User talk:Penbat/Archive 3

DYK requests

Here is the list of all the contributed articles from my side which are waiting on DYK they are all psychology related:

Your help in reviewing them would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance. Khyati Gupta (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A brownie for you!

thanks very much.--Penbat (talk) 07:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. When you recently edited Abuse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Isolation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 04:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Emotional baggage for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Emotional baggage 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/Emotional baggage 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 template from the top of the article. Cresix (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional baggage

I created the AfD with Twinkle, which automatically informs the creator of the article. You are perfectly free to inform anyone who has been significantly involved with the article as long as you don't WP:CANVAS. I assume if the article is important to an editor, it is on that person's watchlist. Cresix (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you and SummerWithMorons for your work in improving the Media manipulation template. I (the creator of said template) am a relatively new editor and this is my first template. It's great to see other editors taking my work and making it better. --Andrewaskew (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Westhues

Hi, Penbat. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia in terms of editing and contributions. I made a minor change to the Westhues article today. In checking the edit, I gather, almost all of the information specific to Westhues and mobbing was eliminated -- good information in my opinion. Would you have time to take a look? Thanks. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please join the new discussion at Talk:Kenneth Westhues where I contend that it's inappropriate to have detailed information about mobbing in a biographical article. Thanks! 21:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I know you have strong feelings about bullying

I have just been encouraged by another editor to move a sub page into Wikipedia space, an essay on Cyberbullying. As I say on its talk page, I am not wedded to any of it. It is there to create en environment where Wikipedia can deal well with Cyberbullying and work against it based upon what are, so far, embryo guidelines. Because of your involvement in articles in bullying I wanted to draw it to your attention. Please treat it in any manner that you see fit. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Penbat (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Innuendo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intimation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Professional

Category:Professional, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Winterbourne View hospital abuse

In light of a second Panorama program, further revelations and the recent care-workers convictions, I thought I'd try and split this off into an article of its own. Thanks for helping out. Ankh.Morpork 18:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yes cool stuff.--Penbat (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bullying

Hello Panbat! I've added a new section to the talk page of the article bullying. Please add your opinion to it. Thanks! Dol Grenn (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

t-shirt

I thought that you deserved something a bit extra for all of the amazing work you've done for the project.
I've nominated you for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation!

Thanks. Incidentally check out User:Jacobisq. He has done tons of awesome work on Wiki psychology articles.--Penbat (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can nominate him? Lova Falk talk 19:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just done that.--Penbat (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion through edit summaries

Please note it is strongly discouraged to engage in discussions through edit summaries, as you have done at Talk:Individualism. While it is understandable that you objected to the other user's removal of another's comment, there are other ways to resolve the situation. Salvidrim! 12:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Westhues

Penbat, Any chance that you might want to weigh in over on the Westhues' page? Most of the substantive material was deleted and I restored it, contrary to the wishes of ElKevbo. It will likely be deleted again, shortly. Thanks, in advance, should you choose to lend a hand. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have mail!

Hello, Penbat. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Regarding a t-shirt nomination :) Jalexander--WMF 02:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Compulsive behavior, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guilt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Hello, Penbat.

I am sorry I have unintentionally stolen your topic User:Penbat/psychiatric abuse. Now the main article is called Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union and written on the basis of both English and Russian sources, because I am Russian. You are a little late for that. Psychiatrick (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Narcissism. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. In this case it would have been better to report the IP to WP:AN3, as by persistently reverting you are merely extending the edit-war. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Penbat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There is no evidence that Black Kite took any consideration of the background context to this, other relevant links were provided with the block request for the IP user. The edits at Narcissism are simply a sideshow or overspill from the main action at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Individualism&action=history and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Individualism&action=history. Anyway my edits at Narcissism were simply to preserve the status quo, one revert supporting me was done by User:Lova Falk. Exhaustive efforts have already been made to try to in vain to engage the IP user in civil and rational discussion on the same issue by myself and User:Lova Falk to no avail on the individualism talk page also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive779#Talk:Individualism Another user in the discussion took a stronger line than me on my side.--Penbat (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Had you reported this user to WP:ANEW before you passed three reverts yourself, you wouldn't be blocked. Or, if you'd brought this up at WP:ANI once you realized what was happening—and again, before you passed three reverts. You had other options besides engaging in an edit war. Frankly, you've been around long enough that you should've known that, once you filed the noticeboard report, you'd have gotten hit with the WP:BOOMERANG. ~~That said, I'll gladly reconsider, if you make clear below this (you can do a standard comment without the unblock template) how you'll behave differently in the future.~~ —C.Fred (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC) (edited 21:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Penbat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Er yes i did report it to WP:ANEW initially and then it got transferred to WP:ANI see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive779#Talk:Individualism but for some reason after initial admin intervention by User:Salvidrim at User_talk:118.36.229.221 it died a death even though i and User:Lova Falk pointed out that it was still not resolved. I gave the link as one of the links given as part of my block request for the IP user and i gave it just now as part of my previous unblock request above - have you not read it properly. Just to underline the point if it was not clear already - the dispute at Narcissism is identical to the dispute at Individualism. Penbat (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; one open request at a time. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sorry, your user contributions say otherwise. I count nine reverts to Narcissism today with no intervening noticeboard posts. —C.Fred (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Penbat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Er yes i did report it to WP:ANEW initially and then it got transferred to WP:ANI see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive779#Talk:Individualism but for some reason after initial admin intervention by User:Salvidrim at User_talk:118.36.229.221 it died a death even though i and User:Lova Falk pointed out that it was still not resolved. I gave the link as one of the links given as part of my block request for the IP user and i gave it just now as part of my previous unblock request above - have you not read it properly. Just to underline the point if it was not clear already - the dispute at Narcissism is identical to the dispute at Individualism. Penbat (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; one open unblock request at a time please. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Penbat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Can i have somebody other than C.Fred this time. I seem to be talking to a brick wall. I just said "Just to underline the point if it was not clear already - the dispute at Narcissism is identical to the dispute at Individualism." It was just a simple matter of reciprocating "See Also" links. If the comments made by me and User:Lova Falk at WP:ANI hadnt been ignored by admin, todays issue wouldnt have arisen. There is no reason why an issue has to be confined to a single article. My WP:ANI entry was about the behaviour of the IP user not specifically about an individual article.--Penbat (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't see any vandalism or BLP issues; thus, I don't see any exception to our edit warring policies that allow your behavior. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

But your block is about your behaviour. Since you're not willing to address your violation of policy, I am done here. I endorse the block without reservation, but I'll leave it to other administrators to consider it further. —C.Fred (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inspite me repeating my self several times you dont show any indication that you have taken in a word I have said or have any grasp of the context of this issue. --Penbat (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that you keep re-adding something into an article against consensus because you hold the WP:TRUTH. I will warn you now, if you even insert it ONCE into the article after this block expires, you WILL be blocked indefinitely for edit-warring. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand it, you cannot insert even correct information into an article against consensus. You need to wait until consensus changes or invite someone to change consensus. For example, I heard that pharmaceutical companies often changed consensus by inviting users and paying them money for that. Psychiatrick (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Narcissism, Individualism".

Guide for participants

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:

It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

What this noticeboard is not:

It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

Things to remember:

Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~".
If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 11:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Violence, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sublimated and Dark Ages (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Abuse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Physical

Ego depletion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Guilt

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Penbat, I observed that today you made a small edit on the occupational health psychology entry. You have over the years made timely edits on pages on which I have worked. Thanks.Iss246 (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thanks for the linking help; much appreciated! Firecatalta (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sexual assault, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guilt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion: Leadership styles

Hi there! I noticed that you tried to nominate Leadership styles for deletion earlier. I have had to revert this because the page was not nominated correctly. Usually if there has been a previous nomination we keep that log history and instead start a new page. If you would like to renominate this page again you can do so by following these instructions here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate a single page for deletion. Thanks Funny ^Pika! 19:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Legal abuse for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Legal abuse 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/Legal abuse 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. Fladrif (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]