User talk:Padgriffin/Archive 1

Four years of editing

Hey, Geartooth. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

HSBC

No factual error done. - IP DUDE

Job done!

Cheers! blocked indefinately. Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} 10:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

One down, erm.... How many to go? Geartooth ^Talkosphere 11:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for calling my attention to Nazi ref desk troll's string of entries on my unprotected talk page. Just the usual stuff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi there

Hope you are well, there is no online citation but I could scan documents to prove I am of Isaaq decent. TheAKAhmed (talk) 13:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

My only warning

Oh no I'm so scared please don't ban me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:141A:D22:1:2:2BF:9065 (talk) 08:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Geartooth. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! TheSandDoctor ^Talk 08:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:RD1

While I was reviewing your contributions for WP:ROLLBACK, I came across this diff and just wanted to say that, if in the future you find something like that, please use Template:Copyvio-revdel and essentially report it so that it can be redacted. Thanks! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 08:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Can you go on Arnold's Wikipedia page answer remove all mention of the affairs he had, size it is defamatory like you said?

He is also a living person

@2001:8003:4163:AD00:4966:2521:79E9:CC61: The article states that they separated in 1982, so he wasn't married in the 90s. Geartooth ^{The Pony Who Edits} 04:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

David Bowie song "Real Cool World".

In the personnel section of the song's page, two links to musicians Richard Hilton and Barry Campbell are incorrect. I made corrections to the page by removing the inaccurate links, and you then sent me a message stating that you suspect I was wrong in doing so, and that you had reverted to the original edit. I was not wrong. 172.248.30.95 (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

PETA

The claims that you've added about "issues" on the "PETA" page are quite vague and open to various interpretations. It would be helpful if you supplied specific examples as well as recommendations on the talk page. Many thanks. Wilbur777 (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, in some cases it is difficult to establish certain important facts without relying on primary sources. For instance, to establish that PETA does in fact offer free vegan starter kits, it seemed necessary to provide a reference to the group's own website. If you have another suggestion for how things like that should be handled, that would be helpful. Also, it would be useful if you cited specific passages that supposedly read like "advertisements." Wilbur777 (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Re Andrea Callard article:

Citation to New Museum article doesn't mention Callard, only Colab. All the informstion in this section is cut-and-paste from finding aid in Fales Library bio.Balberty (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, Geartooth. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! PATH SLOPU 06:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar!!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts on countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 09:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Path slopu: Aww, thanks mate! Geartooth ^{The Editing Pony} 09:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

RE: Clan Macfie septs

The justification for adding McPhie as a sept is already covered by footnote 35, which names Alexander McPhie as a former chief of the clan. 82.42.66.181 (talk) 09:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@82.42.66.181: Noted, undid. Geartooth ^{The Editing Pony} 09:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

why remove facts

Those who scam For money should he known. Known for 4 years and have proof. Please stop deleting factual updates. Ambereyeofgold (talk) 11:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ambereyeofgold: Wikipedia is not your personal soapbox. Padgriffin ^{Griffin Noises} 11:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Got it, I shall use this screen shot to show others that facts do not matter to Wikipedia Ambereyeofgold (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ambereyeofgold: Edits require Reliable Sources. Your 'research' falls under WP:OR. Padgriffin ^{Griffin Noises} 11:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Please be more careful

I just happened to come across an edit of yours on a page I have on my watchlist, which got me wondering a bit. While I appreciate your anti-vandalism work, I have to say I'm a bit concerned you may be too eager to revert as vandalism edits that are in fact perfectly legitimate. Just among the last dozen or so reverts I saw, there are the following:

• [1] this edit by an IP was evidently perfectly correct. Removing an entirely unsourced list of allegedly "public figures" from some town in Pakistan clearly was the right thing to do, and wasn't in need of explanation to be justified. Unsourced lists like that are a BLP problem and almost certainly don't meet notability standards.
• [2] this edit by an IP, removing a section about some politican's stance on one particular issue, may or may not have been appropriate, but it had a clear and evidently good-faith explanation, so it certainly shouldn't be treated with a vandal revert and a "test edit" warning.
• [3] this edit by an IP had a very clear explanation, which – if true – made their edit obviously justified. The editor said they had checked the source cited and found that the alleged fact wasn't contained in it. I don't suppose you went to the trouble of reading the source and cross-checking if what the IP said was true, did you? I just checked again and they were clearly right.

Please be a bit more careful when reverting edits by IPs like that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yep, I own up to that, hadn't used HG in forever, and got a bit too trigger happy. I'll be more careful from now on. Padgriffin ^{Griffin Noises} 03:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

hey idiot

fuck off and stop trying yo change my edits. 1) I put a fucking full stop at the end of sentence dimwit. 2) Michael Gove is from Aberdeen and of I'm so sorry if I didn't site the information because I'm just trying to get the hang of it and help out. maybe if u did a bit of research then u wouldn't haven't fucked up in front of everyone. get a life. you didn't have to go on my page and publicly comment on my edits u could have just changed them and gone on but now its to late. I expect an apology DeadStarfish69 (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@DeadStarfish69: First off, Wikipedia:NOPERSONALATTACKS. Please link things whenever possible with these things [[, since I didn't realize that the person was actually notable, and the bizarre formatting for [[Hollyoaks|Hollyoaks.]] instead of a simple [[Hollyoaks]]. Was the reason why I hit revert, not realizing that you had 2 edits prior. That was my mistake. Unfortunately, I do NOT appreciate the personal attacks on me. I'd advise you read the WP:MOS to avoid your edits being mistaken for editing tests in the future. Padgriffin ^{Griffin Noises} 11:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Female Hysteria Edit

Good morning--

The goal in my edit summary was to be as quick and accurate as possible, and to meet the guidelines of the excellent standards Wikipedia attempts to maintain. All citations reference this article "Female Hysteria" except two.

For clarity, your message to me: "I noticed that in this edit to Female hysteria, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary."

Here is my edit summary (with spelling error, apologies): "Final paragraph [of the section Freud and Decline of Diagnosis] alludes to "manifestations of [female] hysteria" in other conditions but the other conditions listed are neither specifically related to female mental health, nor are the initial manifestations listed at the beginning of the article, as a cluster or independent, mental healthy[sic] issues (except in the case of anxiety, which is not singular to women.) The citation was a theoretical."

I'm not certain why you thought my edit summary was inadequate, however, I'll clarify.

First, I didn't add content, I deleted content that reiterated this page's first paragraph's assertion, specifically: "It [female hysteria] is no longer recognized by medical authorities as a medical disorder."

A citation on negative space seemed excessive and unnecessary. The assertion I retained on the paragraph in question, ("Today, female hysteria is no longer a recognized illness") expressly supports the subsequent paragraph's (the second paragraph in the article) factual claim: "The American Psychiatric Association dropped the term hysteria in 1952. Even though it was categorized as a disease, hysteria's symptoms were synonymous with normal functioning female sexuality."

Second, as per the above, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable," the citation listed was a theoretical study based on unproved claims wherein no credible evidence was presented from any of the studies to support historical manifestations of female hysteria relating to schizophrenia, borderline personality disorder, conversion disorder, or anxiety attacks.

The introductory paragraph is as follows: "Female hysteria was once a common medical diagnosis for women, which was described as exhibiting a wide array of symptoms, including anxiety, shortness of breath, fainting, nervousness, sexual desire, insomnia, fluid retention, heaviness in the abdomen, irritability, loss of appetite for food or sex, (paradoxically) sexually forward behaviour, and a "tendency to cause trouble for others".

None of the above rises to the level of diagnostic relevance when used as a sole diagnostic criterion in any of the four examples above. And while "different manifestations" of female hysteria could be isolated within the criteria of some of the four conditions above, a "wide array" of symptoms suggests a lack of consistency, something which clearly informed the dismissal of the term and negated its value as a diagnosis of any kind in any recognized province of medicine or the fields of psychology.

Additionally, when the "wide array" is narrowed down into specific symptoms, each are applicable to a "wide array" of other conditions in which a pathophysiological identifier has been conclusively established, such as: epilepsy, asthma, endometriosis, the stomach flu, human libido, premenstrual cramps, mood disruptions due to fluctuating hormone levels, menopause, cancer (not just of the ovaries or uterus, but pancreatic, thyroid, testicular, brain, etc.) traumatic brain injury, PCS (Post-Concussive Syndrome), congestive heart failure, and a "wide array" of other neurological disorders and diseases. In each of the examples listed above, you'll find one or more symptoms of "female hysteria," including a "tendency to cause trouble for others," which is a maladaptive response to a "wide array" of physical and emotional trauma, among other symptoms.

As per the second paragraph from the same article, "hysteria's symptoms" were synonymous with normal functioning female sexuality," according to the citation listed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_hysteria#cite_note-Maines-1 )

If any correlation exists between the above mental illnesses and hysteria, it belongs on Wikipedia's page under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteria not under "Female Hysteria," which, based on the outlined criteria historically and currently, has no rapport with the presentations of schizophrenia, borderline personality disorder, anxiety attacks, nor conversion disorder(which is an outdated term for Functional Neurological Disorder). Also noteworthy, none of the symptoms above mimic CD nor FND. Despite using a behavioral treatment model for FND, the presentations are almost always neurological, hence the out-of-use term, "conversion disorder" in favor of Functional Neurological Disorder.

At best, CD/FND are vague diagnoses based on the absence of evidence, and used incorrectly by physicians who find no observable pathophysiology due to a lack of diagnostic capabilities, expertise, knowledge, or education. At worst, FND is a modern-day version of "female hysteria." But rather than targeting only female patients, it's used in relation to both male and female patients, targeting the culturally vulnerable who present with symptoms that confound or threaten the physician's authority or are targets of power abuses. Examples of these phenomena are here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklisting#Medical_context

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry

Regarding anxiety attacks, the citation and comparison doesn't adequately establish a link between "female hysteria" and "anxiety attacks" when used in a proper, modern context:

"He became hysterical whenever his authority was challenged."

"He had an anxiety attack whenever his authority was challenged."

In an improper context, based on the historically pejorative use of hysteria as specific to only females (which, again, the above mental illnesses are not), the text would read:

"He had symptoms of hysteria when someone challenged his authority."

"He had symptoms of an anxiety attack when someone challenged his authority."

So in the latter contextual inference, the terms are not interchangeable within the accepted and current definition of "anxiety" and "hysteria." Therefore, the incorporation into, or comparison of, "female hysteria" to the four referenced conditions is not in keeping with the foundational premise set forth on this page, nor in keeping with current clinical diagnostic guidelines.

Finally, the deleted portion neither augments Freud's theory, nor casts light on the historical context of the term. It is misleading at best, inaccurate at worst. In short, the deletion was and is in keeping with the essence and factual evidence presented in the article. To do otherwise compromises the integrity of both the gestalt of the page and each individual subheading therein.

All Best,

J.A. Carter-WinwardJ.A. Carter-Winward (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

My rationale in reverting you was because, in my opinion it is important to note that the conditions once lumped into “Female Hysteria” have now been classified into other, non-sexist and legitimate mental disorders. I do not have control over the message left on your talk page- “blanking” was the closest warning I could give. Padgriffin ^{Griffin Noises} 18:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Elroy Face

Sorry, I am new at this and I don't mean to incorrectly follow protocol. I made the deletion to the Roy Face page because two more pitchers have since recorded three saves in a World Series that weren't mentioned, and figured it was best to delete the ever-lengthening list of pitchers to accomplish the feat then to continue adding to it. If two or three other pitchers beside Face had done it then it'd be an interesting side note. But the list is up to six now, so I didn't think it's noteworthy enough for inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.11.194 (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@97.77.11.194: In the future, please add an edit summary explaining your edit, because to someone not well-versed in Baseball (such as me) will see it as pure vandalism. I have reinstated your edit. Padgriffin ^{Griffin Noises} 14:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello!

Thank you for your feedback! I really appreciate your help with the G2A page. I would like to hear any suggestions from you on what could be improved in the entry. I already made some changes, I hope these make sense now.

I look forward to your suggestions and I'll be happy to discuss these further if you wish. --JohnnyRonan (talk) 09:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Renaissance Workshop Company

At the end, everything about the Renaissance Workshop Company has been removed in favour of the Early Music Shop in Saltaire. As usual.

Fortunately, the truth will keep being the truth independently what is stated in the wikipedia.

Kind regards 81.34.79.85 (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

March 2021

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to March 2021 Suez Canal obstruction. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, please use your sandbox instead, where you are given a certain degree of freedom in what you write. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 13:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@EDG 543: note that it wasn't vandalism- multiple reliable sources (including Snopes) have confirmed that the ship did indeed do that in the Red Sea prior to getting stuck. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 13:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Padgriffin, how on Earth is that remotely relevant to the reader's understanding of this incident? Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 14:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess. I'll leave it off for now. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 14:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Padgriffin, I had removed it initially thinking that it was nothing more than a joke, but the strange topic does seem to be given quite a bit of coverage now that I have looked into it. It may be decided that the inclusion is beneficial, but I think maybe we should gain a consensus to be sure. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 14:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)