User talk:MothyHarvard

Welcome!
Hello, MothyHarvard, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Actualizing tendency, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type help me on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other 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 have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Robert McClenon (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Proposed deletion of Actualizing tendency


The article Actualizing tendency has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * This reads like a large copy-paste from another source. Without references, it is being assumed to be a copy.  It must be either properly sourced or deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Help me!
why are my references not showing? And why does the redirect to an existing page not work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MonthyHarvard (talk • contribs) 11:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The redirect didn't work because it was not properly formatted, however I've moved your article into draft space here for you to work on as it is not yet ready for mainspace and is rather essay like. As far as the references go, can you be more specific as to which references? CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  11:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Please help me with...   I'm not sure whether my article's references are visible - someone commented that they were not. They area clearly in place on the edit version of the page. MothyHarvard (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, are you talking about Draft:Actualizing tendency? Because I can see the references at the bottom of the page. Was this the page you were talking about?  Seagull123  Φ  14:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, and thanks - I see them now. They seemed to vanish for a while.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by MothyHarvard (talk • contribs) 14:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

How do I convert a draft page into a 'real' page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MothyHarvard (talk • contribs) 12:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, I assume you are talking about Draft:Actualizing tendency. First, please make sure you haven't copied and pasted this draft from elsewhere, as this would be a copyright violation if you did. Then, have a look at this page about how draft articles work on Wikipedia. Make sure you read the preparing drafts and publishing a draft sections. I'll add the draft article template to the draft about actualizing tendency. If you need more help, just click here. Thanks.  Seagull123  Φ  14:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

once again the references have vanished - this time from the Person-centered Therapy page. And why is it so difficult to make anything happen here? I have ADHD and am overwhelmed by useless info and overly complicated processes that I can't piece together. Are there any non-IT techs involved with WP, because I don't speak Computer (am I supposed to BE a computer?) Can anyone please tell me, in English, how to move/publish a draft article? Please don't send me to an 'advice' page because I have no faith in them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MothyHarvard (talk • contribs) 16:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll be honest, I'm not really sure what you're asking about. The references all seem to be in Person-centered therapy. If you have a draft that is ready to submit, place {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page and save it; a reviewer will be along to review it. If you want more help, change the help me-helped back into a help me, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Revisiting the Person-centered Therapy article today, I see that all the changes I made have been removed. How can I find out what happened? I have to say that so far I have found WP virtually unusable - either something cannot be done or it seems to get undone immediately, or contaminated with inappropriate bot-driven comments that apparently cannot be removed or queried. Why is it not possible to change a totally inadequate article? Is there someone I can speak to about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MothyHarvard (talk • contribs) 08:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Calm down. There is no need for you to get so frustreated. Your edits were undone because with the edits the article sounded more like a blog. The edits were undone by User:Chrissymad. As for your second question bots are computer driven programs .If you have a greviance regarding a bot you can go to the User talk Page of a bot and register your greviance with the bot operator.Don't get frustrated we newbies get misunderstood and dinged at many times just be bold and register your greviance at the right talk page!Happy Editing .Contact me if you need more help at my talk page.:-) FORCE RADICAL (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I give up. The references have vanished again. This will mean a LOT of work to redo this article. Who do I complain to? Are there any similar sites that are more supportive of contributors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MothyHarvard (talk • contribs) 10:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

is there a way to access a previous version of the article, including the references list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MothyHarvard (talk • contribs) 10:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * On the article select View History and you can look for revisions there. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  14:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Person-centered therapy has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Person-centered therapy was changed by MothyHarvard (u) (t) ANN scored at 1 on 2017-05-20T15:33:10+00:00.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Person-centered therapy. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.The next time you add that content back you'll be breaking 3RR and will be blocked from editing. Primefac (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Person-centered therapy
Hello MothyHarvard,

Your edits to Person-centered therapy violate WP:ESSAY and border on WP:FRINGE. In your last edit summary, you said nobody seems able to explain or take accountability for the deletion of my material. This is incorrect. and both left explanations in their reverts, which you can see if you look at the page history. Explanations have not been posted on your talk page as there was there was other confusion about references disappearing and that distracted things a little. You are asked to stop changing the article and discuss why you consider your version of the article to be better. TheDragonFire (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring, as you did at Person-centered therapy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Primefac (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Re my 'appeal' (ever heard of Kafka?) - I don't regard myself as on trial, as I'm the one trying to make a positive contribution. I read somewhere that WP is all about openness, and I fell off my chair laughing. So for my experience has been nothing short of sinister. WP is not about 'administrators' from way about of the relevant subject area playing God and I will jump through no more hoops for you. Just do your job please. If you can't tell me exactly why person-centred therapy cannot have an article similar to those for other major styles of therapy, why should I have any faith in your competence? So far you've only shown yourself to be ignorant, uncommitted and perhaps even biased. Please take your time, look at this issue properly, and fix this please. Don't drive me to another WIKI.
 * Here's the deal: could this entire debacle been handled better? Absolutely. It's partially my fault we're in this position now, because no one was able to adequately summarize why you can't just replace the entire content of an article with mostly-unsourced and borderline promotional work.
 * Wikipedia is built upon what independent reliable sources say about a subject, and it must be written in a neutral point of view. Is the current article on Person-centered therapy great? I honestly don't know, I haven't read through it. But it is better than the content you put up, because it meets the above two criteria.
 * You claim you're trying to improve the article, and I think that is fantastic - we always look for input from people who know what they're talking about. You're just going about it in the wrong way. You've only been blocked for a short period, and I'm willing to lift it entirely if you agree to my proposal: Don't try to change the entire article all at once. Do it in small pieces, and ask for input on the article's talk page. If you're reverted for something? Take it to the talk page and ask the reverter why they did it. If that seems reasonable, let me know, and I'll lift the block early.
 * I know we have a lot of rules and regulations, but they're there so that Wikipedia can be as accurate as possible. If two editors disagree, they should discuss it rather than edit war over who is "more right". Hopefully we can all work together to make Person-centered therapy a better article. Primefac (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, many thanks for giving this matter some thought. Here's what I propose: I want to remove the phrase 'highly effective' from the intro section (although technically correct it sets the wrong tone for a WP article) – as soon as I’m able to do so. Bit embarrassed that it slipped past me, to be honest. I had actually not realised that the sources/references were not showing, because I was not aware of the citing process ('unknown unknowns'...), and they did appear when I reviewed my edits. I am just not able to trek through the minutiae in all of the advice articles on how to 'work' WP. Hopefully one day the process will be straightforward enough for people with ADHD(!). Then WP could really get rolling. I'll go through the whole article loading the 50ish sources with RefTools, which will take a while, but can't be avoided, and I'm very happy to do. I am willing to retain a small portion of the previous article if this keeps the Edit Warring surveillance Bots at bay. I will then revisit the article in the near future. Please note that I do not want to be too associated with its current content, because I have my own professional reputation to consider- which should give an idea of how seriously my improvements are required. I am not keen to take responsibility for inadequate material that I never even provided. You will have noticed that the article's talk page has not been very active for a while, and the comments which are there do seem to provide moral support to my efforts. It seems to me that people have kind of given up on the article, so yes, it is good that someone has finally come along to bring it into line with similar articles. I will drop a note in there to explain what I’m trying to do and inviting feedback / suggestions. Let me know what you think. MH.
 * I think you've missed the point. The page should be improved, but that's not done by just up and changing the entire page all at once. Do it in small pieces. Start talk page discussions. You say that the talk page hasn't been active in a while, but that seems to be because the article itself hasn't seen much activity. Just because it used to be inactive doesn't mean that it will never be inactive. I think looping in WP:PSYCH and WP:MED (the psychology and medicine WikiProjects) would be a very good idea, because then you will get other viewpoints. Primefac (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Can anyone please tell me why I'm still blocked 40 minutes after it supposedly expired? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MothyHarvard (talk • contribs) 12:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Near as I can tell (i.e. from a technical perspective) you're not blocked. Primefac (talk) 12:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)