User talk:Harrypottercat
Recent edit to Peer support specialist[edit]
Hello. I noticed that you recently made a contribution to the Peer support specialist article that seemed to be a test. Your test worked! However, test edits on live articles disrupt Wikipedia and may confuse readers. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 07:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
it was not a TEST
why did my edit not Take???
wtf?
who are you why are you deleting my edits this is NOT A TEST what connection do you have to this page why are you doihng this
very annoyed at you and have no idea why you are deleting my additions
i MEANT to edit the page trying to add some details which are erroneously left out
plesae stop deleting my edits!
what is wrong with my edit? you are wrong to troll me to delete this. though i know little about wikipedia i was not practicing something, i tried to edit it and you deleted it, repeatedly, WHY?....
this is my edit:
But one of the most important aspects of the role is that the peer and the person served work on more equal footing, not with either one as the clear expert but more as equals, both parties can learn from one another in a more mutual relationship with the flow of giving happening on both sides. This allows the person served to be a giver as well as a receiver and thus aids significantly in the recovery needs of the person served as well as the continued growth of the peer support specialist.
you appear as a person to have absolutely NO expertise in the content you are deleting
if an expert came and disagreed with what i put then the content would be improved as is this page SUCKS, it misrepresents the role of a peer specialist as if they were another annoying expert in the person served's life, like you now in mine. this is not accurate. I am a trained peer specialist with a 140 iq, what i am saying is true and you should leave it for other experts to tweak and refine, and stop deleting it, you appear to no nothing on the subject and i would like to know why you are lording over this page to prevent its improvement and greater accuracy.
this is foolishness and folly.
You should leave my edits. stop deleting them.... allow the facts and truth to be revealed to readers who are curious and allow my writing to be refined by other experts who know what they are talking about, rather than you who appear to be a troll, controlling things improperly.
your statement now is not factual or is incomplete many pages on wikipedia are built only on peoples knowledge and are refined and edited accordingly by the group
i have no idea why you think this page different
if i was wrong then it would be changed by another expert (which you clearly are not)
not everything true is published and some people are better writers or with better ideas than published things and absolutely more up to date!
i could site the massachusetts peer specialist training but their training is not published anywhere to verify, you have to take the class to verify it but also I have taken so many classes on these subjects it would be impossible for me to derive how I came to this understanding, i would be happy to give my name, for some, oral teaching, training, etc is the way... it is not democratic or proper to be biased as to only cite a "published source"... it makes no logical sense. you also do not explain why you have interest in this page and want it to remain static and inaccurate, uncomprehensive and misleading, by leaving out this important information in its intro paragraph it becomes a Useless page, misleading readers and being limited, not useful at all. i believe it is against the purpose and goal of wikipedia to do what you are doing here and have a bias to not allow my edits for other experts to refine if required....
Harrypottercat (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
i also want to add that another great thing about a peer specialists work is that their roles were developed by Peer Specialists!... it did not come down from academia! but the rules and definitions are designed by our own group of peers around the country and the world... so to have an academic writing what our roles are and who we are and what we do is not appropriate!... it is just so wrong and even offensive, and as i have said especially since the key aspects of delineations about the role have not been well articulated or emphasized on this page... I would write my own page on the subject of peer specialists but i do not know how to do it... for now I want to say that I believe the way i have been treated in attempting to share some of the nature of this is Wrong, as i stated above there are people in cultures that do not even use writing... so do they have no voice on wikipedia if a person from those places figures out how to write and wants to share something? the reliance on only published sources is not right, and when a person has gathered information on a subject from a multitude of sources then it is not fair or appropriate to try to give a single source credit for that information. Though i do not particularly need or want a reference to me on the page, i would be happy to write a paragraph and then footnote it that it is from me and leave a bit about my initial training on the subject and even an email address if someone wanted to ask me more... but i think that silencing me in this particular example has been erroneous and actually inappropriate on the part of the woman continually doing this to me the moment i put my edit up... it's like the lord of the rings or something... I think she/he doesn't know what they are doing, my edit was a good one and i doubt anyone could remove it based on invalid content or inaccuracy!
Harrypottercat (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
January 2017[edit]
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Peer support specialist have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Materialscientist (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
You have inserted unsourced block of text inside a reference
the source is my SELF, i am a certified peer specialist stop deleting text that you have no expertise in!
- See WP:V. Start using reliable sources. Failure to comply may result in a routine block of your account, despite your good intentions. Materialscientist (talk) 08:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is desirable to have someone knowledgeable in a topic. However, others may wish to verify that content is accurate or to find out more about a topic. It is Wikipedia wp:policy that content be wp:verifiable and be referenced. Please see help:referencing for beginners and help:footnotes. Use of your own knowledge is wp:original research and "must not be used on Wikipedia" Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 08:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Materialscientist (talk) 09:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Harrypottercat (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
hi Jim, I am trying to figure out how what you are saying could be true, since all of Wikipedia is made up by the public, there will naturally be sentences written by the public, the writers, I believe it should be edited if erroneous but allowed to remain as a contribution to the subject and refined by readers if required...
there is so much left out of this page about peer specialists, for instance, another main attribute of their work is that they serve the "interests of the person served" they don't try to help them with their "treatment" unless that is what they are asked to do by that person... they may do something entirely different, like accompany them to places in the community, give any kind of support or assistance that they person wants, but it is very person centered assistance, it is not about being the expert to help them, it is more of bringing oneself fully and openly with shared experience to serve their wants and goals as they define them...
I think the article doesn't well state this...
articles are written that one can reference on Wikipedia but there is often more expedience and I thought the purport was to write the facts and by nature of many editors refining information, accuracy of birth and death dates, etc... we get a solid informed many authored source of information.
I would think I could write the sentence or sentences in some manner than put a number on them and reference them as from me, could I not?.. I would even offer contact information if someone wanted to discuss my additions, but why would there be a rule that something need be published to be communicated, this does not seem consistent with things I've read on Wikipedia!
thanks for your clear message to me... ps. I don't know how to make the number that sits high up to reference where a contribution was cited from, an annoying aspect for me is that one of the trainings I took to qualify and inform me of some of these things is not published material but rather only supplied to its students privately... so it isn't able to be verified but it is something that would be common knowledge to anyone that is familiar with the role and so could be edited by any of them... if wrong... what annoys me is it seems people are editing this page to Delete information without themselves having any stated expertise to support what they are doing... seems against Wikipedia philosophies to Me!!!
Harrypottercat (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Unblock[edit]
Harrypottercat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
this person materialscience was blocking me repeatedly, this is not their wheel house, they showed no respect for the fact that it is mine, and gave no assistance, but just kept blocking me, later i read that i may have put an edit inside of another edit, and i could have corrected that, but i felt the blocker was overzealous and cold and lacked explanation, i should not be blocked, please unblock me. thank you. added note: but you have to be a technofile or something just to add minor content, at least on the page I tried to add it to, in other instances there was no zeal to silence me for my helpful inclusions or added notes Harrypottercat (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Accept reason:
This block has expired one day after you were blocked, back in 2017. However, this is not your "wheel house" either, and there are plenty of explanations above, including links to the relevant policies and to the help pages that explain how you can easily create nicely formatted footnotes to cite your sources. Huon (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
.