User talk:Penbat/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Structuration (social theory)[edit]

Hello Penbat. Regarding the discussion at Talk:Structuration#Requested move. How would you feel about Structuration (social theory)? This would address at least some of your concerns, and it lets people know the domain from which the word comes. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Employment discrimination, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Neoclassical (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) 08:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better source request for File:Dive Deep.jpg[edit]

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 03:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cluster B PD's and psychopathy[edit]

I wanted to discuss the issue of Cluster B personality disorders - borderline PD, narcissistic PD, and antisocial PD and how they correlate with psychopathy. Researchers have proposed "subtypes" of psychopathy (borderline, narcissistic, antisocial, and sadistic) and the primary-secondary distinction is well known about and has quite a bit of backing to support the findings. Borderlines, narcissists, and antisocials frequently score quite high on the PCL-R relative to people without personality disorders, or even people with Cluster A & C PD's. Aggression, sexual promiscuoity, perversions, violence, manipulativeness, attention-seeking behavior, narcissism, lack of empathy, and the use of primitive defense mechanisms (projection, splitting, denial, etc) are common to all three of these Cluster B PD's - especially borderline personality disorder. Jeffrey Dahmer was a diagnosed BPD, as was Dennis Nilsen. Many psychoanaylsts and psychiatrists believe Adolf Hitler was a BPD. Angelina Jolie is classic textbook case of BPD. Aileen Wuornos, and even Andrei Chikatilo were both diagnosed with BPD. Psychopathy and BPD, NPD, and AsPD are related in a very intimate way. I believe that a substantial borderlines, narcissists, and sociopaths are psychopats - or the three seem to represent different "breeds" of psychopaths. --Dendro†NajaTalk to me! 22:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

there are quite a few schools of thought on BPD/psychopathy eg Kernberg suggests BPD is closely linked to narcissism Kernberg#Relationship_between_narcissistic_personality_and_borderline_personality. There are quite a few variants of BPD and my understanding of it is that it is quite controversial and isnt a typical PD as the sufferers may be egodystonic rather than egosyntonic unlike most PDs. Psychopathy is usually considered to be most closely associated with antisocial personality disorder but isnt officially recognised by the DSM so doesnt belong to any cluster. Hitler probably had several mental health labels including paranoid PD, antisocial PD, narcissistic PD and maybe borderline PD.--Penbat (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am a sufferer of borderline personality disorder. I can tell you that before my diagnosis, I had never ever thought there was anything wrong with me. I believed that I was normal and that this is how all people were, only I believed that I was "open", "honest", and comfortable enough with myself to let it all "hang out". I used to think other people were fake, scared and dishonest because they were hiding their natures (which I believed to be just like mine). I used to believe that I was actually the normal one, while most other people were phonies and liars. Not until I got diagnosed (and it took a year for the denial to dissipate and finally agreed to take the referral to DBT). Then I began to understand and my eyes opened up to the craziness - I was the problem, not everyone around me. Yet, even today I find I have justifications for everything untoward that I do, for every lie that I speak, for every person I verbally assault, etc. It is automatic. I can't seem to control it. It's nowhere as bad is it used to be, but all the defenses are still there. I scored a 28 on the PCL-R, I have an IQ of 117, and yet, I'm my own worst enemy a lot of the times. Hitler was said to be a lot of things, but BPD is the most common diagnosis that the vast majority of psychoanalysts point to. Yes, they say he has narcissistic and paranoid traits, but his primary problem was BPD. Anyone with even a moderate knowledge of the subject would agree. Hitler had the anger and rages, the unstable moods, difficult interpersonal relationships, and the black or white thinking (that is an obvious one when you think of Hitler). --Dendro†NajaTalk to me! 22:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There you are, the fact that you have some acceptance and insight into your BPD is consistent with being egodystonic (although I think BPD can be egosyntonic and/or egodystonic). Not sure why you are keen to align yourself with having the same affliction as Hitler, who I think was entirely egosyntonic and had zero insight into his mental condition.--Penbat (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to align anyone with myself, I simply know what this disorder is like firsthand. Before I was diagnosed, I had no insight nor did I have any awareness. I do now, but I still revert to the same defenses and I still struggle interpersonally due to that. The only difference is that now I know I have BPD. What I am saying is that BPD, NPD and AsPD are just different "breeds" of psychopathy. They share the same general traits, all score very high on the PCL (the DBT group I used to attend, there was 12 of us and 5 had been administered the PCL-R - all five had scores over 25, including myself). I cannot talk about some of my inner thoughts and feelings, simply because I would likely get locked up in a psychiatric ward. The point I'm trying to get across is that behind the face of a human, dark thoughts are a recurring theme with me. Fascination and fixations with things that anyone would probably think is nuts. For every BPD, NPD, etc that you meet, there is always something dark lurking inside that head. Call them fantasies, but they are there. --Dendro†NajaTalk to me! 22:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bullying and emotional intelligence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Isolation (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) 08:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peer[edit]

I undid your revision to the article on "peer"—- only because no one searching on "peer" is likely to be searching for "peer victimization". Please don't take personally, just a matter of clarification. KDS4444Talk 12:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have now reverted my edit-- twice-- with justifications that don't match the behavior. I explained that I made my edits because people searching on "peer" aren't going to be looking for "peer victimization" (whereas some of them may very well be looking for "Peter" or "pe'er" and either not get the spelling right or not know how to spell the particular word they are looking for). In this sense, "peer victimization" is unlike any of the other entries. I am going to remove the entry for "peer victimization" once more, and ask you to address this issue here on your talk page before reverting my edit once again (at which point we will have entered into an edit war, something I have no interest in doing). Thanks. KDS4444Talk 20:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your tireless work on the psychology articles.[edit]

Hi, Penbat,

I've seen you do a lot of good edits on articles that are on my watchlist, so I thought I would say hello. I see from your user page that you have a deep interest in the psychology articles and have contributed to many of them. Recently, I am setting up multiple user sandbox pages to do deep dives into the references and structure of most of the articles on human intelligence and IQ tests. (In general, anything within the scope of the nascent Outline of human intelligence, which I also hope to revise extensively, might be touched by my project, but I will especially be looking at about two dozen articles, of which a good half are tightly related the current Intelligence quotient article you just edited today.) I'd be delighted to have you check my work in the sandboxes before I commit sections of drafts or whole new article drafts to mainspace. Like you, I'd be delighted to see every Wikipedia article about psychology topics reviewed by experts for accuracy, balance, and good sourcing. Please feel free to let me know at any time how you think I am doing. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for kind words. I generally concentrate on abuse-related psychology topics, IQ is generally more on the periphery of my sphere of interest (although I am interested in social and emotional intelligence). I dont mind scanning your sandboxes but my comments may be more about formatting and presentation than the factual content.--Penbat (talk) 07:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for LBC[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, LBC, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Khairul Islam 00:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khairul Islam (talk • contribs)

Disambiguation link notification for June 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Negotiation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page First impression (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) 08:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stafford Hospital Scandal[edit]

Please explain why you keep undoing my edits to the Stafford Hospital Scandal page?

I am trying to update the page with factually correct information, rather than the just what the press reported. I suggest your read the Francis report before making unqualified edits.

Mertinuk (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Mertinuk[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Psychopathy, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Stress and Conflict. 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) 09:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Committee on Standards in Public Life, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Selflessness. 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) 09:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Self-esteem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Perfectionism. 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) 09:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology articles[edit]

One of my responsibilities at Wiki Ed is going to be doing just what you suggested to Sage - coming up with gaps in coverage that we can encourage instructors to have their classes work on. So I really appreciate your suggestions. If you're interested, I would also be interested in working with you further to identify gaps in our coverage in psychology areas. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Everyday concepts sometimes get overlooked in favour of more obscure topics. I would be glad to help. Another common concept in poor shape I can think of is bullying. --Penbat (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen recommendations that students look at Wikipedia:Requested articles (eg Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social sciences/Psychology) or articles with Stub or Start status when selecting an assignment. Although some of those are worth creating/expanding, the majority are obscure or niche. Important "C-class" articles often get overlooked especially those rated as "high-importance". For example Talk:Attention seeking and Talk:Bullying are both rated "C-class" and "high-importance". Talk:Praise is actually "Start-class" and "high-importance". However, grading of articles has often not been done reliably or consistently - Talk:Blame is "C-class" and "mid-importance", Talk:Child grooming is "Start-class" and "mid-importance" and Talk:Psychological manipulation is "C-class" and "mid-importance" but they still in my view need urgent attention.--Penbat (talk) 08:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! I just got a request for articles to edit in psychology; your additions to that list were very timely. Hopefully it results in some improvement to those articles. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you make a comment about my new project Encyclopine.org[edit]

hi, Hi, can you make a comment about my new project Encyclopine.org?

Disambiguation link notification for November 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Conflict (process)
added a link pointing to Conflict
Cultural conflict
added a link pointing to Conflict
Ethnic conflict
added a link pointing to Conflict
Organizational conflict
added a link pointing to Conflict
Role conflict
added a link pointing to Conflict
Social conflict
added a link pointing to Conflict
Workplace conflict
added a link pointing to Conflict
Work–family conflict
added a link pointing to Conflict

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Codependency, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression. 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) 09:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

your funny 2011 comment in Talk:Humour[edit]

"humour can also be used by bad people such as psychos to deflect criticism - thus trivialising an awkward situation for them." Now that you've grown a little, do you still believe that psychos are bad people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.137.148 (talk) 03:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of templates[edit]

Information icon Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Epic Systems, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. 32.218.35.93 (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Codependency[edit]

Hi. Wanted to see if we can sort out this section on narcissism together. I struggle with this section (here) and the earlier versions of this article (here) which disproportionately (length) characterize codependency in terms of narcissism. I suggest that this material is more appropriately suited for the NPD article. I noticed that others have questioned this, too (here)

I think Cermak (here) provides the most clinically dependable characterization of the transactional dynamics at play. Enmeshment in relationships extends equally to the chemically dependent, personality disordered, other co ‐ dependent, and/or impulse ‐ disordered individuals. The write up should reflect this balance.

I drafted this (below). Can we work with something brief and to the point similar to this?

  • Narcissist personality disorder. Codependents of narcissists as sometimes referred to as co-narcissists.(1) Narcissists, with their ability to get others to buy into their vision and help them make it a reality, seek and attract partners who will put others' need before their own.(2) Codependents can provide the narcissist with an obsequious, unthreatening audience - the perfect backdrop.(3) Among the reciprocally locking interactions of the pair, are the way the narcissist has an overpowering need to feel important and special, and the co-dependent has a strong need to help others feel that way.
Rappoport, Alan, PhD. Co-Narcissism: How We Adapt to Narcissistic Parents. The Therapist, 2005
Simon Crompton, All About Me: Loving a Narcissist (London 2007) p. 157 and p. 235
Crompton, p. 31

192.136.235.164 (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


There seems to be no shortage of book https://www.google.co.uk/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=codependancy+narcisism&gws_rd=ssl#q=codependency+narcissism&hl=en&tbm=bks&start=10 and academic journal http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=codependency+narcissism links between codependency and narcissism.--Penbat (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back. Are you good to go with my proposed edit/balance? Or do you have an alternative that is short and to the point (encyclopedic) that we an look at?
Also thanks for the thought provoking challenge. I'm not sure book count on Google is the appropriate metric to resolve the issue of balance and priority. Cermak is the one that clinically profiled codependency across multiple conditions and got a DSM style definition through peer review. This is very significant. There are also the 11 million copies in circulation of Woititz, Norwood, and Beattie's work - clearly the defining voices in the public. But even using book count on Google, relegates narcissism/codependency at the bottom of the list. While narcissism has a large codependent component, codependency is not largely about narcissism.
  • 15,300 citations for family/codependency
  • 14,000 citations for alcoholism/codependency
  • 5,600 citations for substance/codependency
  • 2,500 citations for ocd/codependency
  • 2,320 citations for adhd/codependency
  • 2,300 citations for borderline/codependency
  • 1,600 citations for narcissism/codependency (3.6% of total)

192.136.235.164 (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion relocated to Article talk page.

192.136.235.164 (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonia Poulton[edit]

In your nomination, you write "Creator of article may have a conflict of interest by being related to subject." Has this supposed COI been raised anywhere? I can't find any evidence of it being raised, and it seems questionable to me to make an assertion like that without even asking the contributor whether it is true. Incidentally, as a matter of policy, creation by someone with a COI isn't of itself grounds for deletion as far as I'm aware. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's an incidental point in the AFD, not one of the main points. Also I say "MAY have a conflict of interest" - i'm not making a firm assertion.--Penbat (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its an assertion that shouldn't have been made at all - if you have evidence, provide it. If you don't, retract it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dangers of sitting[edit]

Hey,

I've done a 95% rewrite of Sitting#Health_effects (old version) and I've included the two links you'd added to the Talk page. It would be great if you could review the new version and add anything else you know. When you find time. Thanks. Gronky (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It looks fine.--Penbat (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of hospitals in England, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cheadle. 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) 08:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jobs / workplace[edit]

Hello Penbat, I saw you removed the link to job control (workplace) (linked as "job control") from the Template:Aspects of workplaces with the reason (IMO Jobs template more apt as word "Job" more prominent than "workplace" and added it instead (linked as "control") to the Template:Aspects of jobs. Yet apart the title (which visibly includes the expression "job"), the article mainly concerns the influence on what happens in the work environment (including the workplace) including the topic of workplace autonomy. These notions also quite close to the concept of Empowerment which is currently already in the template "Aspects of workplaces". Therefore I propose to put it back to the "Aspects of workplaces" template, or – if not – to put there redirect workplace autonomy (as "autonomy") into that template. What do you think? --Chris Howard (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I created template:aspects of corporations, template:aspects of jobs, template:aspects of occupations, template:aspects of organizations and template:aspects of workplaces. Obviously that does not mean that they are "mine" but I need to try and explain the rationale behind creating them. The content of the templates overlaps a lot (also with template:employment) , that is why each template includes a link to all the other templates. The words "corporations", "organisations", "workplace", "jobs" and "occupations" are often quite interchangeable in the article titles. I could have just created categories for jobs, occupations, organisations, workplaces but I wanted to make it easy for readers to flip from one template to the other which was not so doable with categories. The determining factor behind which template an article goes into is primarily determined by which of the words "corporations", "organisations", "workplace", "jobs" or "occupations" are in the article title which is something concrete. A few of the articles have redirects with an alternative from "corporations", "organisations", "workplace", "jobs" or "occupations" but the article name was chosen to have prominence over the redirect names.--Penbat (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see now which is the logic underlying the templates, and certainly it is important to maintain an over-all logic. Now in this particular case of a concept named "job control" which mainly concerns aspects of the workplace, the logic of using the words of the title leads to a suboptimal result. --Chris Howard (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not self evident that anything in template:aspects of jobs is to do with jobs in the context of the workplace ? I notice job control (workplace) mentions occupational prestige and job satisfaction. Occupational prestige says also known as job prestige which is a redirect, reinforcing my point that the words eg "occupational" & "job" etc are often interchangeable. Job satisfaction says also known as employee satisfaction which is a redirect. Job control (workplace) also has two short sentences on "workplace autonomy" - I think that it could also be called "job autonomy", "occupational autonomy" or "employee autonomy". It is all fairly arbitrary.--Penbat (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I also see the dilemma as to these examples, and I think we agree that a subdivision of these topics is necessarily fairly arbitrary and not perfect. Looking at things from this angle, it would make sense to equip the article "job control/workplace autonomy/employee autonomy" with the respective relevant templates, so that the reader can browse the complete set of related topics. (The "Aspects of occupations" template seems to contain topics that lead in a rather different direction, so it is less relevant here.) The templates each collapse, so screen space is not much of an issue. Would that be acceptable to you? --Chris Howard (talk) 05:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Workplace autonomy is just an aspect of job control covering two short sentences, it could just as easily have been called "job autonomy". Why "employee autonomy" ? Having multiple templates undermines the point that each template includes a link to the other templates anyway. You only normally put a template in an article if that article is actually in the template.--Penbat (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eileen Chubb[edit]

Before you hit publish on another article, can I suggest you fix up Eileen Chubb? Vast chunks of it lack inline citations, the tone is highly formal, and a big chunk of it reads like a press release. Ironholds (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you are looking at the right article. I cant see any vast chunks lacking inline citations ?

--Penbat (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I am. Yes, leads don't need citations when they're the summary of the rest of the article, but that isn't a summary of the rest of the article - the rest of the article consists entirely of an "Edna's Law" section and a list of appearances. I note that you've since added more citations; thank you for this :). However:
  1. Change.org is not a reliable citation. Ditto The Whistler, which appears to be a wordpress blog; if the "Edna's Law" proposal is at all notable I'd ask you to find some more reliable sources than these. If you can't...well, it's probably not worth including.
  2. The listing of a book on Amazon is not something we really use for sourcing. JFYI.
  3. "She has an interest in all sectors but the care home sector in particular. She campaigns for new legislation to replace the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 to improve whistleblowing rights in the United Kingdom." is still uncited.
  4. The list of whistleblowing reports is...non-standard; normally the expectation is that a bibliography section will contain published works. If these are published, fair enough, but they probably don't deserve their own section: some external links would be enough. Ironholds (talk) 06:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Psychopathy in the workplace. 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:

  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.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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. Regards Andrew (talk) 03:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply[edit]

Hi, Penbat. That was a reasonable question civilly expressed, not a disgusting smear. Please consider replying to it with a "yes" or "no". Calling a user "hyper in all respects"[1] is a smear, though. Please don't attack users. Bishonen | talk 20:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Its more than that. This is a complete waste of everybodies time. User_talk:Jytdog#False_accusations_of_edit_warring User_talk:Jytdog#I_strongly_resent_your_COI_smear_here. I had already engaged about this on the scrambler device talk page. I could have done without the official Wiki COI template on my talk page. I have no idea where this COI claim came from.--Penbat (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it's not a claim, it's a question. Is it so hard to answer yes or no? Do you mean you engaged about possible COI on Talk:Scrambler therapy? I don't see anything like that there. The only place I see you address it is in this edit summary, not on the talkpage. That's not the ideal place. Replying properly and simply here on your own page would be a lot better.
I tend to agree with you, though, that Jytdog was unnecessarily quick to warn you about edit warring. Bishonen | talk 20:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I answered User:Jytdogs question at User_talk:Jytdog#I_strongly_resent_your_COI_smear_here as soon as i saw Jytdogs post here. I simply made the point on Talk:Scrambler therapy that i couldnt see why the article was seen as promotional. I thought i was just summarising a few basic facts i had read about it. Jytdogs text on here seemed to be from a parallel universe https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Penbat&oldid=655383862. He stated as a fact: "Your account is what we call a "single purpose account" (see WP:SPA)" - if he had taken a few seconds to look at User:Penbat he would know that scrambler therapy is actually way out of my usual sphere of interest which is psychology. He also wanted to know if i was "a scientist that worked on developing it, a clinician who tested it, an employee or founder of a company selling devices to administer it or that administers it, or someone hired by any of those." - no my interest is psychology.--Penbat (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Penbat. You might like to view a current, rather heated, discussion at[2]. It is a rather tortuous discussion now but I think it will strike some cords with you. All the best.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

apology[edit]

I don't know if you saw it, but I backed off the questions about COI over at my talk page. I am sorry for upsetting you yesterday. I did way too much at once. Jytdog (talk) 10:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your work is appreciated![edit]

The Medicine Barnstar
Your edits on a wide variety of medical-related articles are noticed and greatly appreciated.   Bfpage |leave a message  11:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Penbat/Archive_5&oldid=1140308381"