User talk:DPeterson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
AMA Alert posted: There are 10 cases that need Advocacy (view by date filed). Advocates, please check in with Aeon for case assignment as there is a large backlog developing. AMA Arb-Team members, please report yourself here as soon as possible.

Welcome!

Hello, DPeterson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If 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. Again, welcome! Brisvegas 07:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Advocacy Case Status

Hello, I submitted an AMA request and earlier responded to your lastest talk to me. Unfortunately I don't check my wiki page everyday so it seems my case was closed somewhere between our posts. I am still however very interested in seeking another opinion on this issue if you can see my resopnse on your advocacy page. Thanks! Tmore3 00:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation @ the John Bowlby article

Hi there! I have taken the mediation case listed here. I have replied on the article's talk page, so if you could reply there with your perspective on this issue that would be great! Hopefully we can work things out. Cheers, Brisvegas 07:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your question on my talk page, I wish I could accept the solution, but this would not resolve the dispute. I have already offered a compromise where both DDT and Theraplay could be mentioned in the article, just not in the See Also section. I still believe this is the best way forward, although I respect the advocate's suggestion (keep in mind that it is his duty to be biased in favour of his client, while I am striving to listen to both sides). Brisvegas 03:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sarner

I came back from a day away from Wikipedia and found that a fight had broken out on my talk page between you two, and that he had nominated the article in question for deletion. I looked through your contributions, and I didn't quickly find any incivility coming from you. However, the best way to get this to stop is to disengage. Do not respond to his messages except once, when you have to, and take any further misbehavior to WP:AN if he continues to be a problem. Mangojuicetalk 01:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, one more thing. Be careful with the term "vandalism". Vandalism does not mean edits you don't agree with, it means edits that are obviously and inarguably inappropriate. I appreciate that you feel harassed, but you shouldn't leave vandalism warnings on editors who disagree with your edits; save those for editors who are actually trying to damage Wikipedia. Mangojuicetalk 02:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I'd considered his edits to the page vandalism because he added numerious "citation" tags; after nearly every sentance, which cluttered up the article. His website actually provided the basis (or reliable source) for most of what he wanted sources for. However, it I am mistaken is labeling that as vandalism, then please do correct me so I don't labor under any false assumptions. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. DPeterson 02:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
IMO, that's a contentious edit, but really, I just HATE that {{fact}} tag. People use it as a very public way of criticizing an article; they should just put {{unreferenced}} at the top of the article and leave it be, or take it to the talk page. But vandalism? Not when you know the guy has a problem with the neutrality of the content; then you know he's actually trying to ask for references for every sentence, as unreasonable as that might be. Mangojuicetalk 02:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome aboard the AMA :-)

I'm glad to see a new name on the list. :-) Welcome and thanks for signing up! As you've probably already guessed by now (by the message you left me on my talk page), I'm Steve the Acting Coordinator. Basically, my job is to tend the WP:AMARQ page and divvy up the cases as they come in. If you need any help with your first couple of cases (or any of your cases, for that matter) don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk or desk. Some people think that this volunteer work can take a few tries to completely get the hang of, but in my experience, by using common sense it is easy, fun and rewarding. Some times, though, Advocacy can hit you with something completely out of left field, unexpected, so it is a good thing to get extra opinions from your fellow Advocates when you need to. As the old platitude goes: The worst question is a question left unasked.

Seeing how you've set yourself up with the AMA Alerts board and the userboxes, I assume that you've already gone over the Guide to Advocacy and the Reading list. If you'd like you can peruse through one of my latest projects, the AMA Handbook, which is far from complete, but when finished will be a quick-reference guide to common scenarios and various policies within the context of a case.

If you feel confident, I have a case that would probably be suited to you as a first run. Head on over to WP:AMARQ and you'll see that I've made a notice under User:Dwo's case that it is "pending on" you. When a case is "pending on" an Advocate, that means that I've asked them to consider it, and if after reading over all of the information posted (as well as clicking the "read full description" link) they're able, they need to do two things:

  1. Set (pending) in the title to (open)
  2. Sign under my comment, with something like ":Accepted. ~~~~"

This tells me that they're on the case and working with the user who requested it.

Now when the case is finished, head back over to WP:AMARQ and set (open) to (closed). That tells me that you're finished and that I can archive the case.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me :-)

Peace! אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 13:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

How can I set it up so my signature is in color and with a link in superscript to my talk page? regards DPeterson 12:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
You can mess around with your signature by going to your preferences. Check the "raw signature" box, and then simply use html font markup to change the colors as you wish. :-) Remember, that your signature is substituted every time you sign, so when you switch your signature all of the times you have signed before the switch will stay the way they are: Only new signatures will reflect your change. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 13:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advocacy

Thank you so much for being able to help me in this instance. The discussions are at Talk:Sesotho language#Someone please help me. and Template talk:Languages of South Africa. My desired outcome is a consensus on this issue, but, judging from the incivility, I doubt that would happen. I guess that I'd just like to know what I should do next and how I should go about doing that. Thank you very much. — D. Wo. 17:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's the Sesotho language page that the argument occured on. When Zulu is refered to on the Sesotho page, it refers to it as isiZulu and not Zulu like (I believe) it should. — D. Wo. 18:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I've been busy moving lately. Don't worry about handling it personally; I can take care of that, but if I ever need any help later, I'll be sure to ask you. I just am really busy right now, but I'll get around to it. Thanks. — D. Wo. 02:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alrighty, here's another one that shouldn't be too hard

Heyo, Steve Caruso here. There is a Request for assistance by Apocalypse cow (talk) on Feral House. Would you be willing to take their case? If you will, please leave a note and sign under the entry on WP:AMARQ and change "(pending)" in the heading to "(open)." When you're finished with the case, set it to "(closed)". If you're not able to take the case, please leave me a message on my talk page so I can continue searching for a willing Advocate. Many thanks! This looks like a simple content dispute that may require some negotation and compromise skills. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA/vote for me) 02:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, and thank you for your offer of advocacy. It appears that the situation resolved itself between my application for an advocate and your taking the case. All best. Apocalypse cow 20:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Your question at the HelpDesk

You cannot view the IP addresses of users unless you have the CheckUser permission which is only given to a few people. GeorgeMoney (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You should make your request at WP:RFCU. GeorgeMoney (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] AMA request

User:FCYTravis began an edit war on Advocates for Children in Therapy and then had the page protected under his version, despite other editors wishing the previous version. He then will not discuss the issues and does not seem willing to consider other points of view. I set up a poll and despite it not being in his favor, he continue to not accept the consensus. I requested mediation and he refused to participate in that. I also think he abused his admin priv by editing the page despite it being protected. (I am not sure how to report this if that is the case). He states that the section he removed is not verifiable and has not citations. on the talk page many have provided citations and websites to support the statement that neither the American Medican Associaiton, American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, NASW, or APSAC use ACT's information despite ACT's efforts to do so. He is REQUIRING that I find evidence that each group states, "We do not recognize the ACT." But that is not my point...only that ACT is an advocacy group and tries to influence those orgs and has not been successful. The talk page for Advocates for Children in Therapy and the section above have the dialogue on these points. DPetersontalk 01:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll be handling your case personally, and I've posted a new section on my personal Advocacy Requests subpage. If you could take the time to outline the events that have happened so far there with diff links where appropriate while I investigate... Well you know the drill. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 14:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Raelism Advocacy

I have entered into a discussion with said IP Address in question on the discussion page of the Raelism article and am seeing what justifcations are being presented for the obfuscation that was being perpetrated in the article. That is where this issue is at for your apprisal of the situation so far. Thank you for your continued advocacy.Gnrlotto 22:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue was that this poster (the still anonymous IP address which you can find here which unfortunately fluctuates due to them not having a permanet Wiki account) got into an editting war over linking to the intelligent design page from the Raelism page when other than name and the most basic tenet of the concept of being created by an outside force, the ideas are nothing alike memetically speaking. It'd be like claiming that burritos and sandwiches are the same because they're both a flour based product filled with a meat or vegetable product. We were having a discussion about this on the talk page wherein the poster skirts the issue of getting an account the whole time, which makes my discussion point on the page "the link is a false classification reading either as an attempt to legitimize Raelism by linking it to a generally accepted concept as being of Christian origin, or by trying to make the Christian idea of ID seem even more foolish by linking them to what has been called several times in the press "A UFO cult,"" seem to be true while my original idea that "should someone want to create a separate page wherein the differences between how the Raelians view those subjects (and virtually every other group unilaterally views them), as long as it is not made up of original research, then full steam ahead. Otherwise, since the Raelian belief structure is so different from how the terms are universally viewed, it is misleading to leave those links on the page only for people using them to find out that the way (for example) ID as viewed by the general populace, and government, is completely different to, and therefore lacks any relevance to, Raelian cosmology," was not opposed by any of the regular users (who actually have accounts) who've worked on/contributed to the Raelism page itself in the past.Gnrlotto 19:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
My proposal, if any would be that unless something specifically shares a memetic trait with something, they not be linked, especially in a religious concept. Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back has lightsabers, Mark Hamill, and Carrie Fisher, but I just can't call it Star Wars 7 if I want. If we want to set up a poll, fine, but the original discussion proposal I made is now several weeks old, and none of the other regular users had a problem. Maybe the page could be made only accessible to members or something. otherwise, I'm happy. Gnrlotto 01:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Poll: Should references from the page to other articles, and vice versa be based on the ideas simply having the same name, or should they be linked due to the actual content of the concept? Gnrlotto 04:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Speaking as your Advocate...

DPeterson, after looking over the entire rigamaole I have some points that I feel that I honestly need to go over with you. Yes, FCYTravis is not being civil and is rather stubborn, but in all honesty I strongly believe that he has a point. I'm not 100% sure what your stance on Attachment Therapy is, nor what your exposure to ACT is, but the additions that you are writing into the article are not completely within the spirit of Wikipedia and no matter how many times I read over them, myself, I can't help but get the feeling like it is an attempt to discredit ACT. I do understand how you want the article to reflect that they are not within "the mainstream," but we need to find a way that does this within the letter and the spirit of the Wikipedia's Rules and Guidelines. What would you like to see this article emphasize? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 23:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your observations...that quells a lot of my angst. I think what I'd like at this point is for the page to state, as it does as of this moment, that, "Professional medical and psychiatric organizations such as the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the National Association of Social Workers have not taken positions on ACT's work, although these groups do seek and use input from various other advocacy groups. (http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/4134.html) ( http://www.apa.org/releases/teachersneeds.html) (http://www.phrusa.org/research/torture/pdf/psych_torture.pdf) (http://www.psych.org/news_room/media_advisories/mediaadvisory.cfm) ( http://www.naswdc.org/pace/default.asp) [1][2][3][4] "

Note: I put in all those links to satisfy FCYTravis, but don't really think they are necessary. However if you do, then that's fine with me. I suppose this is one of the central roles of an advocate; to present options and advice in a way that ends disputes...being a trusted ally makes those comments and recommendations much more acceptable. Thanks. DPetersontalk 16:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Your "warning"

I'm sick of these ridiculous warnings. I suggest that you carefully read the wikipedia guidelines before leaving another baseless warning on my talk page. Articles need references and that is that. If you're concerned with my motivations, please look at my contrib history. You'll see that I sputter wikipedia around cleaning up articles. The ACT article led me to the others. This same reply can be found on my talk page. shotwell 17:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

In reponse to your comment on my talk page, asking for references does not constitute vandalism in any sense of the word. shotwell 17:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, putting the [citation needed] after nearly every other line, particularily when there are clear references and sources Template:Verifiable at the beginning, in, and/or at the end of each paragraph to support the material is considered vandalism. Please read the Wikipedia policy on this. DPetersontalk 17:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I put the request for references on claims such as "this therapy is very effective", practice guidelines, and other similar things. These sorts of things deserve very good references demonstrating that they are representative of widely held beliefs in the psychological community. shotwell 19:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

'Citations and references provided.'DPetersontalk 01:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Attachment Therapy.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 12:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Related users?

I notice that Shotwell began to edit around the time Sarner stopped and now the reverse has occurred. Furthermore, their writing style, syntax, and arguments are very similiar. The same goes for StokerAce and the previous edits by Mercer's son in FL (he used just an IP address, no name). It might be interesting to see if they have similiar IP addresses. RalphLendertalk 13:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That is an interesting observation...maybe it does bear looking into further. DPetersontalk 21:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop your "vandalism" warnings on my user talk page

As you know, you have recently posted two vandalism warnings on my user talk page. Please stop. I have not been vandalizing anything on Wikipedia, but making good faith edits. I once had an administrator caution me about bringing false charges of vandalism. He said:

Now to answer your concern about vandalism reporting: vandalism is the kind of edit that no one should have a disagreement about. Here are a couple of examples of true vandalism: [1] [2] [3]. Edits other people want to make and you don't like are not vandalism, and it's a kind of incivility, if not a downright personal attack to describe someone's good faith edits as vandalism.

Larry Sarner 06:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Your refusal to follow Wikipedia practices and polices regarding dispute resolution and your continued reverts can be interpreted as vandalism and meet the descriptions of that term. Please stop and begin to follow the dispute resolution process. DPetersontalk 00:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE finding regarding Sarner

The outcome of the sockpuppet investigation was a finding of vandalism: "please list diffs of vandalism for C. Dmcdevit·t 21:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)" See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Sarner JohnsonRon 00:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sarner"

[edit] Mediation over Advocates for Children in Therapy

You have been listed as an involved party in Advocates for Children in Therapy, and I have accepted the case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-07 Advocates for Children in Therapy. If you can please take a look at the case and let us hear your side, I would appreciate it. Thanks! Nwwaew(My talk page) 13:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to your message

I will help... if I have a link! Nwwaew(My talk page) 13:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I put what you needed on your talk page. DPetersontalk 14:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Association of Members' Advocates

Hi, you are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, or if you have resigned, please de-list yourself from Wikipedia:AMA Members. If you are still active, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Category:AMA Requests for Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) Sorry for the template spamming - we're just trying to update our records, after we had a huge backlog earlier in the week (if you've been taking cases, then sorry, and please ignore this :)). Again, sorry, and thanks! Martinp23 20:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appropriate Removal of Puppet Tag

You're not really supposed to remove that tag.shotwell 03:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

When the tag is placed as an act of retaliation it actually becomes vandalism. You are not acting in good faith and so removal of the tag is acceptable. DPetersontalk 03:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no retaliation here. I've been collecting those diffs for the last several days. I really think that you should read the notes for the suspect. Simply calling me a vandal won't make this allegation go away. I certainly hope that I am wrong. shotwell 03:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The Mediator involved in the case has labeled your act as unacceptable. "That was COMPLETELY unjustified. I think this shows that you will do almost anything to keep the article from the majority of editors. Nwwaew(My talk page) 11:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-10-07_Advocates_for_Children_in_Therapy

DPetersontalk 01:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AMA case

Hi, I'm going to be your advocate for the AMA case. Addhoc 21:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formal mediation

We have an open mediation cabal regarding ACT. The disputes on that page are distinct from the issues on DDP. I don't think it'd be productive to merge unrelated disputes (they're only related because the same people are involved) into one mediation case. I see that we both have advocates involved, so perhaps we should ask them their opinion? I'm agreeable to whatever method will most effectively resolve these disputes. shotwell 23:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, that mediator said it was their first case. I can appreciate that everyone has to start somewhere, but I think it is difficult to expect a first-time cabalist to mediate multiple disputes across several articles. shotwell 00:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Have a look at User talk:Ideogram#Merging of cases... Addhoc 00:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
It would probably be useful first, since there is an active mediation case already, if you (Shotwell) articulated what specifically you wanted for each page so that we can see how this all fits together. DPetersontalk
To repeat what I'd stated on the DDP article:

We already have a mediator involved in the case...let it proceed. It might help if you stated what you want, in specific language, on each of the pages you are disputing: Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, Bowlby, Candace Newmaker, and Advocates for Children in Therapy. This way everyone could see how this all fits together and address all the related points in one organized and integrated manner. DPetersontalk 23:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC) Also could you address the point raised on the talk page for the Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy article: I don't see where Dr. Hughes says that he engaged in "very" coercive techniques in the past. The material does say that the method is compliant with the APSAC guidelines and the APSAC report writers do acknowledge that they are 'not' saying the approach is coercive; this leads to compliance with the bulk of the guideline. It may be that your personal views cloud(or maybe bias is a better word?) your vision a bit on this and other related points. DPetersontalk 23:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC) DPetersontalk 03:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Could use your help

User:Shotwell has been busy creating difficulties in a manner similiar to that of user:Sarner on the Candace Newmaker, Bowlby, Advocates for Children in Therapy, and Dysdic Developmental Psychotherapy articles. Because a question was raised about his relationship with Sarner and a sockpuppet was uncoverd by a mediator, he has retaliated by labeling everyone in the dispute a sockpuppet. I could really use some help here; an advocate to get this stopped. I think the mediator is over his head and does not know what do to...he's not responded in a while. I'd appreciate some advice, direction, and help...should this go to arbitration? DPetersontalk 03:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I truly apologize for not getting to this sooner. Are you still in need of assistance, my friend? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 17:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Not a problem...you've been busy with a wonderful joy. (I have a few children). Best wishes to all. User:Addhoc has agreed to be an advocate here. It's a pretty complex one as I've described...but he has agreed, so that should work just fine. Take care. DPetersontalk 00:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

I don't think that we need mediation over Bowlby or Newmaker.

  • On John Bowlby, I think my only comment was about sourcing information about living people. I think that the dispute there between Sarner, you, and others could be easily resolved if someone added additional information about the legacy of his work (thus balancing out the undue weight that Sarner believes is being given to DDP). I'm not familiar with that dispute, so this is just a guess.
  • On Candace Newmaker, I thought we were doing a relatively good job at effectively resolving our disagreement. I think our diverse points of view will ultimately make the article much better. It seems like we've been agreeing more than disagreeing there anyhow (for example, most of us agreed on removing the names of people not directly related to the case). Our largest dispute revolves around using Attachment Therapy on Trial as a source, but I think that finding additional references is the key to resolving this issue. As another example, someone recently removed information from the article, but then placed it on the talk page for discussion. I expressed my unhappiness about the removal, but agreed to discuss it and to help find more sources. I would call that collaboration, even if we're disagreeing. If we have a serious and unresolvable dispute there, I think we'd be able to easily find outside opinions by making an RfC (since the subject was widely reported in the news).

I'm narrowly concerned with the Advocates for Children in Therapy and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy articles. As you suggested, I'll post my specific concerns soon (rather than wait for mediation to "officially" begin) to help quickly resolve the disputes. Please understand that I'm not going to list proposed changes sentence for sentence, but I'll clarify where needed.

If you and others want to include Bowlby and Newmaker in the mediation, then I'll agree. Keep in mind that I won't have much to add concerning the Bowlby dispute except for what I said above. shotwell 00:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

As you requested, I've written my proposals on a "clean page". It can be found at User:Shotwell/DDP and ACT. shotwell 01:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Bowlby article, unless there are specific suggestions for changes, I suggest it stay as written. Regarding the Candace Newmaker article, unless there are verifiable and reliable sources provided, I suggest the deleted paragraphs remain deleted. Regarding the Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy and Advocates for Children in Therapy articles, I suggest that specific wording regarding additions, changes, and deletions be proposed so that editors can discuss those in detail. DPetersontalk 01:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I appreciate that you'd like to make sure the issue is settled in my mind -- that is very kind of you. The issue won't bother me, so I consider that settled enough. shotwell 22:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. DPetersontalk 23:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dodo Bird Verdict

I'm unrelated to the person who put the reference initially in the psychotherapy article, but the Dodo bird verdict is topical, and something that has come up in all of my various types of theories of psychotherapy classes. I recommend readding it to the article, and redacting your accusation of vandalism.leontes 14:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry if the edits seemed as vandalism. As the article in question opens with the line "The Dodo bird verdict is a phrase sometimes used when evaluating different techniques used in psychotherapy", I assumed it was a related topic for psychotherapy. My apologies if it is not. --Jopo 08:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Not a problem. DPetersontalk 15:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schizophrenia

It seems this material keeps getting reverted into/out of the article, past few days. Looks like an NPOV/POV dispute, since the material appears to have sourcing. From a quick glance, it appeared most of the editing going on was related to the dispute in one way or another. If you'd like me to reconsider protection, feel free to ask and I'll take a closer look -- I kind've had a hunch that was the direction your message was headed, but I wasn't quite sure. Luna Santin 15:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP Munich

Hello,

You are invited to join WikiProject Munich!



There are a lot of things to do in this project. From creating new articles to finetuning articles into featured article status.


How can you help?

  • You can join a Task Force.
  • You can help comform Munich-related articles to Wikipedia Policy.
  • You can get free Munich-related images under GNU Free Documentation License.
  • You can create and edit of Munich-related articles.
  • You can do translations from German Wikipedia to English Wikipedia on Munich-related articles.
  • You can help do assessments of Munich-related articles.
  • You can help expand articles currently in the Stub-class and Start-class.
  • You can help reference articles.
  • Since original research is against Wikipedia policy, you can research topics to expand. This means you don't need to know anything about Munich.
  • You can help expand stubs and start-class articles and help finetune other articles into Featured article status.

A WikiProject of this nature is very broad. Munich has a rich history in sports, culture, politics along with many more topics. Feel free to help out in your area of interest.

If you want to check the project out you can click the link above. If you want to join the project, you can sign up here.


If you have any questions feel free to contact myself or any other member of the project.

I noticed you put the unreferenced tag on EHC Munich. Are you big on referencing? Because I'm going to start an Article Referencing Drive in this project once there is a fair amount of members. Kingjeff 16:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

So would you like to join WikiProject Munich? Kingjeff 17:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Mihai cartoaje

Please be careful about WP:3RR there. There is little point re-reverting unwanted messages William M. Connolley 12:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The Mediation Cabal: Request for case participation
Dear DPeterson: Hello, my name is Glen S; I'm a mediator from the Mediation Cabal, an informal mediation initiative here on Wikipedia. You've recently been named as a dispute participant in a mediation request here:
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/schizophrenia

I'd like to invite you to join this mediation to try to get this dispute resolved, if you wish to do so; note, however, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate, and if you don't wish to take part in it that's perfectly alright. Please read the above request and, if you do feel that you'd like to take part, please make a note of this on the mediation request page. If you have any questions or queries relating to this or any other dispute, please do let me know; I'll try my best to help you out. Thank you very much. Best regards,  Glen  23:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smoking and schizophrenia

Hi there,

As MedScape is a secondary source, it would probably be better just to cite the original peer-reviewed research that it cites. It's not clear to me from the MedScape website whether all article are peer-reviewed and to what standard their peer review operates.

-Vaughan 18:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Medscape is a primary source and the articles are peer reviewed by professionals in the relevant field...it is not the AMA, but is isn't Good HouseKeeping either. The articles cited are primary source with Medscape being the source. My reading of Wikipedia is that material should meet the standard of being verifiable and, I think, that material does...but, if you disagree, maybe we could discuss it further(?) DPetersontalk 23:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/USERNAME

I have reverted your edits to the above page as that's supposed to be a generic "example", not a real RFC. If you want to file an RFC on someone you'll have to replace "USERNAME" with their real name. 68.39.174.238 23:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schizophrenia & violence

I'm sorry how this discussion ending up going. I originally just missed the mention of non-adherence, being focused on the actual study results + phrase ceasing medication. The complete revert by another editor misquoting from the article, + finding out what the cited source actually found, just seemed to make things impossible, re. ensuring a balanced and fair account of people with this diagnosis. I hope it can be resolved better. I'm going to try some suggestions there later.

This is all also annoying because I was intending to ask you whether you had any particular thoughts or alternative suggestions re the cognitive therapy/CBT page suggested move... EverSince 12:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: personal attacks

sorry about that - my mistake. Also the intent was to delete my comment rather than your comment. You may delete both comments if you deem this helpful 202.0.106.130 22:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments...apology accepted. Generally it is not good form to delete comments from a Talk page. The protocol is just to add any clarifying comments or change one's position etc in a following comment. not a problem here. Regards. DPetersontalk 00:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foster Care

Hi, Thank you for naming your concerns re the section move. I disagree with your ascertation and have applied a request for comment section to see what others think. In the meantime I've left the research as a separate section until we see what others feel. --Brideshead 20:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. DPetersontalk 20:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block


[edit] Regarding reversions[4] made on February 22, 2007 to User_talk:Mihai_cartoaje

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 19:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Revert warring

Please refrain from revert warring again today. If it is unclear to you why your additions were moved to the correct place read the page carefully. The relvant rules are bolded and very very obvious for you to detect. Take a close look. Remember that your socks are only legitimate if you don't abuse them, as you do now to avoid the Three-Revert-Rule. See the relevant policy here: WP:3RR. Cheers. And please note that for your nonsensical repetitive posts on my talk page I have created a section just for you. Use it if you are at it again. --Grace E. Dougle 21:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Domestic Violence

I am a bit confused about your explanation for changing the Domestic Violence entry, it can only be that you did not carefully read what you were reverting to. What you were reverting to is a much larger number of unsourced statements that I have edited to take them out and in some cases, I even added sources to the statements of others. What was left unsourced was not my statements but the statements of the previous person and by reverting it, you increased the number of unsourced statements and managed to also revert to a bunch of unfinished sentences. I am sure you are just busy, but it would be helpful if you took as much care as I did when editing something. I figured that I might not be able to make something perfect, but at least I can make it better than the stuff you reverted to.

[edit] Checkuser?

DPeterson: Would you voluntarily agree to undergo a checkuser so we can clear up the sockpuppetry allegation once and for all? There are some technical reasons why the checkuser folks might not undertake the request, but if you agree to it, then they might consider it after all. Thanks! | Mr. Darcy talk 18:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue has been resolved...there were previous allegations and those were unfounded. I am not going to glorify this uncivil user's personal attacks. The matter seems to have been resolved for now. DPetersontalk 16:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to say, sorry if I misled you in any way, I did think User:Grace E. Dougle might just be stressed out, but since I was offline, having a weekend, I notice she really doesn't seem to be ready to listen to any kind of reason. --Zeraeph 02:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem...she seems to have left for now. regards DPetersontalk 16:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

You need to list your RFC vs. DorisH on the requests for comment page. FCYTravis 01:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ACT page

Hi,

Thanks for the message. I was wondering why you kept deleting my edit! To explain, the reason I made the change is that the "none are licensed mental health providers" statement makes it sound like they are not experts in the field. In fact, they seem to have written extensively about the subject, as shown in the links. So I was trying to counterbalance the "none are licensed" statement. Maybe it makes more sense just to take that out, though. Just about every academic in every field would need that qualifier if this were the rule! PsychPHD 01:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

They may have written a book (or two) now in the popular press and have a lot of promotional articles on their website, but they don't qualify as experts in the field. Actually, most "academics" in clinical psychology, social work, marriage and family counseling, psychiatrtry, etc are licensed in their field of expertise. DPetersontalk 01:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The links for Sarner and Rosa were not a full CV, so there wasn't much detail, but Mercer's includes the following publications and presentations related to attachment therapy Mercer, J. (2001). "Attachment therapy” using deliberate restraint: An object lesson on the identification of unvalidated treatments. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 14(3), 105-114. Mercer, J. (2002). Child psychotherapy involving physical restraint: Techniques used in four approaches. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 19(4), 303-314. Mercer, J. (2002). Attachment therapy: A treatment without empirical support. Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, 1(2), 9-16. Mercer, J. (2002) Attachment therapy. In M.Shermer (Ed.), The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience (pp. 43-47) .Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Mercer, J. (in press). Violent therapies: The rationale behind a potentially harmful child psychotherapy and its acceptance by parents. Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice. Mercer, J., Sarner, L., & Rosa, L. (in press). Attachment therapy on trial: The torture and death of Candace Newmaker. Westport, CN: Praeger. “Law, policy, and attachment issues”; presentation at the Second Annual Conference on Attachment of the New Jersey Psychological Association. June 9, 2000,Newark, NJ.“Misuse and abuse of attachment theory”; keynote speech at 2002 Annual Meeting, New Jersey Association for Infant Mental Health, Piscataway, NJ, Nov. 2002. If that doesn't qualify her as an expert, I don't know what does -- she may be the most prolific writer on the subject out there! As for the license, it seems clear that she's not a clinician, and does not claim to be, thus no license. Based on all that, does it sound reasonable to made the edits I suggested? PsychPHD 02:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I only count three publications in peer-reviewed professional journals, all five to six years old. They are interesting opinion pieces, but I don't see the content representing any detailed scientific exploration of the subject...It is fine to publish your personal opinion as Mercer does...that does not make one an expert, especially in a clinical field when when one is not a clinician. Finally, the article has the statements you want....DPetersontalk 21:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

But three publications in peer-reviewed journals makes my point -- that's probably more than anyone else has done on the subject! And that CV seems dated because it doesn't even list a recent one in Medscape that I've come across. It seems to me that four or more peer-reviewed journal articles definitely makes her a bona fide expert on the matter. Like I said, I wouldn't have bothered pointing it out except for the "they are not licensed" statement, which seems like it's intended to undermine their credibility. If that were taken out, I would say the statement about their publications is not necessary. But if stays in, I think it is important to balance it out. As for your question about my interest in the issues, it's actually more personal than professional. As you can probably understand, I'd rather not get into the details in a public place like this! PsychPHD 00:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, Mercer is not a licensed mental health clinician and neither are Sarner or Rosa, so they really do not understand clinical issues in a professional sense and the papers are opinion pieces not research. They are not licensed mental health professionals. They are advocates...and are lay-people, not professionals in the relevant field. Writing editorials does not make one an expert in a particular field. Furthermore, the statement you wish to add is already there in the article, and therefore not necessary to state again.DPetersontalk 12:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Archive

instructions.DPetersontalk 12:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/p/e/User_talk%7EDPeterson_eca1.html"