User talk:NeantHumain

hi -- can I ask where you're getting your material from? at least some of it appears to be from www.psychnet-uk.com, e.g., masochistic. do you know what the copyright status of these documents are? they appears to be copyrighted by psychnet-uk.com, but I'm not sure. check WP:C for information on what wikipedia can accept; if these are copyrighted, we can't use them. thanks. bikeable (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I wasn't questioning whether the articles should be included, but I was wondering where the text came from specifically. I had thought that you were copying and pasting from psychnet-uk.com -- I found that site by googling blocks of text, not just the names. However, the text is identical with that at ptypes.com, which raises the same question. Does the text itself come from the DSM-3 (as ptypes.com implies?). If so, does the APA hold copyright? I'm a bit confused by that since your new page says the term was "never formally admitted" to the DSM, but it does look like that's where the text is coming from. Even the ptypes.com page has a copyright notice on the bottom, so if the text is copyrighted either by ptypes.com or by the APA, we may not be able to use it. thanks again. (Also, I note that the link on Self-defeating personality disorder points to the ptypes page on the sadistic disorder.) bikeable (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the copying of DSM disorder criteria lists to my own website a matter of w:Fair use. There has been an abundant use of DSM material on the web since I started in 1998, and I've never seen or heard of the APA objecting to it. Ptypes 23:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychopathy

PLEASE bring all your objective information back often to help craft a truly great article. You obviously know, and have studied SO much.

I have a lot of opinions and subjective ideas of my own (and the scars to show where they came from), it's really hard to keep it balanced and objective but the knowledge and the information is the important thing.

I have opened a pseudopsychopathic personality disorder article with a redirect and hope to get time to help make it a real article sooner rather than later. Having known two people with frontal lobe damage (and some seriously psychopathic attitudes) I found this new (to me) concept worth a fascinating "google" today --Zeraeph 15:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dia Duit

Hi there! If you're ever short of a few subjects to do, we'd be more than happy to see you at Wikipedia:Irish Wikipedians' notice board. There's not that many of us, and we need all the help and opinions we can get. Cheers!Fergananim 21:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Petronix and Sociopathic.net

How can you know that that the guy who calls himself Petronix is foctional? Please email me: happyjon at gmail dot com

RE: On Petronix and Sociopathic.net

Well if you were part of the Psychology field I am sure you would know lol. He is published.

Category:Aspergian Wikipedians

Category:Aspergian Wikipedians which you have included on your user page has been proposed for deletion you can comment at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Wikipedians by mental condition. The is also a proposal to create an association to meet the needs of users with mental health conditions. --Salix alba (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

psychopathy vs sociopathy

Hi. I just wanted to let you know that I agree with you fully that the confusion between psychopaths and sociopaths is an important issue. I did not remove the Lykken paragraph, and the person who did has put it back. My whole purpose in the reorganization edit was to make clear the distinctions between psychopathy, sociopathy and APD. Besides, the article needed a little shake-up in the middle IMHO. I think where the article is now, it makes it more clear. Although a lot of what I wrote was edited out, it was written with the 'distinguishable' issue in mind. Finally, I want to make clear that I wish to contribute to the article because it is an important topic, which to me implies working with those who have already put in a lot of effort. I respect the work that you and the other editors have put into the article already.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icarus Project

Thank you for your comments about the Icarus Project article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icarus Project. I added some references which I think are enough to establish notability, although the article clearly still has problems. --Eastmain 06:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Premorbid personality

Brilliant. Thank you v much. Please would you put it into context for a patient suffering from Parkinson's disease and Clinical depression. - Kittybrewster 05:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message

I got a message from you on my talk page about the personality disorders list. I don't think it was intended for me. Please let me know if I am wrong. Otherwise, OK if I delete it?Shelbing 06:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:CppBuilder5.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:CppBuilder5.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG 12:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sociopathic.net add to APD

I think Sociopathic is credible enough to be added to the APD section, as I recall it was in there for some time, include some publication done by Petronix. I really don't see the problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrPetronix (talk • contribs) 09:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychopathy

I'm sorry but you will have to refresh my memory as to what my argument was. Did I add something to the article? I looked in the history and didn't see anything. However, I have many references if you need a particular point to be made, perhaps I can help. Regards, --Mattisse 01:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hare's theory of psychopathy

Nothing is controversial about it- the article's subject is Hare's theory of psychopathy.Merkinsmum 01:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disguised piping is unethical

They are unethical when they are misleading as they were in the Psychopathy article. Further they were circular redirects. Please assume good faith in you comments. You seem to have a fixed point of view and a lecturing manner that is not facilitative. I would urge you to be more pleasant to people who are trying to work with you. To send me an excessively long condesending message repeating what I have already written is a questionable practice. Perhaps you should cool out some. Mattisse 03:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I apologize if my wording was bad. I had thought you were a possible work partner. I am sorry you are not. Regards, Mattisse 03:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I made a typo

I would prefer you not continue your condescending manner. I am moving your comments off my talk page and on to the article talk page where they belong. Also, you can always feel free to fix a typo rather than make a big deal of it. Or are you not that kind of person. Rather rub a nose or two into it? Mattisse 03:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

talk page

I have explained my reasoning on the article's talk page. It's mainly about WP:NPOV and not misleading the reader that this is the mainstream view of 'psychopathy'.Merkinsmum 13:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:VisualCPP 2005.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:VisualCPP 2005.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Germany Invitation

Hello, NeantHumain! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avignon Papacy

In regards to your question. the Head of the Church is the Bishop of Rome...the title Pope is simply a title give to the Bishop of Rome, on its own it means nothing. Thus all the Popes, where every they live were, are and will always be the Bishop of Rome. (The Curia of the Roman Diocese remained even when the Pope wasn't there) Gavin (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to Wikipedia Takes St. Louis!

Dust off your Polaroid camera and pack your best lenses. The first-ever Wikipedia Takes St. Louis photo hunt kicks off Sat, Sept. 15, at 12:30pm in downtown St. Louis. Tour the streets of the Rome of the West with other Wikipedians and even learn a little St. Louis history. This event is a fun and collaborative way to enhance St. Louis articles with visual content. Novice photographers welcome! Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 02:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]