User talk:Penbat

This user may have left Wikipedia. Penbat has not edited Wikipedia since September 2019. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Penbat! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! Kukini 15:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects
Getting your info out there
Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting Help
New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Kukini 15:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi / Sock-puppet hunt

Relocated from (talk) Wiki-psyc.
I notice you have copied elements of my user page onto your page. Anyway you seem to have hit the ground running. You are obviously a seasoned Wiki editor not a novice. Please provide full details of your previous Wikipdia accounts.--Penbat (talk) 08:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to User:Wiki-psyc can easily be misinterpreted. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. This is the only Wikipedia account I have had. Admin can verify. Your comment has been removed. Thanks. Wiki-psyc (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki-psyc. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Filing a frivolous sockpuppet claim and stalking an editor is harassment. This is notice to stop.
Investigation file: Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki-psyc
Wiki-psyc (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-psyc, Penbat was acting in WP:Good faith. It's quite easy to see that you are not a WP:Newbie. Showing up editing like you've been editing Wikipedia for years is obviously going to result in suspicion of your account. I immediately pegged you as a WP:Sock as well. Either that, or as a user returning under a WP:Clean start rationale, whether or not that rationale is entirely in line with WP:Clean start. When I saw that you were commenting in the WP:Sockpuppet investigation that Penbat had started on you, I decided not to comment since that report was not solid. But now that I recently saw you again, this time at this article, I decided to state that acting like Penbat is wrong to be suspicious of you is incorrect. Very experienced Wikipedia editors usually are suspicious of new accounts that edit the way you do (meaning in a seasoned way), and with good reason; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive894#Spaghetti07205 as a recent example. Just know that if you are trying to help Wikipedia, so is Penbat.

If you reply to me about this, I would prefer that you reply here at this talk page instead of at mine, so that the discussion stays jointed instead of disjointed. Flyer22 (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22, does bringing a member before a tribunal after their first edit and on the grounds that it "exceeded expectations" qualify as WP:Good faith or WP:BITE? I'll respect your opinion that it is with "good reason" and that it "helps Wikipedia". It is, however, not something I would recommend or endorse. If I were concerned about chronic troublemakers that resurface with new identities, I'd wait rather than error. Troublemakers generally recreate their controversies, in time, and give themselves away.

With respect to Covert incest, I just documented the work. Let's talk/work there. [Talk page]

Wiki-psyc (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-psyc, how I handle potentially problematic returning editors is addressed on my user page; how I go about that works.

As for the Covert incest article, I'm not especially interested in it and I wasn't stating that you'd done anything wrong there. Flyer22 (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-psyc, for a relative newbie who only joined Wiki earlier this year, and has made less than 100 article edits, your ability to cite WP policies is at the advanced level. I've been on Wiki for 10 years and i'm not quite at your level. You managed to issue a Template:Uw-harass2 on my talk page (see above) after having done only four article edits. "Troublemakers generally recreate their controversies, in time, and give themselves away" - what lead you to deduce that ? --Penbat (talk) 08:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to cease the bullying, harassment and personal attacks. I've asked you politely on a number of occasions. You have been told by the administrators on two occasions that your accusations are unfounded. Please conduct yourself professionally. I will file a harassment report next time you do this. I have asked the administrators to intervene are restore neutrality to the WP:RM
Wiki-psyc (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bullying culture

Hi there, just wanted to drop you a line about your reversion of my edit on Bullying culture. I never change quotes without checking the source, but this one was uncheckable, and I actually couldn't tell if it was supposed to be a direct quote or not. Since the quoted phrase was so brief, in the middle of a much longer sentence, I thought it might have been just a turn of phrase that the Wiki author had put in quotes for being rather colloquial. A way of saying "so to speak." For that reason, I thought it might as well be grammatically correct.

Anyway, no big deal, just wanted to let you know I hadn't changed it lightly or unthinkingly, nor was I trying to Americanize the language - I try to stay sensitive to that. Thanks! Jessicapierce (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Medworxx

Help! This page has twice been speedily deleted as being promotional. I agree it's very positive, but I haven't found any negative coverage. In fact the company's press releases are less flattering than the stuff which comes from independent sources. Can you help me - either to make it less promotional, or to defend it as it is? I can't see what else I can do to it. I've removed the material which came from the company's press releases.Rathfelder (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry cant help - rather outside my sphere of interest and knowledge.--Penbat (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bullycide

This article was moved to a rather different title. I have just reverted the move and returned it to the original title. I wonder if you have any thoughts you would care to leave on the talk page. Fiddle Faddle 18:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

recent notification

What led you to jump to the conclusion that my edit was vandalism? I even thanked you for your prior edit... Void burn (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth did you undo my revert then ? --Penbat (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and see alsos

I see many, many complaints about the templates. We need the same links in so many places? I doubt it. The text at WP:SIDEBAR says that the purpose of templates is to avoid long "see also" sections. Also, if a title is linked in article text then there's no need for it to be in "see also" too. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:4060:393:581D:3D36 (talk) 10:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also: WP:ALSO: "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." Do you acknowledge that guideline? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:4060:393:581D:3D36 (talk) 11:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated text, #2

Bullying culture #In the workplace

Bullying is seen to be prevalent in organisations where employees and managers feel that they have the support, or at least implicitly the blessing, of senior managers to carry on their abusive and bullying behaviour. Furthermore, new managers will quickly come to view this form of behaviour as acceptable and normal if they see others get away with it and are even rewarded for it.^[1]

When bullying happens at the highest levels, the effects may be far reaching. That people may be bullied irrespective of their organisational status or rank, including senior managers, indicates the possibility of a negative domino effect, where bullying may be cascaded downwards as the targeted supervisors might offload their own aggression on their subordinates. In such situations, a bullying scenario in the boardroom may actually threaten the productivity of the entire organisation.^[2]

Organizational culture#Bullying culture

Bullying is seen to be prevalent in organisations where employees and managers feel that they have the support, or at least implicitly the blessing, of senior managers to carry on their abusive and bullying behaviour. Furthermore, new managers will quickly come to view this form of behaviour as acceptable and normal if they see others get away with it and are even rewarded for it.^[1]

When bullying happens at the highest levels, the effects may be far reaching. That people may be bullied irrespective of their organisational status or rank, including senior managers, indicates the possibility of a negative ripple effect, where bullying may be cascaded downwards as the targeted supervisors might offload their own aggression on their subordinates. In such situations, a bullying scenario in the boardroom may actually threaten the productivity of the entire organisation.^[2]

Workplace bullying#Organizational culture

Bullying is seen to be prevalent in organisations where employees and managers feel that they have the support, or at least implicitly the blessing, of senior managers to carry on their abusive and bullying behaviour. Furthermore, new managers will quickly come to view this form of behaviour as acceptable and normal if they see others get away with it and are even rewarded for it.^[1]

When bullying happens at the highest levels, the effects may be far reaching. That people may be bullied irrespective of their organisational status or rank, including senior managers, indicates the possibility of a negative domino effect, where bullying may be cascaded downwards as the targeted supervisors might offload their own aggression on their subordinates. In such situations, a bullying scenario in the boardroom may actually threaten the productivity of the entire organisation.^[2]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c Salin D, Helge H “Organizational Causes of Workplace Bullying” in Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice (2010) Cite error: The named reference "Salin D 2010" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b ^c Helge H, Sheehan MJ, Cooper CL, Einarsen S “Organisational Effects of Workplace Bullying” in Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice (2010) Cite error: The named reference "Organisational" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

Discussion

Also: Talk:Narcissism#Repeated text: for a similar problem.

I'm confused. If the exact same text is in three articles, then none of those are the "main article". I suggest picking one and putting it there. Duplicate text like this clogs up articles and templates. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:4060:393:581D:3D36 (talk) 11:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed other blocks of text that are reused across multiple articles as well. While it can make sense in some circumstances, there seems to be a pattern here. Maybe the way you're writing or compiling articles could be reviewed to reduce this rampant duplication of text. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:4060:393:581D:3D36 (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be aware of this, but anytime text is copied from one article to another in WP, it's legally important to identify the source article in the edit summary. If you follow that rule, it'll be easier for everyone to track the flow. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:4060:393:581D:3D36 (talk) 12:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion to rename Bullycide

This appears on its talk page. Fiddle Faddle 12:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have strong feelings either way.--Penbat (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is perfectly fine. I know that you care about the topic whatever its title. Fiddle Faddle 12:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images on Setting boundaries

Respectfully, I added back the images on Setting boundaries. The images help readers to visualize this often misunderstood concept. They comply with the Image use policy and, conversely, the manner and reasons given for their deletion do not. It might help to compare the use of images in this article to those in the Exaggeration article which we both have been actively involved. Graphics are very subjective and tastes differ so this is not as clear cut as a fact citation. I'm amenable to constructively exploring alternative options that will aid the readers either here or on the article's talk page. Wiki-psyc (talk) 12:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Penbat. I'm returning my comment here (where it was originally posted). If you wish to host a discussion on the article talk page, please author one yourself. Please do not make posts on my behalf and with my signature. If you prefer to close the matter and discard my note, that's fine. Many thanks Wiki-psyc (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2015 (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) 13:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

madoff and Peter Foster

why on earth do you think these two do not fit the criteria for psychopathy or anti social personality ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Pizzon Lamb (talk • contribs) 23:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected the Peter Foster page. Looks like Pizzon Lamb started using an IP to do reverts. After some lovely name calling on my talk page and edit history, I've also blocked the IP. I've told them about WP:BLP and the need for refs, but that went over their head. Give a yell if you need any help. Bgwhite (talk) 08:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers--Penbat (talk) 09:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mindfulness, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Authenticity. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"true self" and "True Self"

Looks like some links and named may need to be checked:

true self: True self and false self
True Self: "True Self is the fourth album by the Chicago-based music group Soil."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind acknowledgement of my Quality improvement efforts at Lie-to-children

Penbat,

Thank you for your kind acknowledgement of my Quality improvement efforts at Lie-to-children.

I very much appreciate your removal of the "{{notable}}" tag from the top of the article page.

Perhaps you could provide your comment and opinion at Talk:Lie-to-children#This_article_should_be_deleted_redirected. ?

Thanks again,

— Cirt (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I've commented an update in that section, you may as well if you wish, but I think at this point, hopefully, the complaints about notability are more than adequately addressed by the direct improvements to the article, itself, and therefore, resolved. — Cirt (talk) 03:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your addition of my Quality improvement effort to the article Lie

Thank you for your addition of my Quality improvement effort to the article Lie.

Unfortunately, incoming links to the article Lie-to-children were removed from this article and many others all over Wikipedia.

Now that I've successfully embarked upon a Quality improvement project for the article Lie-to-children -- do you think this would be a good time to restore those incoming links to this article that were previously recently removed ?

Thank you for your attention to this matter,

— Cirt (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I've added back the links. Hopefully, now that the article itself is improved, the links will remain in the future. — Cirt (talk) 03:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language

The Cure Award

In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Health Select Committee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Julie Cooper. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Physician has been nominated for discussion

Category:Physician, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Scott Alter (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I removed Category:Physicians from a number of articles about medical associations and journals with names containing the word Physicians to which you added the category, as it is generally recommended to avoid characterizing by "a subject's name ... or by characteristics of the name" (see WP:SHAREDNAME). In addition, as a part of Category:People by occupation, Category:Physicians is a biographical category tree intended primarily for articles and lists about people, not organizations or other entities, which have their own category systems—e.g., Category:Medical associations and Category:Medical journals. It appears to me that you were attempting to convert Category:Physicians (a set category) to a topic category about the profession as a whole. Such changes potentially can affect hundreds or thousands of subcategorized articles, and so I urge you to propose all such changes at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, where you can obtain feedback from other editors. If there is anything that I can to do assist you, or if you have any questions, please let me know at my talk page. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Haptic communication, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Haptics. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Ecosexuality does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Peaceray (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Birthing chair, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page All fours. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your help desk questions

You have responses.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And another response.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander technique and relationship to other somatic education methods

Hello Penbat, I see you've been making some improvements to the Alexander Technique article and overall I agree with your changes. I noticed your edit summary that says that you can't see how Alexander Technique relates to Rolfing and Systema. Rolfing is a form of Somatic Education (see Somatics) which relies on more hands-on contact for some of the movement education aspects but essentially they seem to be working from a similar set of ideas about how the human body functions best. Alexander Technique was a big influence on Feldenkrais, and Moshe Feldenkrais was a contemporary and friend of Ida Rolf. There's evidence that they cross-pollinated ideas quite a bit. As to Systema, I too noticed that link recently and hadn't ever heard of it so I read the article. It seems to be a martial art that is very Somatics-based. I'm actually going to point it out to the other editors on the Somatics article and see if they want to include it there - my only hesitation is whether it is notable enough to bother; the fact that I never heard of it gives me pause as I'm not unfamiliar with martial arts. Anyway, I'm going to reinstate those links for now and we can continue the conversation if you like. Cheers, --Karinpower (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited So (sentence closer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page So and so. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I AM SO sorry

How did I miss your message to my talk page?! Of course I am interested in that article. There was a tag at the top about original research. That can't possibly be true, can it? There is so much out there on the abuse of power in relationships that an author of research is very unlikely to have put in material. I'll get to work right away. It will be a way to work out some of my own issues!

Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks - the article tries to cover power and control in all abusive contexts but at the same time draw out some common features, for example reinforcement and operant conditioning where the abuser entices the abused with gifts etc if they comply but punishes them if they rebel. Enticing the abused is a big part of "grooming". Child abuse grooming etc is entirely missing from power and control in abusive relationships. I don't think the tags are entirely justified.--Penbat (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The have and the have nots article

Could you please fix the format of the information table from the very top of the article please. In starring the listing is out of order. Also, in the character table list, Mitch l, played by Brett davis is only listed as main in season 4, when he was recurring in season 3. I can't do it l, because I only edit with a phone and need a new computer or computer repairment. Please respond back or just do it, because others ignored my messages and never did Zhyboo (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What order do you want it in ? --Penbat (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just leave it like it is, but just make sure in the starring list, theyre names are listed straight and go to the "cast and character section" and add Mitch as recurring in season three on the character table Zhyboo (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Groupthink, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Outgroup. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Psychopathy in the workplace, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Treatment of sexual assault victims"

Hi, Thanks for your edits! I have a question about changing the title of the article from "Post-assault treatment of victims of sexual assault".

Actually, I don't like the old title or the new one. I agree that the old title is long. And I don't like the word "treatment" suggests "medical treatment" and not all of the other things that occur after the assault.

I want the article to provide a list of all things (positive and negative) that a victim of sexual assault would have to deal with AFTER the assault. I like having the "Post-assault' in the title as it notifies the reader that the article is exclusively focused on what occurs after the assault.

Perhaps a better title would be "Scrutiny and mistreatment of sexual assault victims" or "Post-assault mistreatment of sexual assault victims" What do you think? Any suggestions?

Any other comments are appreciated. I plan to make a few more additions to the article (including police interview).

Thanks! User:WSDavitt (talk)

I can see the ambiguity with the word "treatment". I personally dont see that "Post-assault" adds anything useful. Anyway this should be discussed on the talk page. I have reverted for now.--Penbat (talk) 08:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse

Thanks for helping with the Sexual abuse article. Can you help with the problem noted in, Talk:Sexual abuse#Latest additions? Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the article is a bit on the periphery of my interests.--Penbat (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am more interested in the generalities of abuse than getting bogged down in specifics.--Penbat (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 25 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Sam Vaknin page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--Penbat (talk) 08:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REFPUNC

Per Refpunc, Any punctuation (see exceptions below) must precede the ref tags. If you look at the examples given, you will see examples that have references in the middle of the text and the end.
The ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies. You have already done this... Refs in the sentence applies to everything before the ref. Refs at the end of the sentence applies to everything since the first refs.
Style guides say refs before punctuation or after, but never intermixed.
Been fixing these for 5 years. Every Wikipedia article follows REFPUNC except 31 articles due to templates issues. Bgwhite (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Teacher does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Trafford09 (talk) 08:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration

Hi Penbat. Given that you seem to be usually a collaborative person on the WP project, may I ask you your views on Edit Summaries? Thanks, Trafford09 (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Tone policing for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tone policing is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tone policing until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Finngall ^talk 15:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I am completing the AfD nomination of behalf of an anon IP editor as a courtesy and do not necessarily share their opinion of the article. I reserve the right to offer opinions of my own at a later date. --Finngall ^talk 15:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Penbat. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriately listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Appropriately. Since you had some involvement with the Appropriately redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriateness listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Appropriateness. Since you had some involvement with the Appropriateness redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfD close

Hey there Penbat, I went ahead and closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isolation Techniques (Individual) just to get it over with. I may not have expressed it well in my close statement, but I think the best thing to do is exactly what you suggested in the discussion - copy and paste your work from User:Penbat/Isolation to facilitate abuse to the article, and then move it. Does that make sense? Thanks for your work on this! --Cerebellum (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Cerebellum. I was almost losing the will to live.--Penbat (talk) 10:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haha that AfD went on way too long ;) --Cerebellum (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Penbat!

Happy New Year!

Penbat,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year

Hi Penbat, thanks for your New Year wishes and I hope you too are having a good one. Your message made me wonder whether there ought not be some mention of the annual firework event in the Stanpit article. Any thoughts?--Ykraps (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are reliable sources out there. [[1]]--Ykraps (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ykraps, I am sure a mention is justifed and that source is reliable enough. Incidentally I caught some of the reenactment of the Battle of Mudeford a few monhs ago at Mudeford Quay. It wasnt that exciting but local history guru Mike Andrews was there and interjected interesting historical facts. That might have been worth mentioning in Battle of Mudeford but I have not found any reliable source. --Penbat (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought a short sentence or two, but I'm having difficulty deciding where it should go. I wonder if there's enough going on to justify a small culture section?

I didn't see the re-enactment, which is a shame as I would've been interested. Incidentally, do you think the mention of the Ship in Distress as "...actively involved in the Battle of Mudeford", is a mistake? I don't know of any involvement. The S-I-D has connections to both Ma Sillar and John Streeter but this was at a different time. At the time, Hannah Sillar was landlady of the Haven pub (not the one currently there) which was the scene of a shoot-out during the battle. So may be there is some confusion there?--Ykraps (talk) 10:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you've noticed that Mudeford Sea Scouts HQ is called Orestes after the naval cutter HMS Orestes (1781). Might also be worth mentioning as it's on the recreation ground.--Ykraps (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the Christchurch Heritage Festival is set to become an annual event.[[2]]--Ykraps (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Ykraps, I dont have the motivation to do more local history work on Wiki at present. I respect your judgement so do whatever you think is best. This was used as the Ship In Distress Wiki source: http://www.smuggling.co.uk/gazetteer_s_13.html --Penbat (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, I understand perfectly; I have other interests on Wikipedia too. When I'm at a loose end, I'll take another look. In the meantime here are some pictures [[3]]--Ykraps (talk) 10:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Narcissistic leadership copyright problem

I have removed content you added to the above article, as it appears to have been copied from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-010-0450-0, a copyright web page. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative facts

Seriously, man, if you're following this closely, ping me if some RS discusses it as a significant phrase, rather than as a news cycle event, or as an example of Trump's general problem with facts. I'm always open to evidence, and not averse to chaging an iVote when new sources are found. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Article: Social Brain

A reference for starting the article is The Neuroscience of Human Relationships: Attachment and the Developing Social Brain. There are other references available. I am not very well versed to create an article myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.241.53.153 (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Entitlement

Hi Penbat, thanks for your message on the NPD article talk page. I absolutely agree with you that the entitlement article needs to better represent other meanings of the word - it is too US-centric at the moment. I made a mistake when reading the entitlement article because at a glance it didn't seem relevant to entitlement in the sense of privilege/special treatment. LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 12:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Psychopathy in the workplace for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Psychopathy in the workplace is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychopathy in the workplace until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sagecandor (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into Operant conditioning. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dialectical behavior therapy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Positive. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Authority bias

See my comments on Talk:Authority bias--WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed article rename

I've proposed to rename Mind control to Brainwashing. I'm letting you know since you contributed to the article. Redddogg (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Frisby

Finally live: Dominic Frisby. Fences&Windows 23:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thx :-) --Penbat (talk) 08:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2016 Cure Award

In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

Any better quality references for Disengaging from an abuser using the no contact rule or grey rock method? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few self-help books on "no contact". "Grey rock" is such a recent concept that it gets mentioned in many websites but not many books as yet. http://www.smh.com.au/comment/how-to-deal-with-a-narcissist-like-donald-trump-20170202-gu3yzq.html mentions grey rock in some detail. Both concepts have a lot of coverage on Google and Youtube. Both concepts deserve to be on Wikipedia because of their notability. Anecdotally these concepts are often found to be useful by people who use them. "Disengaging from an abuser" is an important topic. It is associated with narcissistic abuse in its modern sense which is an evolving field. The fact that academic studies have not covered this area much has caused a vacuum. It would be almost impossible to do hard science in this field anyway. Popular psychology manages to plug gaps in academic research eg attention seeking, emotional baggage, emotional blackmail, guilt trip and personal boundaries.--Penbat (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Undeserving poor

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Undeserving poor, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for Deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discusion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — Myk Streja ^(when?) 21:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Monkeys

When I say "flying monkeys" followed by "abuse by proxy" I feared vandalism. I acted in haste and I apologize; I restored the text. — Myk Streja ^(when?) 21:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK cheers :-) --Penbat (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Too difficult box for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Too difficult box is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Too difficult box until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Shaded0 (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Fit in or fuck off

The article Fit in or fuck off has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

1. WP:SLANG 2. WP:DICTDEF 3. fails WP:NEOLOGISM 4. sourcing fails WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Widefox; talk 12:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for creating Workplace bullying in academia Zigzig20s (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I added a question on the talkpage.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.--Penbat (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For sure. I was going to create Academic harassment but found this article instead, so I created a redirect!Zigzig20s (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Squatting position has been nominated for discussion

Category:Squatting position, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Fit in or fuck off

On 27 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fit in or fuck off, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the phrase "fit in or fuck off" – an organizational paradigm – has conceptually been appropriated to other contexts? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fit in or fuck off. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Fit in or fuck off), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Penbat. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Disengaging from an abuser using the no contact rule or grey rock method for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Disengaging from an abuser using the no contact rule or grey rock method is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disengaging from an abuser using the no contact rule or grey rock method until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Huon (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Malasana Image

Hi Penbat,

Thank you for the message regarding the Malasana image.

I have found this one on Wikimedia commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:M%C4%81l%C4%81sana_yoga_pose.jpg

Hope this helps!

Milena.

MilenaGlebova1989 (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stour or Avon?

Hi Penbat and a belated Happy New Year to you. I'm glad to see you're still plugging away here. I came across this photo over at Commons, File:River Stour, Christchurch - geograph.org.uk - 1761325.jpg. It looks like the Avon to me. What do you think?--Ykraps (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Off hand I dont know the answer to your question. Happy New Year to you as well and good work on historic ships. Personally I have done all the "must dos" I can think of. I probably got the most satisfaction from squatting position - we all do some element of squatting every day especially just to lower the body but oddly it has generally been airbrushed out. Most people have no idea of its versatility. I am from now on keeping a relatively low profile on Wikipedia - just keeping an eye on things. Wikipedia is enjoyable but it can also have its stresses. On the local history front I have checked out some obvious historic features of Boscombe: remnants of Victoria Hospital, neighbouring water tower, old coaching inn, derelict Boscombe railway station, the Boscombe Devil. Can you think of other prominemt historical Boscombe features that can still be seen ?--Penbat (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the photograph was taken from Convent Walk, just downstream of the Town Bridge, where the fishing punt is, looking towards the far bank. I didn't say so initially because I wanted see if you thought so too without me leading you. I'll have a look when I'm next in town, to make sure.

There are a few interesting buildings in Boscombe. You might like the old technical college (896 Christchurch Rd, Pokesdown) and nearby, the old match factory in Hannington Place. Unfortunately, the old trolleybus depot, next to The Bell, appears to have been demolished but there is still the old tram, and later, trolleybus depot in Southcotte Road which is still used by the council today. Percy Florence Shelley's house in Shelley Park is still there.[[4]] It was at one time an art college but is now flats, I think. However, there is a pharmacy there (bizarrely) so you can have a peek inside. Not far from there, in College Road, is a school which used to be Lord somebody or other's (name escapes me for the moment) home. If you really want a challenge, you could try finding the site of Southbourne Pier and the houses that were built along the sea front, next to it.[[5]][[6]] I think I know where it was but I'm just guessing. Incidentally, did you know there were plans to re-open Boscombe East station?[[7]]--Ykraps (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help! Am I going fucking crackers? Please tell me this isn't the Avon [[8]] and this isn't the Stour! [[9]]--Ykraps (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of self nominated for deletion

Outline of self has been nominated for deletion. Since you had some involvement with its development, you might want to participate in its deletion discussion, if you have not already done so. — The Transhumanist 04:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2017 Cure Award

In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 02:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Penbat. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for that Airsoft edit, but I will have to revert you on the squatting article. There is no reason why this should be an a-typical article, full of useless pictures, trivia, and original research. (Seriously, this? And I can go on with listing unreliable sources.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fundamentally disagree with you @Drmies:, you will have to take it to the talk page. I agree with your campaign to delete trivia from articles but you do not understand this is not one of them. In fact it is the complete opposite. Much of it covers every day actions everybody on the planet does every day, nothing like the trivia you are currently deleting. You do not understand the subject. Some of it happens to be culture specific. It is a very atypical article for which WP:IGNORE largely applies. But there are quite a few articles with more images than this. And you are missing the point singling out this which has its own article Russian squat dance and not one of mine. --Penbat (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is much to understand about the subject. BTW, can you explain what the 2-liter coke bottle full of vodka is for? I certainly do not know that, and the source (haha, "source") doesn't make it very clear. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly have no idea what you are on about and you obviously have no interest in understanding the subject of squatting. IMO your stance is entirely POV. I cannot think of anything more unrelated than squatting and "can you explain what the 2-liter coke bottle full of vodka is for". @Drmies:--Penbat (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You flippantly introduced the section title "Squatting while peeing or pooping" into the article which is slang, not mentioned in the body text, and contravenes MOS:HEAD. Even worse "pooping" is US specific slang not normally used outside the US. I have corrected it. If I look hard enough I will probably find other errors. You seem to have a flippant attitude to the whole article.@Drmies:--Penbat (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your article was ridiculous. "Pooping", a fairly common word, is less out of place than your 50k of verbosity. Actually, I was kind of wondering why there was so much interest in peeing and pooping while squatting; the article seemed a bit bottom heavy, so to speak. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. YOU are asking about the 2-liter bottle of vodka? YOU introduced that with your citation from Urbandictionary: "basiclly all you need is vodka in a 2 liter bottle of coke". Granted, that doesn't mean the bottle is full of vodka. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Hello Penbat,

Please read Wikipedia:Tendentious editing until you understand it, and please avoid that type of behavior. You may also benefit from reading Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. If you continue on the path you've taken recently, things may not end well for you. Thank you for your serious consideration of this matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Open marriage has been nominated for discussion

Category:Open marriage, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Keyboard warrior" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Keyboard warrior. Since you had some involvement with the Keyboard warrior redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed

Hello Penbat! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	I would like to present this barnstar as a sign of thanks for your efforts in trying to help and improve Wikipedia. You have been a valuable and trusted contributor over the years. Regards, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"SquatForChange" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect SquatForChange. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 5#SquatForChange until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 07:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merger of Template:ICD-10 personality disorders

Template:ICD-10 personality disorders has been nominated for merging with Template:Personality disorder classification. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Xurizuri (talk) 07:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Indifference to others' suffering" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Indifference to others' suffering. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#Indifference to others' suffering until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Lack of guilt in psychopaths" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Lack of guilt in psychopaths. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#Lack of guilt in psychopaths until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Lack of sense of responsibility of psychopaths" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Lack of sense of responsibility of psychopaths. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#Lack of sense of responsibility of psychopaths until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Superficial sympathy" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Superficial sympathy. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#Superficial sympathy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Flying monkeys (popular psychology) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Flying monkeys (popular psychology) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flying monkeys (popular psychology) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

François Robere (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films about psychopaths has been nominated for deletion

Category:Films about psychopaths has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films about psychopaths has been nominated for deletion

Category:Films about psychopaths has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of My way or the highway for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article My way or the highway is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My way or the highway until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Dronebogus (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Fit in or fuck off for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fit in or fuck off is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fit in or fuck off until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Dronebogus (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Oh Yeah? (album) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Oh Yeah? (album) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oh Yeah? (album) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

VTVL (talk) 03:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Academics and writers on narcissism has been nominated for renaming

Category:Academics and writers on narcissism has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Oh Yeah cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Oh Yeah cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Workplace bullying has been nominated for deletion

Category:Workplace bullying has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]