattisse, that perceptions of all parties, good, bad, or indifferent, are as much a factor here as the more objective information. If you believe that this attempt at clarification is in some way justified, I would welcome your altering your comments to reflect that. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- At some point, somewhere, I now forget, you had said "Bluntly, John, ..." I can't find it now, but that was more or less what I was talking about. And, by the way, I hope you realize that I do not necessarily dispute some of your points. My only point is really that, as Mattisse has said, she still feels very "sore" (for lack of a better word) about the harassment in the first RfC, the second RfC didn't help, and some of the other comments raised elsewhere which might be less than perfectly valid haven't helped either. I am in no way trying to say that the valid comments of others are in any way to be dismissed or written off on that basis, simply trying to relate what has been conveyed to me about that specific section of material in question. John Carter (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Adoption, fostering and displacement image
Your suggestion didn't work. It fudged the meaning so it looked like the child had no attachment to the adoptive/foster parents. I also tried combining the two with two sets of parents, but it doesn't work. We may have to temporarily adopt two images until someone comes up with a better suggestion. I may ask my former graphics teacher for help since I'm completely stuck on how to fix the problem. XD. --Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Then AFOD looks like it's about acorns... ^^;;--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 01:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well if we called it Adopted, cared for, orphaned, removed, neglected and stolen we could call it ACORNS. Fainites barleyscribs 21:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Let's take the discussion off of my profile and put it back into the project. Other people have the right to input... I notified Tobit.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well if we called it Adopted, cared for, orphaned, removed, neglected and stolen we could call it ACORNS. Fainites barleyscribs 21:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. One note: I was only responding to HK. She said no adoptee she knew found the image insulting. I responded, that I did. The problem we have on this project is that people are easily set off by small things on the topic. Sparatcus, for example, was very agressive in his language b/c of a perceived insult. Although I have a thick skin and don't really take much offense, I know that other adoptees will (per the example I gave). But I want the project to be inviting to them as well. So we need to strive to be neutral in our language and choice of images. HK is creative and intelligent. I was trying to do this without disparaging her work. Your help, and advice, is very much appreciated.Tobit2 (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry
Sorry
Pekayer11 (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I could find no other contact so I must ask: Is this from you? http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/child-myths/200906/breastfeeding-true-or-false-test-yourself/comments?page=1, last set of comments. If it's not you, well, I think you know who it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.192.113.238 (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- No that was just The Usual Suspect using my sig! He uses other peoples names quite a lot it appears. At least he spelt mine correctly. You might find it entertaining to look up one of those do-it-yourself diagnosis lists attachment therapists use and see how many ticks you can make for the mad blogger. Fainites barleyscribs 14:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- I did comment on other pages though! My e-mail is enabled by the way.Fainites barleyscribs 18:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well it seems that alot of it has been removed now - but then they were using the names of some notable people who said it wasn't them - so I was in good company in being "plagarised". Fainites barleyscribs 22:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Categories
I'm not sure what you are getting at on the Categories question. Do you mean that the category name, "Orphan, abandoned, and removed children," should be changed? If so, I agree. It won't take long to do. Or are you talking about the category for Start Class articles; it is completely messed up? The Start Class page was made automatically, and I think a bot cleans it once weekly. I tried to manually fix it, but it will not accept any changes.Tobit2 (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions about User:Fainites. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |