User talk:SvSpar

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Structure of Temperament Questionnaire into Temperament. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Diannaa, for your assistance.SvSpar (talk) 04:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Reverted edit
Hi. I want to let you know that I reverted your edit to Temperament because
 * 1) You added more references to a statement that already had too many, and
 * 2) one statement you added was confusing or false.

Sorry about this! If I can be of help please ask. Cl ea n Co py talk 21:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Clean Copy, for your assistance. I agree with the overkill of references but I didn't want to insult anybody by not mentioning as this is currently a hot political topic, i.e. linking psychiatric classifications to temperament models. However, if to kill references, then it is better to kill the old ones, in small journals or having small texts, and keep alive the most recent ones, which either have reviews or big texts explaining the subject. So I am going to change the references accordingly, keeping the same number of them as you did it. Re: confusing statement - I don't see what was deleted but it's ok. Most importantly, this section should be added, and let other editors to improve it. SvSpar (talk) 04:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)