User talk:Sighola

Hi Sighola
I saw your recent changes to the article on Psychopathy regarding the term sociopathy. I appreciate the fact that you're trying to develop the article, but you need to verify the information with sources. I do think, now, that Hare's arguments are probably unsuitable for an etymology introduction to psychopathy, so I have retained the content of your last revision, but added a source for the first part of the statement (that it was introduced in 1909). The rest is currently unsourced though, so I added a "citation needed" note. Hare's views on the differences between usage of sociopathy and psychopathy, although I don't understand why you think that they're biased or problematic (especially given that they're properly sourced and explicitly attributed as his opinions), have been moved to another section of the article, at least until any consensus is reached on the most appropriate section for it. --Humorideas (talk) 09:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Pop book 'Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us' not particularly reliable for psychiatric theory, Hare is extremely biased toward the psychopathy concept. Sighola (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal
Your recent editing history at Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Some serious clique wp:own issues with that page I see. Sighola (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Albert Laszlo Haines
I think your new article on Haines may well raise issues regarding WP:BLP policy, and have accordingly started a thread at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. If you aren't familiar with the policy, I suggest that you read that first, before responding. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So you went there after joining in the revert above. What issues? Sighola (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Albert Laszlo Haines


The article Albert Laszlo Haines has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No notability, fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. GiantSnowman 14:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * whoa jumping the gun there, have you even read the sources "While Mr Haines's plight captured the imagination of the press for a short while, the principle of whether such hearings should be held in public will have wider ramifications for mental health services." - his case set a legal precedent in UK Law, as clearly stated in the article. Sighola (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest that you discuss this on the article talk page - people may not see your responses posted here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Albert Laszlo Haines for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Albert Laszlo Haines is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Albert Laszlo Haines until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GiantSnowman 15:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=562750773 your edit] to Albert Laszlo Haines may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Tribunal public hearing] - Case Number: MP/2010/19311 - Restricted Patient: Albert Laszlo Haines, Judiciary of England, October 2011

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=563577536 your edit] to Mental Health Tribunal may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s and 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * asp Ontario Consent and Capacity Board], Ontario Review Board Criminal Code

Attempts
Signhola, I think the article which appears to best suit what you mean is Attempted non-fatal offences against the person in English law. However, a word of warning. Because of the way that the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 works - in that it applies to any crime, it would be rare for an English lawyer to consider "Attempted non-fatal offences against the person in English law" as a separate body of information, separate from the law of attempts - hence my changes. The general principles of the law of attempts are applied more or less systematically across every crime. There is little that is distinctive about attempted non-fatal offences against the person in particular.

Did you have some particular content in mind? Perhaps you draft it in a sandbox, I can get a better idea of where it might fit into the encyclopedia. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If I understand you correctly, then I can say this: it is not possible to commit "attempted wounding" under section 200 without the necessary intention to commit the crime in question - a requirement of the law of attempts generally. In the case, therefore, where one attempted to wound, one would necessarily "attempt to wound with intent" under Section 18. I hope that's clear. As to how one might show intent, this is a question for the jury. I imagine his previous record and Occam's Razor would be factors. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Attempt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conspiracy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mental Health Tribunal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Northern Territories (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)