User talk:DeirdreAnne/Archives/2008/04

Maternal deprivation; Complaint
Doug thank you for getting back to me.

I don't seem to be able to log in and any help will be appreciated kip

I have now logged in and replied to your comment on my TALK page.KingsleyMiller (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Fanities has posted the following on a discussion page. Quite frankly it is nonsense.

Can you help me make a formal complaint? I do not wish to go to arbitration because Fanities continues to edit in 'bad faith'.

Your version of maternal deprivation and attachment theory significantly confused the two and misrepresented both Rutter and Bowlby. In maternal deprivation Bowlby mentions the first 6 months of an infants life. In attachment theory, attachment behaviours develop after around 7 or 8 months. Further, monotropy and imprinting are features of attachment theory, not maternal deprivation. The alleged 'significant differences' between maternal deprivation and attachment theory that you have set out on Rutters page and the maternal deprivation page and to a lesser extent here, from Rutters 1995 paper, are in fact, as is clearly stated in Rutters paper, developments in attachment theory, not distinctions from maternal deprivation. Your repeated statement that Bowlby is famous only for maternal deprivation and that he is not the author of attachment theory is frankly bizarre. Fainites barley 14:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC) 78.146.224.49 (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Doug,

Can you tell me by either by contacting Fanites or from this extract whether;

1. Fanities is saying Bowlby is the 'author' of the 'attachment theory'?

2. Is Fanities saying the attachment theory and 'maternal deprivation' are the same?

I am sorry to say that I feel he is acting in 'bad faith' and that only by using yourself as an intermediary am I likely to get a straight answer. Your help in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

kipKingsleyMiller (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

DOUG
Never mind!

Thanks for getting back to me.

kip KingsleyMiller (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

CC-BY 2.0
I wanted to note, based on what I saw you state above, that this image would be CC-SA, and thus not under "GFDL" or "free use" and thus a "non-free image", i.e. used under fair use. Non-free images cannot be used on user profiles, and this photo is used, against the rules, on many profiles, as with others like it. Can something be done about this? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to extend a thank you in regards to your actions upon our talk pages and in the Copyright problems pages. Regardless if we do not agree, you have shown yourself to be a paragon of civility and of upholding a neutral point of view, at least when it comes to the matters and structures of the encyclopedia. As per your recent comment and to extend a courtesy towards your actions, I shall not place a complaint upon the actions of three individuals that have done some things that I feel may have been contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. This is so that you will not regard myself as one who is "wont to accuse". This is an encyclopedia first and only. I am not an anarchist, and, quite the opposite, I believe in upholding structure and norms even if I may not agree with them for the sake of overall order. Now, I once again thank you for taking the time, which I have not shown to deserve from you. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds April 2008 Newsletter
The April 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Cabals
I've started an informal consensus survey which I hope will help us come to a conclusion on whether the cabals should remain deleted. You can express your opinion at this page (link). Thank you. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 12:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments
You can certainly add your own comments, even if you endorse the comments of others. It's been done before. John Carter (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)
The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Tagging
Sorry but I've had to say that I think your tagging practice is at least part of the issue


 * Yeah, nice bit of passive-aggressive finger-wagging, there.


 * I try to follow actual policy, actual guidelines, and actual practice. Because-I-said finger-wagging based on vague feelings? Not so much. --Calton | Talk 13:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion
Can you have a look at this discussion please Gnevin (talk) 07:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Anthrosexual
It was nice of you to take the time and care to completely explain why the article was deleted. Whether or not the articles supporter(s) appreciates it or not, it's commendable. - House of Scandal (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Userfication
Just letting you know I've responded to the post you left on my talkpage the other day. It having been a few days, I'm not sure if you're still watching my page, so I thought I should let you know here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Transylvania
Well, we can call it a "polemic" or a "rant" if that sounds better; the bottom line is that uncited, poorly formatted, biased text added by low-edit-count IPs generally can be reverted without much controversy. The size of the chunk of text I removed is immaterial: those two IPs (on March 28) just happened to add a fair amount of text. I looked over it, found it degraded the present text (not that great to begin with), and that was that. However, if there are sections of that you see as salvageable, by all means feel free to re-add, preferably with citations. Biruitorul (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You have a new message, Im too lazy to do the template for talkback :P Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 06:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Doug
(Unified discussion yo)

What's with this: Here? -- ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 15:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for no explanation, an IP canvassing with potentially libelous material about a third party. I probably should've deleted it rather than just reverting it but it looks like it's been oversighted now.  See ANI, not that it will give you much more information.  --Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the answer, figured it was oversighted, was just curious if it was about me. -- ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 01:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

General question
Doug, is there a way to roll-back the history of a page? I made an entry to a discussion page that referred to a private email, and my correspondent has asked that I remove reference to that email. I've updated the latest version of the discussion so that it no longer refers to that email, but I'd like the history to be cleansed of all of my contributions to the page. I'm the last editor on the page (Talk:Eulerian path), so it wouldn't interfere with any other editor contributions. If there's a WP procedure for performing this type of roll-back, I haven't been able to find it. Thanks. &mdash; Myasuda (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: What do you suggest we do to address User:Calton's tagging?
Have you ever left a note on his talk page, asking him why he does it? If you haven't that may be a good starting point. I really don't know why he does. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry I forgot about this. Well, if you've tried talking to him on his talk page, and he hasn't responded, WP:AN may be a good place to go.  I'm not quite sure though, as this is a rather unusual thing.  I know I asked him in that thread also, and he didn't answer.  Doing this puts a lot of pages in the category that shouldn't be there, so he really should stop, in my opinion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Quick note
Just to let you know that I've replied to your comment, and that the present version of Günther Specht is also a copyright violation that will require deletion. The bulk of the text is still taken from http://www.luftwaffe.cz/specht.html. Nick (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment
Dear Doug, I saw you had a question about the deletion of this. This page was created in my name (i.e.,"Renee's version") without my asking for it. It has not been touched since it was created except by me asking to delete it, because if I would like to create a version I'll use my own userspace. Since it had been made for me and not touched, I thought a speedy delete was appropriate. If not, I'm okay with restoring it but I don't think anyone will use it. Thanks, Renee Renee (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Doug, Just a follow-up to this MFD. You note that the libel and defamation section should have been on the project page and not on the talk page.  I originally put it there and someone moved it here.  I think he thought he was doing the right thing and that it wasn't out of any attempt to circumvent the process though. Now we know!  Also, yes, you're correct, the libel and defamation problems have been taken care of on the MFD page in question and currently it is not an issue.  Thanks, Renee


 * Renee, regarding the talk page that had your name on it. I don't know of any requirement for authorization.  If I feel like creating pages for Joe's comments, Sam's Comments, etc. in my userspace that's fine, I don't need to ask them.  At the same time, the matter wasn't a big deal in that the page was blank and you stated you didn't plan to put anything there, it just seemed a little rude to delete it via speedy rather than simply asking User:Cult free world to db-user it, or ignoring it.  There is no real point to restoring a blank page though.  I didn't realize someone else moved the discussion at MfD, I don't usually look for a discussion page separate from a deletion debate; no big deal.  Glad to hear the problem was addressed.  Cheers.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 01:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Doug, (hope I did this right, moved the whole conversation)
 * Thanks for the response. I don't think Cult Free cared about the delete as this was his response to the note on his page.  Anyways, every day I learn new Wiki rules and protocols and know what to do differently next time.  Thanks for the feedback.  Renee    Renee (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Re
My actual and only concern (which was in my closing argument) was that I would not take any criticism unless it came from an admin (or an overturn), as I had one overturned recently by a non admin, and then he endorsed the closure 30 minutes or so later. I never said I didn't or shouldn't have to deal with it. I welcome discussion on any close I've ever made. If you check User:Aaron Brenneman's talk archive and an old AN/ANI discussion on me, you'll see I've been doing this for some time so I'm used to discussing these things. But I do believe I will be actively seeking change to a few of these essays, as they are a bit confusing and do not really allow for experienced editors to close AfD's with good rationale (even if they are closed by an admin just a few hours or so later). Helping in the backlog on AfD is and always will be my concern. So I'd like to thank you for your response and will try to keep you posted. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Anthrosexual
I know that the article anthrosexual was deleted but it think the talk page should be reinstated do to it's contents value. I can see the article being recreated in the future when proper sourcing comes to light. And the talk could be of value. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Annd btw, i recreated anthrosexual to redirect to Pomosexual, which has the closest similar def. The are essentially the same concept but the names give a different route and idea to the achieved concept. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I reviewed the talk page and saw very little that wasn't discussion of the various stages in the deletion process. It wouldn't be normal to have the talk page be restored for a deleted page while having the article space page remain a redirect.  I recommend you redirect the talk page to Talk:Pomosexual or leave it redlinked.  If you think there is something on the old talk page you could use, I will restore it to your usertalk space for you, but I don't see the value and it would probably eventually get deleted by MFD.  It looks to me like there would be far more of value, and even then not much, to restoring the article to your userspace, which I'd be happy to do if you think it will help you edit Pomosexual - again, you'd have to work on it though - or at least put a note on it regarding what you were using it for or MfD would surely nix it soon.  Pomosexual was never mentioned in the deletion discussion that I recall or I might have been persuaded to merge the article there.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it will be necessary then, but User:Mears man spoke of Pomosexual in the afd, that is how i came across it. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 04:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

To substitute block tags
Thanks for the 411. Bearian (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Femi Oguns
My view on this article was that the creator (in multiple edits) along with the only other editor (and both, I note, have only edited on this article or related links) was a page with attack intent. Although that would be reason to delete the page Femi Oguns would appear to meet notability standards so the page remains extant. I removed the very questionable content and some of the content re the play (as otherwise there is more about the play than the playwright!) --AlisonW (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. My view re status of User:Bibiqueen and User:Tamsin jones was that it is highly surprising two WP:SPA accounts on the same article is, um, "a co-incidence too far", especially when one is but days old. --AlisonW (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Doug - I don't know you're aware, but User:Femi Oguns has continued to edit Femi Oguns - removing what he obviously perceives as negative sourced comment - reverted by User:Phil Bridger, despite AlisonW resolving his previous issues. I'm not quite sure if; firstly, anything needs to be done, or can be done, and if so, what it is that should be done, but I thought it might be worthwhile bringing to your attention as a wise admin chap! Leftblank (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: subst:
I know, I must have slipped up there. I generally copy my block messages from here these days, which already included the subst: code. Hersfold non-admin (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Were a blog should go
Hello Doug; In the past my blog, DPRK Studies, was listed in the North Korea Wikipedia page under External Links, Weblogs, along with several other blogs that are popular among Korea watchers. Yesterday I noticed it has been removed, so I added it back.

Today user Mthibault, a recent changes patroller, removed it, telling me to, “stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to North Korea. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion.” And I was then threatened with being blocked from Wikipedia.

I did not insert any link from my blog into the North Korea article, but clearly under “Weblogs” and “External Links.” This is not spam! Also, there are several other blogs listed under the obvious heading where they would go – why am I being singled out? I am not sure how a blog devoted to North Korean Studies could be "inappropriate" under "Weblogs" in the External Links section of that article. I'm guilty of adding my own blog, but I am something of a specialist and it is directly related to the subject, as are all the other blogs there.

Mthibault appears to be on a power trip. Please help. Dprkstudies (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't Forget the Sex Work Task Force!
Hey, haven't seen you around in awhile! Please head to the discussion board on our project for a bunch of posts I did awhile ago. Love to hear your input and see your work!--NoMonaLisa (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy studies
Thanks. They were placed on my talk page by Tim Vickers with my agreement because they may be useful in the future and because myself and a few others did not want to see them go forever. That is self-evident and is already stated on the list of studies page. Peter morrell 05:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Not an admin
I've never asked for rollback, Doug. I know that I wouldn't abuse it, but I am concerned that I would somehow cock it up and ruin some newbie's day. As for being an admin, I don't think I am ready for that yet. I ned to get a far better grip on my temper than I currently have. As well, a lot of the technical stuff that I think an admin should know remains a mystery to me. Maybe at some point, I will seek out an admin who is willing to take me under their wing and show me how these things work. (hint hint) I am also of two minds when it comes to the actual process of being an admin. I have made some fairly noisy enemies, and they would certainly turn my RfA into a litany of past slights, both real and imagined. I think I have a way to go before i am ready to deal with everyone civilly, no matter how they act. When I feel I am ready, I will let you know. Thanks ever so much for the compliment in even suggesting that I could do well as an admin. I truly appreciate it. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  05:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Curious why this was done this way
Because it is way faster, easier and intuitive for someone who doesn't know the arcanes of wikipedia (and wikimarkup), to create a new account (you click the signup link) than requesting username change. When the user has very few contribs (such as in this case), risking losing them because they don't understand the renaming process (and the login change) is not worth it. :) -- lucasbfr  talk 07:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Warriors Userfication?
Would you like this moved to your userspace? I'm deleting, mainly based on your comments in which you essentially concede. Absent that there may not have been enough there to determine consensus - but then it's always a guess what I or anyone else would have done if things had been different. In any case, I'll gladly move it to your userspace rather than outright deleting it if want it.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for offering to move the portal to userspace until it is completed. Actually, I had made and developed the portal in userspace before making it, so you don't need to do it. Thanks for offering! Shrewpelt (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My Talk Page
Thanks for removing the notice. Best wishes for a great weekend. - House of Scandal (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Cabals
No, I don't need any undeleted. You might want to talk to User:Diligent Terrier. Basketball 110 Frankly, I don't give a damn. 23:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity
Hello !

You are receiving this invitation because you are a member of one of the related Christianity Projects and I thought that you might be interested in this project also - Tinucherian (talk) 04:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)