User talk:Scarpy/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Copyright issue in SA article

per your response to SA ... the definition is not complete "For the unmarried sexaholic, sexual sobriety means freedom from sex of any kind. And for all of us, single and married alike, sexual sobriety also includes progressive victory over lust."

How do we include this? --Golden2001 (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration on addiction and psychology articles

Craig - you said that you'd like to work with me back in February. I'm not sure how to even leave a message Noting that my questions about adding to the Cannabalism in cinema page were never answered that I know of but I became a member of that group and my talk page is filling with their newsletters like the space in front of a house when the owner forgets to stop the paper.

I'm writing professionally now - ghost writing that is, so I'm addressing a lot of topics that I am already well read and experienced with - namely addictions. Your guidance would be most appreciated. Feel free to email me with ideas and instructions so that I don't get lost again.

BTW I next plan to add a line or two to the "denial" article introducing Jack Brehm's theory of reactance and William R. Miller's Motivational Interviewing approach as the solution to avoiding reactance/denial. He cites research in which a subject's resistance/denial is dramatically raised and lowered in response to changes in the interviewer's style (confrontational or reflective-empathic).Henrysteinberger (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you know what page you left the comments on? I couldn't find them here: Talk:Cannibalism in popular culture.

Good to hear that you are writing professionally. I know a bit about community psychology, but not much about addiction medicine if that's what your writing on.

Something on Motivation Interviewing would be a good addition to the Denial article. -- Scarpy (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

China Boycott on Notepad++

Hi Scarpy, you feel that the forums cited on Notepad++'s section on the China Boycott were not Reliable Sources, but they were actually primary sources. First I cite the official website's announcement and then the forum created on SourceForge specifically to boycott Notepad++. Perhaps you feel that the reactions cited were not representative of the general disagreement (because they were chosen from forum posts), but surely the facts that Notepad++ wanted to Boycott the Beijing Olympics and that many users reacted to it by deciding to boycott Notepad++ is not disputed. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 03:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disputing it's occurrence, just it's notability according to Wikipedia guidelines which measure notability by the number of third-party reliable sources documenting a topic. While the websites you cited are official, they are also self-published sources. If the topic has been covered by multiple third-party publications with reputations for fact-checking and accuracy, and you can use them as a basis for that section, by all means add it back. Doing a quick check, however, I can only find one French source. -- Scarpy (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

added a reference to your WRAP user page

Cheers Earlypsychosis (talk) 08:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Scarpy (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Alcholic like a mofo

I'm good, but thanks. Not trippin' on the Patriot Act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.234.247 (talk) 05:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ironic, in the modern sense

"Telling someone “Don't be a dick” is usually a dick-move." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.234.247 (talk) 08:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

scarpy!

I love this username.. it's so fun to say... scarpy! .. Thought I'd share that :) A8UDI 15:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Chapter in cite thesis unnecessary

The reason for Chapter in cite book is due to chapters authored or edited by authors or editors other than the book author or editor. Ie: Books can contain complete works with authors different to the book. Theses are necessarily sole authored. The capacity to cite a chapter is unnecessary. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be useful to cite a specific section of a thesis. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually no, if you're citing a sole authored work, the citation of components should be occurring by page. If you're citing a case study from a larger work, and you really need the chapter title to establish context, you should really be questioning the cherrypicking going on. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that the page number should be cited for components of sole authored work, but that doesn't mean the chapter (if there is one) isn't useful. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Religiosity

Oh, so you were talking about Religiousity section, albeit, obliquely. Slow boat to China with me sometimes :')> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.18.216 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 16 December 2009

There was nothing oblique about it, when I made the comment on the talk page (November 30th the information was not in a "Religiosity section." Please sign your comments. -- Scarpy (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Muh bad. Don't know how I got so confused and have remained so. But all's well that ends well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.18.216 (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

CODA

Thanks for responding to my entry on the CODA talk page. Sorry, I didn't sign my entry. A Bot signed for me and then I took off the small tags so people can read who wrote it. Anyway, I left a (signed) response to your response over there. Ciao. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Debtors Anonymous (Discussion area)

Please see recent post to you here--

Respectfully,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Debtors_Anonymous

75.166.170.132 (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It's just a Wikipedia article. -- Scarpy (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

RiTL-Steering

Nothing intrinsically, but the user had created an article on an eponymous recovery program. Daniel Case (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ohh, right. I see. Thanks. -- Scarpy (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Debtors Anonymous

Please do not revert my writing before I have a chance to put in the citations.

Also a courtesy that is commonly extended in Wikipedia editing is to place a note that says "Citation required" instead of just deleting someone's work. I would appreciate this courtesy.

You are also misinformed, there is nothing original in what I wrote-- it all comes from DA literature. Please don't categorize my edits as "original" when you are not thoroughly familiar with DA literature.

69.171.160.11 (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for creating a work-page for me), I appreciate the help!

69.171.160.132 (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Blue book cover.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Blue book cover.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous

Maybe you're right about the Further Reading, then. I must go through it at some point and try and weed out the extraneous elements, though it's something of a thankless task. And I simply love the section you just added on the Triennial Surveys; I thought I was going to have to write that bit myself. I hope you agree that things are rather looking up for the article? --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 05:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Definitely agree, it is a huge improvement. The results from the triennial surveys were removed awhile back without an explanation, and I didn't notice it until the other day.

The further reading list is obnoxiously long, but much less than it was before. What's in there now is a piece of a much longer list of books, articles, dissertations and theses added somewhat mysteriously to the twelve-step program article over two years ago. Where possible, I had tried to move the articles in the list to pages that they would seem to be appropriate sources for. I formatted some of them and ran them on citation bot to try and get DOIs or PMID for them where possible. I've read some of the ones that I could find and seemed interesting. We should do something with the list, but removing it at altogether would be a waste. -- Scarpy (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Help on article peer review

Hello, I posted the article strip club for peer review and saw that you are a volunteer in the Society and social sciences category. It would be a big help if you could provide comments on any of the criteria points (comprehensive, neutral, etc.) for the article before I post it for WP:FAC. Thanks! - Wallanon (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll review it. But I just broke my right hand so it might take a while. Scarpy (talk) 06:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Methadone anonymous

Hi Scarpy

Searching for Methadone Anonymous, I found User:Scarpy/Methadone_Anonymous. I'm in the middle of a very light copy edit at Buprenorphine, and found a dead link to Methadone Anonymous. Do you know if there are any viable MA groups or useful, reliable websites? Anthony (talk) 05:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Aah! I just found this at the bottom of External links, so I guess that'll do nicely. Sorry to trouble you. Anthony (talk) 05:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

A nice cup of...

Caffieinebooost (talk) has given you a cup of coffee, for taking the time to weather a dispute. Thanks for staying calm and civil! Coffee somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a coffee, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, bitter goodness of coffee by adding {{subst:WikiCoffee}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm a noobie

Hello Scarpy,

I'm new to Wikipedia and I made my first "real" edit the other day for Ciphertext. I saw that you were listed as a peer review volunteer and it looks like you know a lot about Computer Science and Wikipedia in general. If you could take a look at the article and give me some tips that would be great!

Thanks, Styfle (talk) 22:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing, I will have a look this week. -- Scarpy (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Mr Albert

Hi Craig, just a quick note to let you know that the user MisterAlbert is back editing Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous. I noticed you have worked on that article recently and thought you should know before he starts a hatchet job. Cheers - Mr Miles (talk) 08:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I haven't been able to keep up with Wikipedia as much as I would like lately, work has been keeping me busy. But, I will try to keep an eye on it. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable source verified at wiki notification board

Source Tom E., Glenn C (11 October 2008). Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) Recovery Outcome Rates: Contemporary Myth and Misinterpretation. Archived from the original on 2009-12-19. http://www.webcitation.org/5mA3r6hSn. Retrieved 2009-12-19. 3 unamed authors, unpublished, i had the stats verified by a statician source material unreliable Changes have been made to the pdf file in the last 24 hours, which leads me to believe an editor on this board could possibly the source of the document, the 4 page pramble is gone, along with any reference to a name period, regardless it is not a reliable source . A Mr. Miles appeared on the notification board posting arguing his case. I removed it from the page, only to have it reinstated with a need for a discussion , re posted with reason in edit summary, reverted again aka anonymous wants to argue his case , however you have already done that on the AA board, to no avail, he has reverted your last edit , I reverted to your last edit, and he has reverted.. suggest a 3 edit warning Jayseer (talk) 06:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean this pdf has been changed? -- Scarpy (talk) 09:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I went to that page three times yesterday, the intro page by Tom E. et al stating the purpose for providing the findings was missing, hence it had no names period, since then I see it is restored. Jayseer (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Loran Archer has posted on the AA talk page, should you wish to comment. -Mr Miles (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It definitely is an account with the username Loranarcher, let's not jump to conclusions. -- Scarpy (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect changes Comparison_of_help_desk_issue_tracking_software

>>>>>Please stop adding non-notable entries to the Comparison of help desk issue tracking software article. I did several changes becouse there are many incorrect or empty information in article itself. Example 1. Remedy Action Request System is not the application or tracking system it is platform, environment (like java or php) It just mistake to have the platform in the list insted of the product itself Why my changes why undo? Example 2. Backends for most system in the list well known and can be found. Why all these corrections were rolled back? It just not make any sense :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igray7 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

All entries on the list need to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, see WP:N. If they have an article, and the article is written using reliable sources then they satisfy these requirements and can be included on the list otherwise they are non-notable until proven notable.

I'm not sure I agree with your point about Remedy. Similarly, if you can find reliable sources that support your claim, and they can be cited in the article, you can make the proposed changes. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)