User talk:Zeraeph

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive1

Hi Z, I think your decision to limit the AfD is a good one, but I have a question. Did you mean to strikeout the original page as well as all the others? Is your intent to cancel the whole AfD and start from scratch, or keep it open but limited to the single page as your text seemed to indicate? Sorry I'm so dense...it's getting late here. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 03:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries, you should see what my first AfD nom looked like; it was pretty screwed up. Fortunately one of the Admins with experience gave me some useful tips. The situation now is defintely a bit muddled and and the key would be to avoid making it worse. Looking at the "votes" (which aren't really votes, BTW), it seems like the final verdict will be "Keep" regardless. Maybe the best course is to let it go for now and take some time to reconsider. If you still feel strongly about it after some time has passed, then you call always open another MfD with narrower scope. I wouldn't personally recommend pursuing it, but it's definitely your option. Hopefully though, the situation might change in the meantime. Anyway, thanks for clarifying your intent; you probably need to remove part of the strikeout if you haven't already. Good luck. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 04:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the whole dialog has moved to my Talkpage. Let's just continue there. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 04:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You were so incredibly gracious, Zeraeph. By comparison, I was the most noisome little gnat. Stressful. Counter character. But you weren't being treated nicely or fairly, and it really inflames me, to see people being mistreated. Hope you had a pleasant day. I want some real weather to get here - still way too warm. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 22:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Invitation

I'm inviting you and the other editors I've been talking with recently to visit this Talkpage which I've just created. While I'm hoping it will help, I'm also open to the possibility that I'm just an obnoxious busybody :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 00:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I signed on for the mediation, although I rather wish I hadn't been named in the first place. Still, I'd like to see things resolved and I'll do what I can to help. Since this is my first involvement in an "official" process I may respond a bit slowly in an effort to make sure I'm doing things right. I'll also need to make a major effort to curb my runaway (and sometimes wretched) sense of humor :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 03:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's okay Doc. Just get heavy-handed with the smiley faces. ;o)
I, at least, have a sense of humor that is exceeding obscure to thes two gentlemen :o( so am in DESPERATE need of every possible visual indicator of state of mind.
Don't feel pressured about the mediation. It truly is not scary or stressful. A supervised environment with admins to oversee us 8-)
No pressure to say anything except as the spirit moves you. :oP
Thank you for joining us. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 03:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Z, don't worry it's not a problem. I'm sure it will be a...learning experience :)
Kiwi, you make me laugh. ;)
Maybe we could collaborate on an article sometime; remember working on articles? It's been a while for me and I'd like to feel productive again. It seems to me we could probably work well together, and have some fun in the process :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 04:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Glad you don't mind TOO much...articles...now I AM niffed off, because you have reminded me that there was some really great editing happening to the BPD article, which has all halted :o/ --Zeraeph 04:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
When I want tranquility I like to work on articles about State Parks, National Forests, or possibly Gardening. When I want mental stimulation I work on Alcoholism articles. When I want controversy, name calling, and irrational ad-hom attacks I visit a page about Religion or Politics, change my mind without editing, and go back to Gardening...tranquil is better :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 04:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFMF on Benis AfD

I'm puzzled by this edit of yours. None of the links within the template lead me to anything that's informative. As it stands, it's merely confusing (and I've therefore commented it out). While the idea of a request for mediation on an AfD strikes me as very strange, I don't want to prevent you from asking for it. However, if you do make the request (or have already made it, in some place that I haven't noticed), please ensure that the template points to it properly. Thanks. -- Hoary 04:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfM

When you tweaked the RfM all the sigs in "Agree to Mediation" were lost. I'm not sure what the intent of your edit was, but I'm pretty sure that wasn't it, so I reverted to the signed version. If I'm mistaken and you meant to remove the sigs, just restore your latest edit. Sorry for any confusion. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 18:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you posted to my Talkpage I've replied there and I'm going to copy my initial post there as well. I tend to be anal-retentive about keeping threads together; just one of my many little eccentricities :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 18:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, WDragon responded on the mediation page, but I'm not sure how it will affect the Mediation Request itself. Possibly it will be rejected since he has technically refused to participate. If it is rejected, then it would probably be acceptable to submit a second, seperate request that's formulated somewhat differently. I'll try to clarify my position in case things go that route:

Since I am not involved in the primary issue I think Mediation could reasonably proceed without my involvement. However, I have had relatively significant secondary involvement, and at this point I consider myself an "interested party". If you feel my participation is appropriate and/or would benefit the mediation process then, by all means, include me.

I didn't mean to sound grumpy yesterday, I just have a slight allergy to anything with the word "official" in it :) Once the initial reaction passed I realized this would actually be a valuable learning experience. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 03:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of Benis/NPA Theory AFD

(copy/pasted from Hoary's talk page)

Zeraeph, I completely concur in the necessity of including the AFD because, for one, it helps demonstrate the PRIOR exchanges between you and Psychonaut, demonstrating how you conducted yourself with decorum. Secondly, it helps demonstrate how you and I related, as well as how I typically conduct myself and express myself. As we stand accused of being, our deepest characters and intentions having been vilified, the vital role of the AFD absolutely MUST be included. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 21:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


==Wizardry Dragon Attempts to Misuse Mediation Request Page==0

I have removed Wizardry Dragon's "testimony" and his invalid signature from the RFM brought by your (and, if I may, myself). I have posted to this Talk page explaining that the stated rules on that page do not provide for anything but acceptance or refusal and that comments, in any case, are not allowed. I have deleted both signature and his testimony in the case and am hoping that an admin will permanently delete the latter from the page history. How do we do request that? --A green Kiwi in learning mode 04:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC) Two words - Aversive Conditioning

[edit] just checking in

Hope you are well and that the quiet on your end is your enjoying the fall weather. On my end it is simply the emotional stress quiet of rabbits and other grass-eaters. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 11:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Z, i posted a suggestion to Kiwi's Talkpage. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 18:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your New Userpage

I couldn't resist; I just couldn't. If you really don't want that page to exist, just let me know...I can have an Admin delete. Next time, don't stuff beans up your nose. :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 04:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:PSY

I think that might be overkill. There are probably hundreds of psychology articles on Wikipedia, and I doubt that most of them require extensive discussion. Anyone can rate an article, and anyone else can contest that rating. A system of having provisional ratings is probably too bureaucratic, not to mention that no other WikiProject is doing it. I think that most discussions are fine to just take place on an article's talk page, and if something does get controversial, it can then be brought up at the WikiProject page or other dispute resolution areas. —Cswrye 05:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Benis/NPA AfD

Benis' astroturfing campaign just got slashdotted[1]. Thought you might be interested. Kaldari 21:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 23:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aarwangen

I hate to burst your bubble, but I didn't make it work. I did some mass-editing with AWB recently that included "general fixes", but the only thing I changed in Aarwangen was the {{commons}} template, replacing it with the tidier {{commonscat}} category. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psychopathy

Hi. I'm new and actually don't have that much experience. I thought about sending you notice of what I was about to do, but then I was shy, and I also felt that you might tell me not to bother. It must be hard to let others mess with your hard work. So, I decided to just show what I could do, and let you hack it up later, which you did. As for my edits, I have attempted to balance sensitivity to those of you (especially you) who have worked hard to create the article as it stands, and "being bold." I do respect yourself and the other major contributors. Anything that took out was redundant as far as I remember. Redundancy is bit of an issue with this article.

I did try to incorporate most of what I deleted, just as you said you did with what you deleted from what I wrote. I think the links that you added are good, and I can easily imagine how the PCL-R could dominate the article. I felt that a little more was (is) appropriate because of how it helps to distinguish the disorder from APD. As, the discussion area makes clear, people such as ourselves who believe in the validity of psychopathy will constantly criticized by those who believe in APD. They do have the DSM4 on their side. I also wanted to say that the PCL-R is proven to be both reliable and valid, which I'm sure you know, have specific meanings in psychology and scientific research.

Now that I have you, a couple of other things:

  • The "Childhood" area. It is lacking references, and is not esthetically pleasing. Do you think it should be edited? The list part is the part I am referring to.
  • The "What is psychopathy" area. Is there any way to make the list into two columns so that it doesn't appear to be as long? (This is yet another of those things that I haven't learned yet) Also, do you think a list from the PCL-R would be better than the one from Cleckley? Don't get me wrong, I am a supporter of his, but psychology puts a heavy emphasis on recent work.

Anyway, I appreciate your efforts to make the article into what it is.

Best regards, Moomot 22:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As other users have told you before, you do not own that article. You do not need to edit everything I write. You could stand to let other do some of that, and see what develops. You have misquoted me. I said that the PCL-R has "proven to be both reliable and valid" which is significant. The article needs work, and I will continue to contribute, because I have the ability and right to do so. If you wish to be adversarial then so be it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moomot (talk • contribs) 03:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
"Wild inaccuracies" is and exaggeration, I do have references for everything I wrote, unlike some of the material in the article already. Anyway, I do not want to continue to snipe at each other. This is Wikipedia, and yesterday worked like its supposed to. I think the article is better today than it was yesterday. There was some rough parts in what I added, but I expected you and others to help. You said yourself a lot of it was good. Your edits made it better (it is very difficult not to have some POV stuff sometimes). So, let's agree we are on the same side here. I do wish to make the article better and I have read and understand Wiki rules very carefully. Finally, Zeraeph, it is obvious you are intelligent, and I say again I appreciate your efforts on the article to make it what it is. Peace. Moomot 13:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
PS, I changed your user page by accident. It doesn't seem to let me delete it, I already copied it here when I realized my mistake. My apologies.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../z/e/r/User_talk%7EZeraeph_54cd.html"