User talk:Zeraeph/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Megalomania

  • Zeraeph, I think that would be great. The reason I merged it was because of what the megalomania article had become. The article was essentially a brief definition and then a list of "megalomaniacs." I think it started in the original article as a list of megalomaniacs in literature Through edits it evolved an unreconcilable POV from anyone who decided to diagnose some political figure or celebrity they didn't like with a mental illness. I actually hope you do put up a good article about megalomania and wish you luck. Cpaliga 17:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin

Actually that admin message is kinda old. I've been an admin since August. What happened is I just archived all my messages, and I have that there to refer to the popup code it contains. That's why I responded to the RfC at Narcissistic PD, and also why I got so ticked at J... whatever, because it's not cool when one admin ignores another's requests for comment. --DanielCD 14:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psychopathy

Hi,

I have noticed you have been quite active in editing the article Psychopathy; indeed, we have discussed a few matters on its talk page. I would like to remind you, though, that this article, despite your keen and welcomed interest, is a collaborative effort and is not truly "owned" by anyone. For instance, your opinion that "grandiose sense of self-worth" is not an important aspect of psychopathy may carry some weight (it is does not weigh as heavily in psychopathy as in narcissism), but there is much evidence contraposing it (e.g., it's an item on the PCL-R; Cleckley describes egocentricity, a poverty of love and the affects in his Mask of Sanity; etc.). Narcissistic personality disorder is certainly a separate psychiatric construct, but narcissism is also recognized as a factor in the psychopathic personality. The "grandiose sense of self-worth" item comes into play from actions such as bragging, being contemptuous of others, or believing to possess the right to impose one's own sense of (often vengeful in the psychopath's case) justice.

In psychiatry, the word morbidity is simply used to describe psychiatric disorders present (borrowed from the broader meaning used in general medical practice). A psychiatrist may discuss a patient's pattern of morbidity (i.e., signs and symptoms) to make a diagnosis or several diagnoses (then the diagnosed conditions are said to be comorbid in that indvidual). The reason I suggested morbidity to replace diagnosis in the introduction was that diagnosis implies that a physician has formally made the diagnosis when, often (in the case of serial killers), the individual's particular pattern of psychiatric morbidity is surmised well after the fact (and thus not technically diagnosed). I admit, though, that this splitting hairs and rather make more meaningful contributions to the article.

Some contributions I may add are as follows:

  • Considered treatment avenues (cannot use therapy that relies on a person's innate empathy; rather, the therapist must appeal to a psychopath's self-interest)
  • A discussion of burnout of antisocial behavior in psychopaths (it's usually between ages 35–40) towards a level of reoffending more typical of a severe nonpsychopathic criminal offender
  • Relevance to philosophy (specifically, moral philosophy) and theology; discussing the various opinions of culpability in psychopaths
  • Greater depth on psychopathy's relation to other psychiatric disorders
  • Psychological profile (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory; Big five personality traits; measurements on anxiety scales, fearlessness scales, sensation-seeking scales, intelligence tests, and other psychological testing) and the primary/secondary psychopathy distinction
  • History of terminology (manie sans délire, moral insanity, constitutional psychopathic inferiority, sociopathic personality, etc.) for this concept and psychopathy's use in describing a broader range of psychological differences; current disagreement on the equivalence of antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy should be put with the rest of the terminological discussion
  • Perhaps a separate section delineating the fact that most psychopaths are not serial killers or rapists and what kinds of social predation they are more likely to commit (e.g., instrumental violence used to control more frequently than explosive, emotion-laden violence although psychopaths are more likely to commit both)
  • Various anomalies common in the aggegate data of psychopaths (more beats per minute, or meaningless hand gesturing while speaking, among psychopaths; decreased recognition of fear and sadness among psychopaths; abnormal processing of emotional words and imagery among primary psychopaths; overall less emotional display among psychopaths; less lateralized processing of language; etc.)

Why I haven't added any of this yet is because I haven't gotten around to digging through the research and searching for the facts. I encourage you, though, to continue making improvements to the article; and, if you feel like tackling any of these sections, yourself, go ahead. I'm also a full-time college student and have plenty of work to do unrelated to this article, so I contribute in my free time for fun. I don't expect anyone to contribute anything; and I do not believe it is necessary for anyone to have such an expectation of me, either.

--NeantHumain 18:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dissociative identity disorder

Here's one that's escaped my view in the past. It needs a lot of work, as there is a lot of uncited material and superfluous material on controversy. If you could, take a glance at it. --DanielCD 21:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

BOY! WHAT A MESS...just when I was wondering how to spend NEXT weekend...thanks --Zeraeph 21:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I just hope the s**t doesn't hit the fan when the regulars come back around. --DanielCD 22:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The DID guys don't take prisoners, neither are they signatories to geneva convention...believe me! But the thing is, even if a person is sincerely possessed by 7 demons, the DSM label is still DID and the hypothesis still applies --Zeraeph 22:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm the REGULAR. I wrote much of the article. Zeraeph, DanielCD's intro para is much better, as it starts out by explaining what DID is -- a psychiatric diagnosis -- rather than starting with historical info re name change. That info logically comes later.

I will resist mightily any attempt to turn the article into a ho-hum treatment of DID as established fact, denied only by a few weirdos. I rewrote the article to counter a takeover by the DID-believers and Peter Barach of the ISSD, all of whom have a stake in asserting that DID is "real". (You can manipulate people with "real", but you can't push them around with "delusion".) Of course I have a personal agenda too, as will become apparent if you read the talk page. However, I have tried to do my best to give all POVs equal billing.

Talk to me, don't sneer at me. Zora 22:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Before DID, there was MPD (multiple personality disorder). Sure, the name was changed in 1994, but the syndrome described was essentially the same. The one crucial distinction was that the name MPD, and the description, assume several distinct "personalities" controlling one body. The claims of the sufferers, that they are distinct "people", is accepted. The DID diagnosis suggests that the belief that one is "multiple" is a delusion. IMHO, the change was politically motivated, in that psychology/psychiatry were getting extremely bad press from people like Bennet Braun.
I disagree strongly with the notion that all controversy should go into "multiple personalities" and that DID should be left unsullied by questioning. Now it's possible that a different organization of the material might make sense. We could have a historical treatment of the MPD/recovered memory mania (still not over), and refer to that in the DID article. We could also include some of the text of the DID and MPD diagnoses, pointing out where these diagnoses differ. We might also link to the article Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is actually quite good at presenting the controversies surrounding the DSM.
Just as a matter of encyclopedic style, it is better to start with what the entity IS, before going into its history. Zora 23:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


Hi Zora, firstly that wasn't DanielCD's intro I changed, it's WAY older than that and does not encompass the facts. I think the intro needs a total re-write to take the facts into account. That the older title is more descriptive is really as much an useful device for a quick fix than anything. NEEDS MORE work, but NOT reversion to inaccuracy.
Secondly I am NOT sneering at you...however, that the APA has an hypothesis called "dissociative identity disorder" IS established fact...but does that hypothesis relate to reality?
I, frankly, have no idea, I do not know enough...yet...and maybe never will? Some of that controversy belongs in the article, but it should not dominate the article.
I hope you are going to stick around to balance the "believers" as we fight for an objective article that describes a psychiatric hypothesis (<NB THAT WORD!!) --Zeraeph 23:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move to article talk page?

Sure! Zora 23:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Great, we have our first concensus ;o) --Zeraeph 23:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hope I didn't inadvertantly pull you into a minefield. I was a little overzealous when I first found this one. --DanielCD 01:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow. I thought it was rather good myself, but so many people are coming in and complaining about it, I was beginning to question my sanity. Thanks for that breath of fresh air. --DanielCD 02:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major changes

Might I suggest that, before making major changes that have potential implications for the entire Pedia, you bring the discussion to the Talk page. Admin or not, the sweeping change you made, especially as your reasoning for it is academically insupportable, without consensus, was inappropriate. --Mjformica 12:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

(repeated from your own talk page) Mjformica, please believe me:
a) I am not an admin
b) I hate reverting that, particularly as it would seem to have been James Morrison's fantastic "Simplified Version". However, the APA has even made James Morrison take it down from his own site :o( and they weren't nice about it. I know, I checked with him
However, it has already been discussed on administrators noticeboard AS WELL as in talk and decided it was best to go along with the APA who refused permission. The reason being very simple. They refused permission for ONE SPECIFIC page. They get very nasty, if they see non-compliance on the page for which they refused permission they may well (on previous form) start checking the whole site and issuing writs.
I would be delighted if you would mail Chad Thompson at the apa ( CThompson@psych.org ) particularly using your qualifications as leverage, and request the APA give permission for the wording JUST AS YOU REVERTED IT. I would also be delighted, AND support you, from the bottom of my heart. If you wanted to try and lobby Wikimedia to take a stand on this, but until then we HAVE to go with the previous concensus and just post a link :o(
Check the discussions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Narcissistic_personality_disorder , at the time I did not have an account and participated as 82.195.137.125 --Zeraeph 13:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I remember

Hey, I remember you! I haven't forgotten about DID. There has just been an explosion of activity in another arena I've been tending to. But if there are any scuffles regarding anything, please feel free to message me, and I will do my best to mediate. Also: I hope you don't feel like I dropped you into the DID article and forgot about you...because I haven't... --DanielCD 00:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A little circumspection

Zeraeph, I've looked at your edit history. You've only been here a month! That's not much experience to bring to editing a very high-profile, controversial article. And if you're wondering why I was looking -- I was surprised that you were taking such a hard-headed attitude to throwing out POVs, anointing one POV as "the truth", etc. You haven't internalized WP:NPOV yet, IMHO.

You've obviously got the brains and the prose style to be a very good editor, but please try, back off, learn a little caution. Zora 12:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Zeraeph, it is possible to describe something without putting it forward as the truth. It's just a matter of using the right language. So if you want more material on the DSM-IV at the top of the page, we can add it there -- if it is stated that it is the DSM-IV's opinion, and not stated as if it were WP's opinion. We don't take sides!
If I'm to judge by the other entries on your talk page, one of the problems is that we aren't allowed to quote the DSM-IV, we just have to paraphrase it. Still, it's possible to paraphrase in a way that does not presume the truth of the matter.
Isn't this a problem that belongs on the "talk" page? The only things you have to paraphrase it to presume are:
  1. Accuracy in accord with the DSM criteria
  2. Not BEING the DSM criteria, nor presented as such, byut just as a description
The diagnostic criteria are only relevant to people who accept the DSM IV TR criteria for the very simple reason that people who do NOT believe in it are not going to go round diagnosing it, are they?


Existing article needs LOADS of polish and details, wikification etc, but apart from that, go show me where there is ACTUAL RELEVANT POV, and if it is POV, that is REALLY relevant to DID we will spin it every which way till it cuts that out. --Zeraeph 16:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
One of the things you learn on Wikipedia is to sidestep assertions of fact (X) and merely state opinions (Foo believes X; however, Bar believes Y). Zora 12:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
One of the things you learn as you get older is that putting the marbles in the egg basket, in spite of many apparent connections and similarities, never works terribly well and winds up spoiling both - go check Multiple personality controversy I think I only had to delete the first three words (for context) to make it totally relevant. It IS important, but In it's own right not smothering DID --Zeraeph 16:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I am changing a bit in my editing interests/routine, and I don't intend to work at the DID article anymore. Sorry to have caused the fireworks, but a lot has happened lately you guys may no be entirely aware of. If you guys need someone to arbitrate, go to RfC. I'm really not up to it at this point. --DanielCD 15:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, the fireworks needed causing and I think will ultimately prove richly constructive...I now pronounce you formally "off the hook" ;o) --Zeraeph 16:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks...Please be gentle to each other. But I know you two are reasonable guys. I'm a lot better now, so I can help with some arbitration. I wouldn't have called you in if I didn't know some positive fireworks would fly. Some events lately almost led me to leave editing Wikipedia altogether. But I guess it's good to go through that and survive to the other end. Makes you stronger. Perhaps I'll return and do some copyediting and see if I can help in a supportive/scuffle-mediating role. ;-)) --DanielCD 22:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


My pride may have gotten a little bruised, but some others got into the crap a lot worse. Ya want to improve the psych articles, and everywhere you go you have to fight an entrenched pro/con mindset. Well, I'm avoiding anything controversial for the time being. But thanks for the message! --DanielCD 23:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
BTW, since you are into Psychology-related stuff, see Ego, superego, and id. It's up for AID at the Article Improvement Drive. Do you mind if I blue-link you? Red gives you an "I'm kinda here, but might not be tomorrow" kind of feel. --DanielCD 23:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yea, don't even need words. Not important though. At the Ego..etc article, I was just meaning for you to vote for it at the AID. See ya round!--DanielCD 00:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Bingo!! ;-) Welcome to a blue world (but a happy kinda blue!) ;-) --DanielCD 00:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DID Update

Z -

You're welcome to make whatever changes, as you see fit. I tried to get it into a concise, and pithy prose, but there just seemed no way to get around the fact that it's a really complex topic that bears lots of plodding explanation. you should have ssen the first draft! YUCK!! --Mjformica 15:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

My feelings exactly on the second read...couldn't snip a word without losing meaning, so I guess the only thing to do is "de-pragmatise" all statements and let it be otherwise --Zeraeph 22:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Let's try not to cater to Zora. I'm much more inclined to have the article consistent with the other Psych articles in format, than to worry about a single individual's POV. Hence, the reversion. --Mjformica 17:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Check it out. --Mjformica 18:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I know the sources. Don't hurt yourself. I'm just being lazy about putting them together. You can also go to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychopathology page to see Zora's latest rant, and my considered response. --Mjformica 18:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Re:Psychopath page...Touche, dude. --Mjformica 19:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DID

I might be coming full circle here after all. IRL, I am actually considering a project generally focused on dissociation, but I haven't narrowed it down just yet. If I cross some of the DID material in my research, which is likely, I would likely be able to contribute some real info. We'll see. --DanielCD 23:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Thank you

Zaraeph, thank you for moving my discussion on the DID Talk page to the bottom. I thought I was supposed to put it at the TOP for some reason! Dragoon was the second person to say I hadn't provided a discussion and I was beginning to think I had lost my mind because I could SEE my discussion RIGHT THERE. Now I know people just weren't seeing it where they expected to.JenniSue 21:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving discussion to the DID page

Zaraeph, the reason I didn't post to the DID talk page is because I was afraid of violating the 3RR rule. But maybe I'm confused. I've been reading wikipolicies and wikiconcepts and wikipedia entries all day and I am kinda wikireeling trying to keep it all wikistraight. :)JenniSue 23:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Curiosity...

No, MH Sanctuary is not my site. It's run by Tim Pheil, an APRN. I am the Therapist in Residence, and have been for over three years. The gentleman who was said before me wrote "I Hate You Don't Leave Me", and when he could no longer donate his time to the project -- which is pro bono -- , I was contacted to take his place. Why, does that present some sort of issue? Blessings --Mjformica 18:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC) (Talk to me)

PS -- I'd appreciate it if you'd keep this information to yourself.
I want to keep the issue under wraps, not because it's embarrassing, but because I don't need stalker/groupies or any one else tracking me down.
Secondly, does it occur to you that the CV on that page is out of date, and the credentials that I listed here are current?
That 3 insults in 2 days. Nice job. We're done. --Mjformica 13:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
"Of course it does beg the question of WHAT ON EARTH somebody so well qualified (and genuinely knowlegeable) is DOING associated with such a pseudo-psych, quack friendly site, at any price, let alone pro bono?"
"I wish you wouldn't do that, because you DO have so much to contribute, but if you are only prepared to do so on terms of "If I can't be the boss of the game I am NOT playing", then I don't think any of the other people who also have a lot to contribute are going to want to play with you, and both you (yes, I know you think you know everything and have nothing to learn from anyone, but you are probably mistaken about that), and they, will miss out on SO much."
Missed these. That'd be 5. You, my friend, no matter how charming, can be an unqualified ass. --Mjformica 14:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
You'll notice one of those Doctorates is an ABD, resigned in 1991, and is accounted for on the other CV. --Mjformica 16:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but it would not be common useage to refer to "6/88 - 8/91 Columbia University, NY; Doctoral Candidate: Cognitive Science, retired" (see http://www.mhsanctuary.com/therapist/cv.htm ) as "Doctoral degree (ABD), Cognitive Science." (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mjformica&oldid=39621484), mostly on account of the "retired" generally meaning that you did not complete the course and the degree was not awarded --Zeraeph 16:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

ABD also implies that the degree was not awarded, for failure to complete the dissertation - hence, All But Dissertation. And I cannot be accountable for the failure of someone else to update their website. Now, as I am done defending my credentials, piss off. --Mjformica 17:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, such, charm, such elegance, such politesse! LOVE it!

Even so, I think you will agree that to say "Doctorial Degree (ABD)" is an extremelly misleading contradiction, in terms that perhaps, on reflection, would have been better avoided?--Zeraeph 17:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

All of my qualifications are legitimate. You're about a hair's breadth away from a liable suit. I'm also wondering...how old are you?...12? --Mjformica 23:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
"(1.)All of my qualifications are legitimate. (2.)You're about a hair's breadth away from a liable suit. (3.)I'm also wondering...how old are you?...12? --Mjformica 23:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)"
  1. Prove it.
  2. I don't think so, try it.
  3. None of your business, but if you were right, I'd be about 7 years old than the way you are acting.
You posted some excellent impartial information, it's a shame you had to indulge in so much bullying, manipulation, and exaggeration, but you were caught out, you claim you are bowing out, I suggest you do so with more dignity.--Zeraeph 00:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wanna form a support group?

Or just share a defense attorney? (I know a good one -- she works really cheap!) Maybe it will be possible to make some progress on the DID article now. I'm fighting the same thing on the borderline personality disorder page. I'm thinking about starting an entry for bully that begins with "Bullies are primarily characterized by a complete inability to sense irony." Cheers! (P.S. are you really in the UK?)JenniSue 03:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] help

at Achilles de Flandres

Is this sentence redundant? "as well as a large number of sociopathic and psychopathic tendencies" ? Are these different or should I remove one? I was hoping you'd know. --Shadow Puppet 21:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

yea that's the situation. thanks. I'll try to see if I can word it in. --Shadow Puppet 01:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple personality controversy

Nice work! --DanielCD 14:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of invalid DID links

Protocol question...shouldn't red links be left on a page to encourage the writing of an article? Or is it more 'pc' to write the article and then add the link? Cheers! --Sadhaka 14:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC) Talk to me

No suckering needed. Just time. --Sadhaka 15:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC) Talk to me

[edit] Hey

Sorry, I was reacting to your statement about NonBP:

NonBP is POV, contentious, agenda driven and not well validated or proven

I'm not sure what you meant by it, but it sounded to me like you meant "NonBP" (as in the type of person) didn't exist. I just have no idea what that means exactly, as I understood NonBP to be someone who lived with a BP sufferer. Its a widely used term in support groups and probably popularized by Walking on Eggshells. Perhaps I just didn't understand what you meant. :) joshbuddytalk 01:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure about the NonBP article itself. Granted the words does not have any formal definition or is recognized by psychiatrists, but its value is in helping people who have been through relationships with people with BPD, a sort of hell that unites them together. I can understand your disdain from the word, I suppose I think its rather unfair of you to paint others who choose to use it with such a broad brush. joshbuddytalk 05:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DID clean-up

Z - one of the problems with having a vast resource of information at one's "mind-tips" is that, while I rarely make an error in quoting stuff, sometimes I have a hard time remembering where I saw it. Now, I know when this was written, I was referencing articles, not books, which narrows things down quite a bit...I have a huge library, but don't tend to keep articles lying about. I'll get on it today. Cheers! --Sadhaka 13:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC) Talk to me

PS...I do remember that most of this came from one article, with some of the information being citing from another article, within that article, so it is cross-referenced. If you wish, you can pull the [citation needed] tags, and get rid of the clean-up thingy. I will have those cites by the end of the day...give me an even better excuse to clean my office, beside trying to find the dog!
Question...who can take away those dialogue boxes once they've been set? I mean, this article hasn't changed in weeks, "others" seem to have begged off, and I wondered if the tags would go away, but I wasn't about to do it. --Sadhaka 14:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schizoid

Just curious about your reasoning in regards to creating a separate schizoid article, as seen here. -156.34.90.214 08:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bully

Gimme some time to read it. I have to be careful about offering snap opinions if I haven't read the material ;). --DanielCD 00:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Have the fireworks cooled down at all? --DanielCD 22:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Narcissistic personality disorder & References

In your edits of NPD you removed the references.

FYI: <references/> auto-generates the references

If you don't know how the refs work you can take a look at the following:

Nephron  T|C 01:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Some Shiraz sounds like a good enough reason... wish I could have some. :) Nephron  T|C 06:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Autism and poverty

For the record, I feel that you have a valid general point; that autistics have less opportunities in the workplace, and the lack of access to properly paid work may lead a majority to financial difficulty. I feel, however, that more sources need referencing/citing - especially if percentages are going to be included. Also, my point that the same is true for most (if not all) of people with a disability remains - and there are such people with the same mental abilities as those with Aspergers and HFA getting a raw deal.

In short; it was a good point - but without reasonable references to validate it (IMO). When you include them then I will be as eager to support the point as I have been to question it. All the best.LessHeard vanU 21:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From ABenis

Hello. I am not really an editor. I was invited to submit an article on the NPA theory by WP:en which kept growing as more an more suggestions were incorporated ...so I have been around for a couple of months. I submitted an edit to the Livesley entry in "narcissism", as I have the full text of the Livesley article and thought a more accurate version was indicated. But I an reluctant to get too involved in editing, as people may think that I am trying to trumpet the NPA model, which -- like all theories of personality -- is indeed unproven. Regards. ABenis 20:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. I appreciate your asking for my input. I would keep it as you have it, in "Narcissism", rather than "Narcissism (psychology)" because of the difference in context in which the term is used.
I don't think that you would want to encumber "Narcissism (psychology)" with an added section on the role of narcissism in various theories of personality.
However, the NPA model is based partly on Karen Horney's psychiatric concept of narcissism, so if you think it appropriate a one-line statement, with an internal link to NPA personality theory in the Karen Horney subsection might be appropriate (something like "Karen Horney's concept of narcissism is used in a trait theory of personality called NPA personality theory".
The readability of the two articles is much improved! I see from the talk pages that your work is much appreciated. Regards, ABenis 01:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Addendum: Also, I think the page would look better with a small image added of S. Freud. ABenis 01:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


Hello again. I have looked over the two Narcissism articles again and have a possible suggestion. The Narcissism/psyche article is pretty long, and the “Narcissism as a genetic trait” section does not fit too well with the other material of this article. It might be better to move the “Narcissism as a genetic trait” section to the Narcissism page, with two subheadings: * Heritability study with twins (the Livesley paragraph) and * NPA personality theory (the section currently in Narcissism). This would, I think, improve the structure of both articles, as well as shorten the Narcissism/psyche article. The only thing I would change is to add to the opening sentence of NPA theory: “The NPA personality theory, based on Mendelian genetics, was developed during the 1980s…”

What do you think? Regards. ABenis 00:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


Indeed, it looks good! I note that this page is #1 in the Google search for "narcissism", so your handiwork will get some notice. Best regards, ABenis 02:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello. The classical psychiatric aspects of narcissism are not really my forte, but maybe I can help with some general editing (I used to teach a course in scientific writing at the college level ...some years ago). I already did do a bit of a "copy edit" in the NPD article, which had a few instances of fractured syntax. I see that you are still in the midst of serious editing in the three articles, but when the dust clears, drop me a note if you would like me to do some smoothing of any rough edges that remain. Regards. ABenis 02:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

_________________________

Hello again --

1. There are some strange additions in the "References" section of Narcissism.

2. Could you kindly also upload the K. Horney image that you managed to procure to WP Commons also, so it can be used in foreign language WP as well.

3. Below is a possiple addition section to Narcissism if you think that it would be a useful addition:

==Narcissism in evolutionary psychology==

The concept of narcissism is used in evolutionary psychology in relation to the mechanisms of assortative mating, or the non-random choice of a partner for purposes of procreation. An article published in 2005 by Alvarez summarizes the work in this field.[xx] Evidence for assortative mating among humans is well established: human's mate assortatively regarding age, IQ, height, weight, nationality, educational and occupational level, physical and personality characters and family relatedness. In the “self seeking like” hypothesis individuals unconsciously look for a mirror image of themselves in others, seeking criteria of beauty or reproductive fitness in the context of self-reference. The study of Alvarez indicated that facial resemblance between couples was a strong driving force among the mechanisms of assortative mating: human couples resemble each other significantly more than would be expected from random pair formation. Since facial characteristics are known to be inherited, the "self seeking like" mechanism may enhance reproduction between genetically similar mates, favoring the stabilization of genes supporting social behavior, with no kin relationship among them.

Alvarez, L. (2005). “Narcissism guides mate selection: Humans mate assortatively, as revealed by facial resemblance, following an algorithm of ‘self seeking like’”. Evolutionary Psychology 2, 177-194. See online. Accessed July 21, 2006.

Regards, ABenis 00:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

______________

Hello --

I replaced the K. Horney image (in Karen Horney and Narcissism (psychology)) with an improved version (with the permission of Culver Pictures). I also note that the K.Horney article is now cited for lacking citations.

Regards, A.Benis Bienek 00:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Responded

I responded on my talk page (1 time)2 times. -- Where 00:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I just responded to your latest comment on my talk page. -- Where 01:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Karenhorney small.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Karenhorney small.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please watch

Please watch amygdala. Thank you. Koalabyte 02:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Narcissism article revision

I don't think an image of the Narcissus flower has any reason to be in an article about Narcissism in common use. Could you please explain why you put it back? --GUTTERTAHAH 13:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AS

Zeraeph, I welcome you to speak directly with me about the issues you've raised. My e-mail is activated, and I scrupulously guard confidentiality of e-mail. In the meantime, another editor is wanting to archive the talk page, so it would be helpful to get this resolved. Regards, Sandy 16:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ANI

Hi, if you have an ongoing dispute, please take it though the dispute resolution process. I can heartily recommend the mediation cabal. Please do not post any more to the WP:AN/I on this subject. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers · 16:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, I had recused myself from a potential mediation, as seeing your note I realised I wouldn't qualify as impartial. I don't think you will get the response you are looking for from the WP:ANI, as Sandy points out, this is not what the board is for. I was merely trying to offer a constructive suggestion of a way forward for this dispute. You are of course welcome to make up your own mind. Regards, - FrancisTyers · 20:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Filed new incident

I am totally at a loss what else to do with you, so that you cannot cliam this was in any way covert: [1] --Zeraeph 02:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You should not be at a loss, when there are many paths to dispute resolution. There are three things you haven't even tried, and have refused to try: talking directly to me, going through mediation, or my e-mail is open as well. Sandy 03:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Here's a new mediation. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-23 User:Zeraeph Since you rejected the earlier one, it may take a few days for a new, neutral mediator to take the case. I suggest we use the talk page there for communication. Sandy 05:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Zeraeph. Are you sure that you won't give an informal mediation a try? I would be willing try to help you and Sandy find a way out of your dispute. For what it is worth here is a third opinion I gave recently. [2] Best --Ekilfeather 12:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asperger's stuff

Hiya, responding to your comment on my talk page... I can't even remember what I contributed to the Asperger's page now. I usually just go around fixing grammar and typos, that sort of stuff. If you could link me to the stuff you found good I'd appreciate it, because I really can't remember:).--Snowgrouse 16:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hiya

[edit] asperger's article

I think the link section is a mess. Sandy keeps unilaterally removing links to helpful sites and adding links to sites no one would find useful with the rationale that they aren't in the link directories. And that's only one of the problems she's introduced. What should we do? Perl 18:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional portrayals of psychopaths

Thanks for the nice comments on the article I wrote, Fictional portrayals of psychopaths. It took me about a month to write it and now I am satisfied that it is finished. I have also written an article on Polanski's Macbeth and Michael Radford's Nineteen Eighty-Four as well as pieces on Noah Cross and "Suffer Little Children", which I am also quite proud of. Cheers! --Jaiwills

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Hans Aspergersmall.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hans Aspergersmall.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may 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. RN 18:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

answers.com is a wikipedia mirror, so the image is retagged. RN 19:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism?

Just a heads up; it's bad form to call what appear to be good-faith (albeit ill-considered) edits "vandalism", as your two most recent edits appear to do. Don't get me wrong; there is a lot wrong with those edits and you absolutely were right to revert them. But they were not vandalism, they were various other kinds of bad editing. PurplePlatypus 05:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commentary

Please refrain from making libellous commentary about other editors without due justification. Accusations of meatpuppetery and sockpuppetery are quite serious, and should not be frivolously waved around when people disagree with you. Be civil, and assume good faith. --Keyne 12:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have a week off. When you return, I expect you to either make a formal case to the arbitration committee regarding your allegations about SandyGeorgia, or to desist totally from any interaction with her or complaint about her. --ajn (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but an administrator or other user has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators or users can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request.

Request reason: " unreasonable in the extreme"

Decline reason: "You have been given a lot of good advice on how to proceed, and you have ignored it entirely. Thus you find yourself in your present situation. My personal advice to you is that you avoid any and all interactions with SandyGeorgia and the editors whom you imagine are sock- or meat-puppets. If, when your block expires, you persist in interacting with them in the aggressive and unreasonable manner that you have so far demonstrated you should expect more and longer blocks. File an RfArb or stop completely. Those are your two options. Choose. -- Nandesuka 12:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)"

This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.

The block is now one month, and I will be seeking consensus for a community ban. This page has been protected to prevent you from using it for further abuse. --ajn (talk) 10:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introducing other POVs in bullying topics

Zeraeph, I wanted to talk to you away from the powder kegs about introducing alternative POVs into the articles about bullying (and I still want to see childhood bullying become its own topic - but that's another story).

Today, a friend sent me this article link - which discusses two author's work with changing how people respond to "hooks" in interactions within the workplace and how how we respond to hooks determines whether we can change things or not. I thought it was brilliant. Of course it is not a cure-all. You could scarcely just hand out copies of the book when someone is hired. This is actually teaching life skills, setting boundaries, feeling entitled to speak up, how to confront without being unreasonable or abusive in turn.

As for children, I'm speaking of "Izzy" as he goes by, psychologist behind the Bullies to Buddies approach to bullying in childhood and in school. I have exchanged a number of emails with him over the past few years, and have encouraged him to write articles for magazines, spreading the word that there is a option to strict policies of policing student behaviors. But we have also discussed the fact that, in adults, there are persons with pathological rididgely structured personalites where the "let's make friends" approach will never help a bit.

Izzy has traveled to teach various school systems, administrators and schoolteachers, his ideas and approach and has received positive feedback on how the implemented program works. Here is a Googled link to show how many other sources, often educational research, is looking at the same thing.

I personally feel that the predominate manner of responding to workplace bullying results in a lot of perpetuation and lengthening of emotional disability. However, I do see a great deal of value in the steps of recognizing that there are people that spend their lifetimes treating others badly and understanding that what is happening does not reflect on any inadequacies. Second step, to understand why the behavior happens - which may range from jealousy that you have gotten a promotion, to deep-seated feelings of inadequacy and rageful feelings. So third step, clear up your emotional responses - in short, get rid of the shame, often the result of input from parents and teachers, early childhood experienced. Fourth step, teaching effective low stress responses to deal productively with serious bullying or dysfunctional problematic behaviors.

The authors stress, first of all, a physical response of dealing with your physiological response to behaviors that "hook" you into a defensive shut-down posture of feeling that you have no outs and no solutions. Learning how to let go. This reduces the high blood pressure and heart disease, reduced immune response and the development of many stress-related illnesses, all of which lead to disability of various degrees and a huge economic impact on business and society, not the least of all is the burden placed on disbility programs.

Do you have ideas on how to incorporate such things? I have not been around enough to have any idea of how to create NPOV in such long and complicated topics. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 23:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wanted to point out something I forgot to include, even though it is one of the most vital parts of this response to adult bullying. The people most likely to be damaged by severe bullying have problems, if you will of their own. And they are often not problems that can be addressed a session (most usefully, twice a week) consisting a support and coaching. Not many businesses are large enough to pay for a consultant coach to teach such courses, but maybe if they were instead integrated into a regular human relations arranged presentations paired with the distribution of books and workbooks.
Of course, this article above still emphasizes that the bullied must still follow through with a series of steps in order to document and support them in cases where more action must be taken. For this reason, I think listing these steps are an essential part of the article. True, Wiki not being a how-to book, it can't venture much beyond an approach advocated by those with both POVs, but I think each point of view should be linked, but these might be linked within the artilce rather than set-aside at the end? What is the wiki policy in allowing readers to follow up on opposing points of view that cannot be justified within the context of the article? --A green Kiwi in learning mode 01:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting user watchlists

Zeraeph, I notice that you've started to create individual requests for deletion for the user watchlists we are discussing at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Psychonaut/User watchlist. While I appreciate that you may be doing this so that each case can be considered on its own merits, please consider that the vast majority of these pages will have more or less the same merits — that is, they all have similar purposes and list similar information. It would therefore help your fellow editors immensely if you were to list all these pages together rather than separately. You can do this either by making a single request for deletion page which lists all the articles, or by filing a new Wikipedia policy proposal. This way we can vote on whether or not to keep such pages on Wikipedia all at once instead of hashing out the same arguments on dozens of separate pages. —Psychonaut 15:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I take your point and I really don't want you to feel singled out (whether you believe me or not that is NOT what I am doing), but so far they don't seem that similar, and the principle I am uncomforta\ble with does not apply equally to all of them. However, some should definately be listed for deletion on the same principle and I really WOULD rather list them together if you could just point me to a link on how to do this? Thanks in anticipation. --Zeraeph 15:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Adapt the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list multiple related pages for deletion. For example, for each page you want to delete with criteria similar to mine, add {{subst:md1|User:Psychonaut/User watchlist}} to that page. Then add that page's title somewhere at the top of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Psychonaut/User watchlist to indicate that it is being considered together under that request. Make sure you notify the original authors of the pages that their articles are being considered for deletion. —Psychonaut 15:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I have a weird IE slowdown problem that was really at it's worst at that point...incidentally, it's no biggie to me on user talk pages, but I don't think you are supposed to delete and edit other editors comments WP:TPG, and I would really prefer it if you didn't delete and edit mine any more? Thanks --Zeraeph 15:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Most editors prefer to keep conversations on a single page rather than spread across multiple pages. It's common practice for editors to move comments on their talk page back to where they "ought" to be. —Psychonaut 15:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For your ongoing MfD

You may also wish to consider the following:

I don't know whether any of these meet your criteria for deletion (I don't quite understand your criteria myself) but at least some of them are pretty identical in nature to ones you have nominated. —Psychonaut 17:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../z/e/r/User_talk%7EZeraeph_Archive1_1d88.html"