User talk:Vanlegg

Depersonalization disorder
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on depersonalization. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.You're probably not at three reverts yet, but see WP:BRD. Edits are justified on the basis of the policies and guidelines, not personal preference. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

It is you my friend who is destroying information. I am trying to contribute. Wikipedia is about sharing information, not destroying it. So you are doing edit wars not me. Vanlegg (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that I've stared a discussion at Talk:Depersonalization. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Being as you seem very uninformed and I beleive you are being biased it is probably a good idea to get this out in the open. No need to be dramatic. Vanlegg (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Contributions and policies
Vanlegg, thanks for trying to improve the article with references to culture and society. The problem is that it's not enough for you, the reader of those books, to identify them as significant to the disorder. Ideally, a secondary source, like a published book review, or media interview with an individual would identify it. That way we know the information is 'significant'. This is a higher bar than merely 'relevant', and if information is challenged, it's typically on the person who wants to include it to show it meets the bar. So a great place to start would be google, with a focus on sources that are published and have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, at least within their niche. Let me know if you have any questions.

Policies: WP:SOURCE, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT, WP:TRIVIA, and WP:NOT may all be helpful.

Note that what WLU said about collaboration and consensus is also important. If editors disagree with you, try and discuss the matter civilly, and do not just revert back and forth (WP:EDITWAR).

Cheers, Ocaasi c 16:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * OCAASI, Nice to meet you. And thank you for contacting me. As you an see I am not very happy with the "deletes" done by WLU. I don't think this is appropriate to delete information en-masse. He wanted to delete the link to Suzanne Segal and it happened. See the link....   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suzanne_Segal. I guess since this poor lady is dead nobody is here to defend her work (her book). I have made it clear that I don't like the (biased) deletes of WLU. You can see our ongoing disscusion here....  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Depersonalization. I mentioned her "notable" status and her education here. Thank you again for the links to better editing. I would like to restore the "Suzanne Segal" page and keep the links to her book in the two "depersonalization pages" CHEERS   Vanlegg (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WLU is one of the best editors I've encountered and s/he has been here for a while, so don't be too quick to dismiss those objections. I personally find that the smartest editors about science often take the most restrictive approach to subjects and sources--moreso than I think benefits the encyclopedia in some cases--but this is nonetheless a difference of opinion that is informed by policy and practice.  The case you're making right now is just a gut shot at the best approach, and though I'm sure it seems right to you, if you don't familiarize yourself with the basics of what we do and how we make decisions, you'll run into some frequent obstacles.  I highly recommend the simplified ruleset as a good place to start.  In short, we're an encyclopedia, and we include reliable information that's been covered elsewhere.  That is different than being a place where anything useful is written about if someone knows something about it.  Although the latter is often how people operate, and especially newer editors, at least if there are conflicts of opinion, we up the bar to the first category--which requires decent sources.  Best advice is to make your case about the content and why you think it should be included; and then make your case with as many good sources as you can find. Ocaasi c 16:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * OCAASI, It was nice meeting you as I said before. Since it is YOUR opinion that WLU is good, I will back off. I tried to "help" and I am not going to argue with you. I respect your methods and even though I absolutly dislike the destructiveness of a biased person, WLU...the rules are the rules....and this is not MY web site. So that being said. I will no longer be involved in WLU's "wars of desruction".
 * I thought I was speaking for a larger audience...evidently this is not true and I have no desire to quible with biased-people(WLU). I understand you must be gentle to your fellow editors and it serves you well. I don't have to be gentle when I see incorrect behavior. True I will see many things deleted on these pages (thanks to WLU)...but quite frankly...this is NOT my problem. I tried to make this matter known. Since you wish to keep him on hand...I respect this...because I respect you. I am backing off. You will not hear from me again with reference to "depersonalisation" nor with Suzanne Segal. Thank you for your interest. I am not a cop-out. I have better things to do than quible. I really wish you well. CHEERSVanlegg (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you please stop referring to me as "destructive"? It is more than a little insulting given your lack of familiarity with the policies and guidelines.  I am a deletionist, and I insist in the best quality of references to substantiate information, but it is more than a little aggravating to have my carefully reasoned references to policies ignored in favour of the belief that I'm simply a bigot or vandal.  Please read WP:NPA before casting aspersions or insulting other editors.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought this was my page ( I need no comment from WLU). I thought wikipidia was for novices to add info on good faith...not the case....since it seems destructive people delete without finding out about (the credibility of) what should have been taken on good faith. So people like WLU are not doing a favor to the community by destroying information. I think this is an ego trip and it should not belong here. WLU should be more careful and respectful. But since wikipedia allows for destructive deletes of information that was not "vandalism" and was put on to further the sharing of info......then MY place is not here. Humans can mess-up a good deal. WLU should work on "obvious" cases that need cleaning up. But the fact that he goes into "battle" and has no heart is a sign that he is out of line. Like I said...go-ahead...destroy what you will...and disrespect what you will. This is YOUR human natureVanlegg (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is your page, and it is bound by the talk page and user page guidelines. This includes prohibition of "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws."  Wikipedia is not a blog, its content is subject to rules even if those rules are more lax when it comes to user pages.  Though we are urged to be civil and assume good faith, that goes both ways.  I have commented only on your edits and provided substantive reasons why I do not think it is appropriate content.  In return you have referred to my edits as destructive and claimed I am biased - repeatedly.
 * Anyone can edit wikipedia, but not all content will stand - there are rules that exist to govern content. I have referred to them in nearly every post I have made about your edits.  Material must be neutral, verifiable and reliable while avoiding original research.  I have explained why I do not believe Segal's books are appropriate for the depersonalization page.  I have been respectful according to the mores of the community.  Please return the favour by responding to my substantive points and reading the policies and guidelines I have linked to.  Consider that everyone has a different opinion of what is and is not important and encyclopedic - the only way to create a serious reference work is by adhering to a common set of rules that support high-quality, scholarly content.  I know what the rules are, and I refer to them very frequently.  Courtesy would dictate you become familiar with them as well.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WLU...I wish you well. It is not my opinion that this was needed, but it seems rectification will occur. I would still like you to UNDO the whole SECTION you deleted "without cause" and since it was done in the "heat of debate" it even shows signs of vindictiveness (I don't think this is WIKI). Please back off of these pages if you will. I don't want to make this off limits to you, but it seems that there is TOO MUCH conflict of interests concerning ALL THE DELETES you are doing. I don't know how to stop you but I will try. Either you undo these things you have deleted and this shows "GOOD WORKMANSHIP" or you can leave it deleted and this show "antagonism" and possible delight (vindictiveness)in making others do extra work. I hope you will be cooperative. It is up to you to rectify this conflict. Again...I wish you well.Vanlegg (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I deleted the material with good reason, which I enumerated on the relevant talk page, so I see no reason to undo my edit. Have you addressed any of my points?  I refuse to replace unsourced statements and am supported by WP:PROVEIT.  I refuse to replace a statement about a living person without a firm, explicit statement per WP:BLP.  Whether Segal should be mentioned on the page is debatable - her notability is still not established in my mind (others may disagree, a deletion review or re-creation will determine this) and the primary focus of her book does not seem to be on the psychological disorder or symptom; it's primarily portrayed in terms of her spiritual focus.  Claiming "vindictiveness" with no cause, particularly given my extensive citations of policies to substantiate my edits; you may want to refer to WP:AGF.  I have no conflict of interest and don't know why you would claim this.  My edits are reasonable, well within the policies and guidelines, and fairly clearly improve the reliability of the pages in question.  Rather than wishing me well, I would prefer you become more familiar with the policies and guidelines, and stop accusing me of bias and malice.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Suzanne Segal deletion
Dear Steve, I wish to bitterly complain about the deletion of Suzanne Segal. I found her work to be very important and she authored a book that has helped a lot of people. I know that a certain user WLU has deleted much information about her in Wikipedia.

He deleted references to her from these links.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depersonalization AND  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depersonalization_disorder ....begining 7 March 2001.

Then WLU proceded to destroy the page of Suzanne Segal. He started this on 8 March...by saying....."No assertion of notability." NOTE: She did get her Psy.D. degree from an accedited school "The Wright Institute", and I "do think" that this is a sign of "notability". "The Wright Institute is accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges and the Psy.D. program is accredited by the American Psychological Association." Here is link to her school. http://www.wi.edu/program.html   Please look for your self.

It seems to me that there may be a case of "religious biasing" on his part (WLU). Suzanne wrote about "spiritual" experiences related to the "disorder" and this may not go well with people who are "closed" (ie biased opinions) to this "area of great interest" to the community. Which seems to be the reason for Wikipedia.

I also read throught the "debates" which lasted only 10 days......which resulted in the .....total destruction of Suzanne Segal from Wikipedia. I was not at all impressed by the comments used to defend or defeat this link. TEN days is not much time and since most of the "folks that would want to find information" on Wikipedia don't go to the "debate link", much less go there in the 10 days.

I was shocked to see this activity done by WLU. For me it was done behind the scenes.

I would like to know...did anyone ever look to see how often this link to Suzanne Segal was "used by the public" (how many "hits")? It did not "seem to be taken into account" before it was deleted. I am not saying I know it all. If this link was a "waste of your server-data-allocation" because nobody was interested in Suzanne Segal...then I will gladly not interfere. But it is my impression that WLU is "supressing information" because he knows how to work the system.

I personally read her book...and refered it to many people. I do not know Suzanne Segal or her family. I am writing in the interest of the community. I have met many people who have had the experience she described and these people have a "right" to information.

I would "kindly" like to request that her "link" be reinstated to Wikipedia. I would like to know what "can I do" to show that this is of interest to the community. What is concrete "proof" that this web page was good for the community. Please help me stop WLU from deleting "useful" information. Here is a link to our disscussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WLU  ... see DPD

NOTE: IF YOU TELL ME TO "STOP" BEING INTERESTED......I WILL NOT ARGUE..... Thank you Steve. By the way my wife is also from France. I lived there for 18 years. A very lovely place. CHEERS Van Vanlegg (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sure that there are other people who may have helped you that are not notable, so that alone should not be used as an argument for keeping an article. I think the closing admin correctly followed the arguments and the procedures. However, if you feel that the discussion was incorrectly closed in any way, you are welcome to appeal to deletion review. Cheers, -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 17:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article again, and doing some research, there are plenty of book sources, scholar sources and web sources. I think this is one of those cases where I wasn't paying close enough attention, and went by what was said in the AfD. It would have been inappropriate to close an AfD against consensus, and I cannot simply change the result now, though looking at the matter more closely, I think that if I were to get involved in that AfD now I would not close it, but !vote and suggest more time to gather more sources, and may have a go at sourcing it myself. The options open now are: 1) I undo my close, and WP:RELIST; 2) As Ohconfucius says, a deletion review can be opened; 3; I WP:USERFY the article, and help you build in more secure references. A main complaint of the AfD was that the article relied heavily on one source, which was written by the subject of the article. Our guidelines and policies are against articles which rely mainly on WP:Primary sources and which are written by the subject about themselves. It is OK to use primary sources and material written by the subject about themselves as long at they are not the only or main sources in the article. Given the options I would recommend option 3. When the article has been built to a satisfactory state, then I will move it into mainspace. I have some experience of this, and have managed it with some deleted articles much more contentious than Suzanne Segal. My concern with Option 2 is that the AfD was closed appropriately, and a DRV is not a second AfD, so people there will be looking to see if the AfD was technically closed correctly - which it was: I followed the consensus. Option 1 would allow little time to improve the article, and the result may likely be another deletion. Userfying is the best option. Let me know what you want to do.  SilkTork  *YES! 20:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ST, I have collected sources here. Although I at first thought notability was marginal and borderline at best, the more I looked the more decent sources I found.  The two best so far are mention in a book review of the Journal of the American Psychiatric Society and a topic-profile at Washington Times newspaper.  There are also many mentions in various spiritual books and narratives, some of which are referenced in academic literature.  I'm confident know that Segal warrants mention somewhere, and I think the best place to start would be a userpage draft here.  I'll create it, and request that Vanlegg let me and some others work to sure up its compliance with policy while soliciting his advice on this talk page.  The draft is here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vanlegg/Segal .  I've no-indexed it and added the workspace tag.  Once the Segal page is complete, assuming it meets notability guidelines, inclusion at either Depersonalization or DP disorder should follow, would be the next consideration. Ocaasi c 04:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * ST and Ocaasi, You guys are simply wonderful. I am a full time working engineer and wouldn't have had time to carry on. I appreciate this helpfulness and I absolutley have faith in these steps that are being taken. It makes sense to work on the page and later to include this as refrence later. Your help is very touching. I am very interested in helping people who are "hurting" from this kind of experience. Icaasi.....is there something specific you would like me to do to help or shall I just rest at ease for now and add whatever and whenever I find time. I have many house-projects (sewer-line repair...add-ons..etc), I work full time and my 7 yr old sweet daughter needs my time. But if I can be of some specifically requested help...please ask. I will be coming back to these pages every so often. I will calm down my "disclosures" and "defensiveness of Information Addition" with reference to WLU. I made it clear that I think this was uncalled for and that is "enough" ( I will stop). There are better things to do and both of you are "moving along" and so will I. I like agreeable situations but I am "vehement" when I see injustice..and I have always been a kind of "defender of life" even if I put myself in grave danger at times ( I saved one person from drowning and another from falling onto a moving train's tracks). So we are heading in a new constructive direction and I wish to say THANKYOUSOMUCH for this ...this....I guess, we call it this Wikipedia-spirit...I may even catch the bug. (I was lost for a second). CHEERSVanlegg (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Vanlegg, your criticism of WLU is detrimental to this information's inclusion, so 'calming down' is a good step, at least on those grounds. You are not the first person who insisted something needed to be included in Wikipedia, and the process to do so has a predictable trajectory.  A few points:  Just because one supports inclusion of this material does not mean I care about this phenomenon personally; and vice/versa, just because someone opposes inclusion of this material does not mean they don't care about it.  Also just because Wikipedia can include information which is helpful to people doesn't mean we can include information to be helpful to people.  We're an encyclopedia, not a therapeutic resource.


 * Now that you've put this subject on course, please do back off from advocacy--but feel free to help with sources. For example, Feeling Unreal is not a book I have access to, but I'd like to confirm quotes between pages 140-145, which are not all searchable on Google books.  You can be very helpful in that way.  Cheers, Ocaasi c 16:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ocaasi, You are right. Thank you. I will try to get this infomation to you. I am not at home now. I will get back. Thanks again, and my humble regrets for getting "all worked up". CheersVanlegg (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Got a favour to ask of you
WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was confused by this. The diff seems like you already fixed the problem.  What's the request?  ...to group citations as ranges? Ocaasi c 22:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops! I've corrected the link, it was the question about the dissertation information and the Collisions pages.  Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)