User talk:Grace E. Dougle

Welcome
Is that my layout? :D If so, I hope you like it.

As far as the PTSD thing goes, the list that was added is not appropiate. While I appreciate sarcasm, you'll find few other people do. A lot of psychological articles on Wikipedia are messy, and I sort of gave up even trying back when I was editing from IPs, but the simplest thing to do is open up a straw poll. Anyone who knows anything about psychology or PTSD will know that list is both too broad and yet, too specific. -- Elar  a  girl  Talk 01:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Section for strange remarks by user:DPeterson
Pls do not remove the tags unless you add a relevant citation. Doing so is not consistent with Wikipedia standards. DPeterson talk 23:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Reverting Bipolar article: Rather than continuing to revert what many editors feel is an inappropriate section, the proper Wikipedia practice would be to begin some dispute resolution process. I have done so, I hope you will participate and cooperate and not continue to merely revert the edits. DPeterson talk 13:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Answer: I'm speechless at your twisting things, but not surprised.--Grace E. Dougle 15:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

While you may be correct that those responses belong elsewhere, it is not your place to edit the Rfc page. Leave that to an administrator or those who will be handling the case. So, please stop your editing of that page. Generally it is bad form to edit another's comments or to move, delete, or change those comments. RalphLender talk 20:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC) It is not your place to edit or move my comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mihai_cartoaje. If my comments should be moved it is the responsiblity of an uninvovled editor, not yours. Please stop your reverts as this is against Wikipedia policy and practice. DPeterson talk 20:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Business and Econ Project Work

 * Grace E. Dougle, many thanks for the star! Look forward to working with you! SueHay 02:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-bp
If you want an article on this topic please find some real encyclopaedic information from sources that accord with WP:NOTE, WP:RS and WP:OR. Please see discussion on merging and redirect. --Zeraeph 18:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but you seem to be somewhat misinformed about both the book, and, at least one of, it's authors. Randy Kreger is, at best, trained as a Public Relations Officer, hardly an academic. The book is not supported by any scientific studies or "peer reviewed" in any academic sense.  The book is agenda driven, verges, at times, upon incitment to hatred, and appears to be virtually unknown outside a tightly knit and rather self appointed online culture of psychology in it's loosest sense.


 * Regardless, if the concept of "Non-bp" is notable I am sure you will have no trouble in finding plenty of sources that are verifiable and from reliable sources with which to build a suitably encyclopaedic article. I can even get you started by informing you that a very well accredited academic called Michael J Formica seems to be writing a book on "counterborderline", I am not to sure how far progressed this is. --Zeraeph 20:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope you don't mind me asking, but do I know you from somewhere? You seem awfully familiar?


 * Whatever one might say in the general sense, Wikipedia is an encylopaedia, (see WP:NOT, so that articles related to psychology do most definately require the backing of empirical evidence and academic peer review and acknowledgement, not any personal perception of "common sense", which is after all very subjective...for example, the world in not and ideal place, that does not mean "Mein Kampf" is the solution, even though it represented one man's "common sense" of such.--Zeraeph 21:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I am afraid it is not just my reasoning (though personally I find the prevalence of self appointed, unccountable and unregulated *expertise*, particularly in online psychology, truly terrifying), it is also Wikipedia protocol. But don't worry, if your topic is truly valid you will always be able to find verifiable academic sources for it somewhere, it's just a matter of looking, and when you have found them, the resulting article will be so much more worthwhile and carry so much more weight for you.


 * You might find this discussion interesting too . Glad we cleared that up, I really could have sworn I knew you. --Zeraeph 22:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you will find it is covered by WP:OR and WP:NOTE as well...but I don't understand your problem at all, because if the concept is valid and widely recognised there will be plenty of verifiable and reliable sources for it.


 * You said: Most of the encyclopedic articles on here are not based on 'empirical evidence', and many not even on evidence that is published in peer-reviewed journals/books.


 * That may be so, but I am afraid ALL of them are supposed to be based on that kind of evidence, particularly nin areas related to science and medical matters. However I see no point in continuing to argue, you surely would do better to spend the same time looking for valid sources instead? --Zeraeph 23:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not going to continue to argue in circles with you, please find real, academic sources for the article. --Zeraeph 09:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Batman-inspired_heroes_and_villains
Hello Grace. You suggested making lists for Category:Batman-inspired heroes and Category:Batman-inspired villains at CFD. I've closed the discussion as delete after listifying. I wonder if you'd be interested in doing the listing? Quite a lot of the info is already in List of Batman pastiches (and maybe Batman in popular media). I could have a go, but I'm not really much of a Batman fan, and I'd be unlikely to do a good job! I've also left a note with User:Otto4711. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Otto must have had them ready, up his sleeve: both done. Thanks anyway! Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

WARNING REGARDING YOUR REVERTS
Please refrain from revert warring. Furthermore, it is not your place to edit my comments or move them as you did at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mihai_cartoaje It would be the place of an uninvolved administrator, not you. In addition, your uncivil behavior ("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") is false, unfounded, and not consistent with Wikipedia policies and practices. False accusations of sockpuppetry can be grounds for being blocked or banned. I encourage you to act in a civil manner to facilitate cooperation and collaboration. DPeterson talk 22:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of sockpuppetry?
Hi, I see you've levied a fairly serious charge that another user has used sockpuppets to avoid violating WP:3RR. Do you have firm evidence to support this claim? | Mr. Darcy talk 00:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've read your post and looked at the links to which you pointed me, and I have to say that you do not have any firm evidence to support your claim. You need to stop claiming that DPeterson has used or is using sockpuppets unless you can prove it, with checkuser being the best way to do it. I'm also extremely disturbed by your implications that DPeterson has a personality disorder. At this point, you're dancing on the edge of violations of WP:NPA and I think you're well past WP:CIVIL. If you don't alter the way you deal with this user, I'm going to have to block you to prevent further attacks. Please settle your content disputes amicably, and if you believe another user is violating policies, report him to the appropriate board (checkuser, 3RR vios, misc policy vios). | Mr. Darcy talk 17:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to see you go. I do think that we could work together.  DPeterson talk 01:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
I've been noticing your numerous edits on business articles and wanted to thank you. Egfrank 10:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Your views
Hi, I've been made aware from an RfC raised by Mihai cartoaje that you may have been the victim of sockpuppets picking on you. I've previously had concerns about at least one of the nicks in question and am disturbed by what seems to have happened to you. I outlined this as an outside view in the RfC but it looks like the RfC's been auto-deleted due to no supporting inside view. So for now I just wanted to leave a message for you here to say I hope you haven't left Wikipedia (I see you have wiped your talk page citing abuse) and that if you are at least still reading this you might be able to come back and help clear up this situation. EverSince 20:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC) p.s. I'm reverting this and the above comment back, after DPeterson returned the stuff you wiped but left these two comments out. EverSince 06:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Re the above, you may be interested to know that User:DPeterson has been banned by ArbCom for 1 year for running socks to edit war and create false consensus. The socks, User:RalphLender, User:SamDavidson, User:JohnsonRon, User:JonesRD and User:MarkWood have all been blocked indef. I saw you left Wiki after your run in with them but they're gone now. Better late than never! Fainites barley 19:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)