User talk:DPeterson

Please click here to leave me a new message, signing with 4 squiggles ~~~~

Welcome!

Hello, DPeterson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Brisvegas 07:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Advocacy Case Status

Hello, I submitted an AMA request and earlier responded to your lastest talk to me. Unfortunately I don't check my wiki page everyday so it seems my case was closed somewhere between our posts. I am still however very interested in seeking another opinion on this issue if you can see my resopnse on your advocacy page. Thanks! Tmore3 00:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation @ the John Bowlby article

Hi there! I have taken the mediation case listed here. I have replied on the article's talk page, so if you could reply there with your perspective on this issue that would be great! Hopefully we can work things out. Cheers, Brisvegas 07:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your question on my talk page, I wish I could accept the solution, but this would not resolve the dispute. I have already offered a compromise where both DDT and Theraplay could be mentioned in the article, just not in the See Also section. I still believe this is the best way forward, although I respect the advocate's suggestion (keep in mind that it is his duty to be biased in favour of his client, while I am striving to listen to both sides). Brisvegas 03:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Sarner

I came back from a day away from Wikipedia and found that a fight had broken out on my talk page between you two, and that he had nominated the article in question for deletion. I looked through your contributions, and I didn't quickly find any incivility coming from you. However, the best way to get this to stop is to disengage. Do not respond to his messages except once, when you have to, and take any further misbehavior to WP:AN if he continues to be a problem. Mangojuice^talk 01:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, one more thing. Be careful with the term "vandalism". Vandalism does not mean edits you don't agree with, it means edits that are obviously and inarguably inappropriate. I appreciate that you feel harassed, but you shouldn't leave vandalism warnings on editors who disagree with your edits; save those for editors who are actually trying to damage Wikipedia. Mangojuice^talk 02:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'd considered his edits to the page vandalism because he added numerious "citation" tags; after nearly every sentance, which cluttered up the article. His website actually provided the basis (or reliable source) for most of what he wanted sources for. However, it I am mistaken is labeling that as vandalism, then please do correct me so I don't labor under any false assumptions. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. DPeterson 02:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

IMO, that's a contentious edit, but really, I just HATE that {{fact}} tag. People use it as a very public way of criticizing an article; they should just put {{unreferenced}} at the top of the article and leave it be, or take it to the talk page. But vandalism? Not when you know the guy has a problem with the neutrality of the content; then you know he's actually trying to ask for references for every sentence, as unreasonable as that might be. Mangojuice^talk 02:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome aboard the AMA :-)

I'm glad to see a new name on the list. :-) Welcome and thanks for signing up! As you've probably already guessed by now (by the message you left me on my talk page), I'm Steve the Acting Coordinator. Basically, my job is to tend the WP:AMARQ page and divvy up the cases as they come in. If you need any help with your first couple of cases (or any of your cases, for that matter) don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk or desk. Some people think that this volunteer work can take a few tries to completely get the hang of, but in my experience, by using common sense it is easy, fun and rewarding. Some times, though, Advocacy can hit you with something completely out of left field, unexpected, so it is a good thing to get extra opinions from your fellow Advocates when you need to. As the old platitude goes: The worst question is a question left unasked.

Seeing how you've set yourself up with the AMA Alerts board and the userboxes, I assume that you've already gone over the Guide to Advocacy and the Reading list. If you'd like you can peruse through one of my latest projects, the AMA Handbook, which is far from complete, but when finished will be a quick-reference guide to common scenarios and various policies within the context of a case.

If you feel confident, I have a case that would probably be suited to you as a first run. Head on over to WP:AMARQ and you'll see that I've made a notice under User:Dwo's case that it is "pending on" you. When a case is "pending on" an Advocate, that means that I've asked them to consider it, and if after reading over all of the information posted (as well as clicking the "read full description" link) they're able, they need to do two things:

1. Set (pending) in the title to (open)
2. Sign under my comment, with something like ":Accepted. ~~~~"

This tells me that they're on the case and working with the user who requested it.

Now when the case is finished, head back over to WP:AMARQ and set (open) to (closed). That tells me that you're finished and that I can archive the case.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me :-)

Peace! אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 13:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

How can I set it up so my signature is in color and with a link in superscript to my talk page? regards DPeterson 12:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You can mess around with your signature by going to your preferences. Check the "raw signature" box, and then simply use html font markup to change the colors as you wish. :-) Remember, that your signature is substituted every time you sign, so when you switch your signature all of the times you have signed before the switch will stay the way they are: Only new signatures will reflect your change. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 13:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Advocacy

Thank you so much for being able to help me in this instance. The discussions are at Talk:Sesotho language#Someone please help me. and Template talk:Languages of South Africa. My desired outcome is a consensus on this issue, but, judging from the incivility, I doubt that would happen. I guess that I'd just like to know what I should do next and how I should go about doing that. Thank you very much. — D. Wo. 17:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's the Sesotho language page that the argument occured on. When Zulu is refered to on the Sesotho page, it refers to it as isiZulu and not Zulu like (I believe) it should. — D. Wo. 18:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I've been busy moving lately. Don't worry about handling it personally; I can take care of that, but if I ever need any help later, I'll be sure to ask you. I just am really busy right now, but I'll get around to it. Thanks. — D. Wo. 02:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty, here's another one that shouldn't be too hard

Heyo, Steve Caruso here. There is a Request for assistance by Apocalypse cow (talk) on Feral House. Would you be willing to take their case? If you will, please leave a note and sign under the entry on WP:AMARQ and change "(pending)" in the heading to "(open)." When you're finished with the case, set it to "(closed)". If you're not able to take the case, please leave me a message on my talk page so I can continue searching for a willing Advocate. Many thanks! This looks like a simple content dispute that may require some negotation and compromise skills. אמר Steve Caruso _{(desk/AMA/vote for me)} 02:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, and thank you for your offer of advocacy. It appears that the situation resolved itself between my application for an advocate and your taking the case. All best. Apocalypse cow 20:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

RE: Your question at the HelpDesk

You cannot view the IP addresses of users unless you have the CheckUser permission which is only given to a few people. GeorgeMoney (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You should make your request at WP:RFCU. GeorgeMoney (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

AMA request

User:FCYTravis began an edit war on Advocates for Children in Therapy and then had the page protected under his version, despite other editors wishing the previous version. He then will not discuss the issues and does not seem willing to consider other points of view. I set up a poll and despite it not being in his favor, he continue to not accept the consensus. I requested mediation and he refused to participate in that. I also think he abused his admin priv by editing the page despite it being protected. (I am not sure how to report this if that is the case). He states that the section he removed is not verifiable and has not citations. on the talk page many have provided citations and websites to support the statement that neither the American Medican Associaiton, American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, NASW, or APSAC use ACT's information despite ACT's efforts to do so. He is REQUIRING that I find evidence that each group states, "We do not recognize the ACT." But that is not my point...only that ACT is an advocacy group and tries to influence those orgs and has not been successful. The talk page for Advocates for Children in Therapy and the section above have the dialogue on these points. DPeterson^talk 01:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll be handling your case personally, and I've posted a new section on my personal Advocacy Requests subpage. If you could take the time to outline the events that have happened so far there with diff links where appropriate while I investigate... Well you know the drill. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 14:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Raelism Advocacy

I have entered into a discussion with said IP Address in question on the discussion page of the Raelism article and am seeing what justifcations are being presented for the obfuscation that was being perpetrated in the article. That is where this issue is at for your apprisal of the situation so far. Thank you for your continued advocacy.Gnrlotto 22:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue was that this poster (the still anonymous IP address which you can find here which unfortunately fluctuates due to them not having a permanet Wiki account) got into an editting war over linking to the intelligent design page from the Raelism page when other than name and the most basic tenet of the concept of being created by an outside force, the ideas are nothing alike memetically speaking. It'd be like claiming that burritos and sandwiches are the same because they're both a flour based product filled with a meat or vegetable product. We were having a discussion about this on the talk page wherein the poster skirts the issue of getting an account the whole time, which makes my discussion point on the page "the link is a false classification reading either as an attempt to legitimize Raelism by linking it to a generally accepted concept as being of Christian origin, or by trying to make the Christian idea of ID seem even more foolish by linking them to what has been called several times in the press "A UFO cult,"" seem to be true while my original idea that "should someone want to create a separate page wherein the differences between how the Raelians view those subjects (and virtually every other group unilaterally views them), as long as it is not made up of original research, then full steam ahead. Otherwise, since the Raelian belief structure is so different from how the terms are universally viewed, it is misleading to leave those links on the page only for people using them to find out that the way (for example) ID as viewed by the general populace, and government, is completely different to, and therefore lacks any relevance to, Raelian cosmology," was not opposed by any of the regular users (who actually have accounts) who've worked on/contributed to the Raelism page itself in the past.Gnrlotto 19:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

My proposal, if any would be that unless something specifically shares a memetic trait with something, they not be linked, especially in a religious concept. Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back has lightsabers, Mark Hamill, and Carrie Fisher, but I just can't call it Star Wars 7 if I want. If we want to set up a poll, fine, but the original discussion proposal I made is now several weeks old, and none of the other regular users had a problem. Maybe the page could be made only accessible to members or something. otherwise, I'm happy. Gnrlotto 01:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Poll: Should references from the page to other articles, and vice versa be based on the ideas simply having the same name, or should they be linked due to the actual content of the concept? Gnrlotto 04:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as your Advocate...

DPeterson, after looking over the entire rigamaole I have some points that I feel that I honestly need to go over with you. Yes, FCYTravis is not being civil and is rather stubborn, but in all honesty I strongly believe that he has a point. I'm not 100% sure what your stance on Attachment Therapy is, nor what your exposure to ACT is, but the additions that you are writing into the article are not completely within the spirit of Wikipedia and no matter how many times I read over them, myself, I can't help but get the feeling like it is an attempt to discredit ACT. I do understand how you want the article to reflect that they are not within "the mainstream," but we need to find a way that does this within the letter and the spirit of the Wikipedia's Rules and Guidelines. What would you like to see this article emphasize? אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 23:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your observations...that quells a lot of my angst. I think what I'd like at this point is for the page to state, as it does as of this moment, that, "Professional medical and psychiatric organizations such as the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the National Association of Social Workers have not taken positions on ACT's work, although these groups do seek and use input from various other advocacy groups. (http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/4134.html) ( http://www.apa.org/releases/teachersneeds.html) (http://www.phrusa.org/research/torture/pdf/psych_torture.pdf) (http://www.psych.org/news_room/media_advisories/mediaadvisory.cfm) ( http://www.naswdc.org/pace/default.asp) [1][2][3][4] "

Note: I put in all those links to satisfy FCYTravis, but don't really think they are necessary. However if you do, then that's fine with me. I suppose this is one of the central roles of an advocate; to present options and advice in a way that ends disputes...being a trusted ally makes those comments and recommendations much more acceptable. Thanks. DPeterson^talk 16:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Your "warning"

I'm sick of these ridiculous warnings. I suggest that you carefully read the wikipedia guidelines before leaving another baseless warning on my talk page. Articles need references and that is that. If you're concerned with my motivations, please look at my contrib history. You'll see that I sputter wikipedia around cleaning up articles. The ACT article led me to the others. This same reply can be found on my talk page. shotwell 17:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

In reponse to your comment on my talk page, asking for references does not constitute vandalism in any sense of the word. shotwell 17:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, putting the after nearly every other line, particularily when there are clear references and sources Template:Verifiable at the beginning, in, and/or at the end of each paragraph to support the material is considered vandalism. Please read the Wikipedia policy on this. DPeterson^talk 17:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I put the request for references on claims such as "this therapy is very effective", practice guidelines, and other similar things. These sorts of things deserve very good references demonstrating that they are representative of widely held beliefs in the psychological community. shotwell 19:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

'Citations and references provided.'DPeterson^talk 01:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Attachment Therapy. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 12:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

Related users?

I notice that Shotwell began to edit around the time Sarner stopped and now the reverse has occurred. Furthermore, their writing style, syntax, and arguments are very similiar. The same goes for StokerAce and the previous edits by Mercer's son in FL (he used just an IP address, no name). It might be interesting to see if they have similiar IP addresses. RalphLender^talk 13:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That is an interesting observation...maybe it does bear looking into further. DPeterson^talk 21:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop your "vandalism" warnings on my user talk page

As you know, you have recently posted two vandalism warnings on my user talk page. Please stop. I have not been vandalizing anything on Wikipedia, but making good faith edits. I once had an administrator caution me about bringing false charges of vandalism. He said:

Now to answer your concern about vandalism reporting: vandalism is the kind of edit that no one should have a disagreement about. Here are a couple of examples of true vandalism: [1] [2] [3]. Edits other people want to make and you don't like are not vandalism, and it's a kind of incivility, if not a downright personal attack to describe someone's good faith edits as vandalism.

Larry Sarner 06:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Your refusal to follow Wikipedia practices and polices regarding dispute resolution and your continued reverts can be interpreted as vandalism and meet the descriptions of that term. Please stop and begin to follow the dispute resolution process. DPeterson^talk 00:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

RE finding regarding Sarner

The outcome of the sockpuppet investigation was a finding of vandalism: "please list diffs of vandalism for C. Dmcdevit·t 21:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)" See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Sarner JohnsonRon 00:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sarner"

Mediation over Advocates for Children in Therapy

You have been listed as an involved party in Advocates for Children in Therapy, and I have accepted the case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-07 Advocates for Children in Therapy. If you can please take a look at the case and let us hear your side, I would appreciate it. Thanks! Nwwaew(My talk page) 13:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to your message

I will help... if I have a link! Nwwaew(My talk page) 13:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I put what you needed on your talk page. DPeterson^talk 14:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Association of Members' Advocates

Hi, you are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, or if you have resigned, please de-list yourself from Wikipedia:AMA Members. If you are still active, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Category:AMA Requests for Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) Sorry for the template spamming - we're just trying to update our records, after we had a huge backlog earlier in the week (if you've been taking cases, then sorry, and please ignore this :)). Again, sorry, and thanks! Martinp23 20:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate Removal of Puppet Tag

You're not really supposed to remove that tag.shotwell 03:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

When the tag is placed as an act of retaliation it actually becomes vandalism. You are not acting in good faith and so removal of the tag is acceptable. DPeterson^talk 03:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no retaliation here. I've been collecting those diffs for the last several days. I really think that you should read the notes for the suspect. Simply calling me a vandal won't make this allegation go away. I certainly hope that I am wrong. shotwell 03:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The Mediator involved in the case has labeled your act as unacceptable. "That was COMPLETELY unjustified. I think this shows that you will do almost anything to keep the article from the majority of editors. Nwwaew(My talk page) 11:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-10-07_Advocates_for_Children_in_Therapy

DPeterson^talk 01:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

AMA case

Hi, I'm going to be your advocate for the AMA case. Addhoc 21:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Formal mediation

We have an open mediation cabal regarding ACT. The disputes on that page are distinct from the issues on DDP. I don't think it'd be productive to merge unrelated disputes (they're only related because the same people are involved) into one mediation case. I see that we both have advocates involved, so perhaps we should ask them their opinion? I'm agreeable to whatever method will most effectively resolve these disputes. shotwell 23:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, that mediator said it was their first case. I can appreciate that everyone has to start somewhere, but I think it is difficult to expect a first-time cabalist to mediate multiple disputes across several articles. shotwell 00:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at User talk:Ideogram#Merging of cases... Addhoc 00:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It would probably be useful first, since there is an active mediation case already, if you (Shotwell) articulated what specifically you wanted for each page so that we can see how this all fits together. DPeterson^talk

To repeat what I'd stated on the DDP article:

We already have a mediator involved in the case...let it proceed. It might help if you stated what you want, in specific language, on each of the pages you are disputing: Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, Bowlby, Candace Newmaker, and Advocates for Children in Therapy. This way everyone could see how this all fits together and address all the related points in one organized and integrated manner. DPetersontalk 23:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC) Also could you address the point raised on the talk page for the Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy article: I don't see where Dr. Hughes says that he engaged in "very" coercive techniques in the past. The material does say that the method is compliant with the APSAC guidelines and the APSAC report writers do acknowledge that they are 'not' saying the approach is coercive; this leads to compliance with the bulk of the guideline. It may be that your personal views cloud(or maybe bias is a better word?) your vision a bit on this and other related points. DPetersontalk 23:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC) DPeterson^talk 03:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

re: Could use your help

User:Shotwell has been busy creating difficulties in a manner similiar to that of user:Sarner on the Candace Newmaker, Bowlby, Advocates for Children in Therapy, and Dysdic Developmental Psychotherapy articles. Because a question was raised about his relationship with Sarner and a sockpuppet was uncoverd by a mediator, he has retaliated by labeling everyone in the dispute a sockpuppet. I could really use some help here; an advocate to get this stopped. I think the mediator is over his head and does not know what do to...he's not responded in a while. I'd appreciate some advice, direction, and help...should this go to arbitration? DPeterson^talk 03:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I truly apologize for not getting to this sooner. Are you still in need of assistance, my friend? אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 17:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem...you've been busy with a wonderful joy. (I have a few children). Best wishes to all. User:Addhoc has agreed to be an advocate here. It's a pretty complex one as I've described...but he has agreed, so that should work just fine. Take care. DPeterson^talk 00:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I don't think that we need mediation over Bowlby or Newmaker.

• On John Bowlby, I think my only comment was about sourcing information about living people. I think that the dispute there between Sarner, you, and others could be easily resolved if someone added additional information about the legacy of his work (thus balancing out the undue weight that Sarner believes is being given to DDP). I'm not familiar with that dispute, so this is just a guess.

• On Candace Newmaker, I thought we were doing a relatively good job at effectively resolving our disagreement. I think our diverse points of view will ultimately make the article much better. It seems like we've been agreeing more than disagreeing there anyhow (for example, most of us agreed on removing the names of people not directly related to the case). Our largest dispute revolves around using Attachment Therapy on Trial as a source, but I think that finding additional references is the key to resolving this issue. As another example, someone recently removed information from the article, but then placed it on the talk page for discussion. I expressed my unhappiness about the removal, but agreed to discuss it and to help find more sources. I would call that collaboration, even if we're disagreeing. If we have a serious and unresolvable dispute there, I think we'd be able to easily find outside opinions by making an RfC (since the subject was widely reported in the news).

I'm narrowly concerned with the Advocates for Children in Therapy and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy articles. As you suggested, I'll post my specific concerns soon (rather than wait for mediation to "officially" begin) to help quickly resolve the disputes. Please understand that I'm not going to list proposed changes sentence for sentence, but I'll clarify where needed.

If you and others want to include Bowlby and Newmaker in the mediation, then I'll agree. Keep in mind that I won't have much to add concerning the Bowlby dispute except for what I said above. shotwell 00:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

As you requested, I've written my proposals on a "clean page". It can be found at User:Shotwell/DDP and ACT. shotwell 01:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Bowlby article, unless there are specific suggestions for changes, I suggest it stay as written. Regarding the Candace Newmaker article, unless there are verifiable and reliable sources provided, I suggest the deleted paragraphs remain deleted. Regarding the Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy and Advocates for Children in Therapy articles, I suggest that specific wording regarding additions, changes, and deletions be proposed so that editors can discuss those in detail. DPeterson^talk 01:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate that you'd like to make sure the issue is settled in my mind -- that is very kind of you. The issue won't bother me, so I consider that settled enough. shotwell 22:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. DPeterson^talk 23:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Dodo Bird Verdict

I'm unrelated to the person who put the reference initially in the psychotherapy article, but the Dodo bird verdict is topical, and something that has come up in all of my various types of theories of psychotherapy classes. I recommend readding it to the article, and redacting your accusation of vandalism.leontes 14:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry if the edits seemed as vandalism. As the article in question opens with the line "The Dodo bird verdict is a phrase sometimes used when evaluating different techniques used in psychotherapy", I assumed it was a related topic for psychotherapy. My apologies if it is not. --Jopo 08:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. DPeterson^talk 15:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Schizophrenia

It seems this material keeps getting reverted into/out of the article, past few days. Looks like an NPOV/POV dispute, since the material appears to have sourcing. From a quick glance, it appeared most of the editing going on was related to the dispute in one way or another. If you'd like me to reconsider protection, feel free to ask and I'll take a closer look -- I kind've had a hunch that was the direction your message was headed, but I wasn't quite sure. Luna Santin 15:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

WP Munich

Hello,

You are invited to join WikiProject Munich!

There are a lot of things to do in this project. From creating new articles to finetuning articles into featured article status.

How can you help?

• You can join a Task Force.
• You can help comform Munich-related articles to Wikipedia Policy.
• You can get free Munich-related images under GNU Free Documentation License.
• You can create and edit of Munich-related articles.
• You can do translations from German Wikipedia to English Wikipedia on Munich-related articles.
• You can help do assessments of Munich-related articles.
• You can help expand articles currently in the Stub-class and Start-class.
• You can help reference articles.
• Since original research is against Wikipedia policy, you can research topics to expand. This means you don't need to know anything about Munich.
• You can help expand stubs and start-class articles and help finetune other articles into Featured article status.

A WikiProject of this nature is very broad. Munich has a rich history in sports, culture, politics along with many more topics. Feel free to help out in your area of interest.

If you want to check the project out you can click the link above. If you want to join the project, you can sign up here.

If you have any questions feel free to contact myself or any other member of the project.

I noticed you put the unreferenced tag on EHC Munich. Are you big on referencing? Because I'm going to start an Article Referencing Drive in this project once there is a fair amount of members. Kingjeff 16:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

So would you like to join WikiProject Munich? Kingjeff 17:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Mihai cartoaje

Please be careful about WP:3RR there. There is little point re-reverting unwanted messages William M. Connolley 12:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The Mediation Cabal: Request for case participation

Dear DPeterson: Hello, my name is Glen S; I'm a mediator from the Mediation Cabal, an informal mediation initiative here on Wikipedia. You've recently been named as a dispute participant in a mediation request here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/schizophrenia I'd like to invite you to join this mediation to try to get this dispute resolved, if you wish to do so; note, however, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate, and if you don't wish to take part in it that's perfectly alright. Please read the above request and, if you do feel that you'd like to take part, please make a note of this on the mediation request page. If you have any questions or queries relating to this or any other dispute, please do let me know; I'll try my best to help you out. Thank you very much. Best regards,  Glen  23:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Smoking and schizophrenia

Hi there,

As MedScape is a secondary source, it would probably be better just to cite the original peer-reviewed research that it cites. It's not clear to me from the MedScape website whether all article are peer-reviewed and to what standard their peer review operates.

-Vaughan 18:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Medscape is a primary source and the articles are peer reviewed by professionals in the relevant field...it is not the AMA, but is isn't Good HouseKeeping either. The articles cited are primary source with Medscape being the source. My reading of Wikipedia is that material should meet the standard of being verifiable and, I think, that material does...but, if you disagree, maybe we could discuss it further(?) DPeterson^talk 23:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/USERNAME

I have reverted your edits to the above page as that's supposed to be a generic "example", not a real RFC. If you want to file an RFC on someone you'll have to replace "USERNAME" with their real name. 68.39.174.238 23:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Schizophrenia & violence

I'm sorry how this discussion ending up going. I originally just missed the mention of non-adherence, being focused on the actual study results + phrase ceasing medication. The complete revert by another editor misquoting from the article, + finding out what the cited source actually found, just seemed to make things impossible, re. ensuring a balanced and fair account of people with this diagnosis. I hope it can be resolved better. I'm going to try some suggestions there later.

This is all also annoying because I was intending to ask you whether you had any particular thoughts or alternative suggestions re the cognitive therapy/CBT page suggested move... EverSince 12:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: personal attacks

sorry about that - my mistake. Also the intent was to delete my comment rather than your comment. You may delete both comments if you deem this helpful 202.0.106.130 22:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments...apology accepted. Generally it is not good form to delete comments from a Talk page. The protocol is just to add any clarifying comments or change one's position etc in a following comment. not a problem here. Regards. DPeterson^talk 00:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Foster Care

Hi, Thank you for naming your concerns re the section move. I disagree with your ascertation and have applied a request for comment section to see what others think. In the meantime I've left the research as a separate section until we see what others feel. --Brideshead 20:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. DPeterson^talk 20:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[4] made on February 22 2007 to User_talk:Mihai_cartoaje

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 19:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Revert warring

Please refrain from revert warring again today. If it is unclear to you why your additions were moved to the correct place read the page carefully. The relvant rules are bolded and very very obvious for you to detect. Take a close look. Remember that your socks are only legitimate if you don't abuse them, as you do now to avoid the Three-Revert-Rule. See the relevant policy here: WP:3RR. Cheers. And please note that for your nonsensical repetitive posts on my talk page I have created a section just for you. Use it if you are at it again. --Grace E. Dougle 21:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Domestic Violence

I am a bit confused about your explanation for changing the Domestic Violence entry, it can only be that you did not carefully read what you were reverting to. What you were reverting to is a much larger number of unsourced statements that I have edited to take them out and in some cases, I even added sources to the statements of others. What was left unsourced was not my statements but the statements of the previous person and by reverting it, you increased the number of unsourced statements and managed to also revert to a bunch of unfinished sentences. I am sure you are just busy, but it would be helpful if you took as much care as I did when editing something. I figured that I might not be able to make something perfect, but at least I can make it better than the stuff you reverted to.

Checkuser?

DPeterson: Would you voluntarily agree to undergo a checkuser so we can clear up the sockpuppetry allegation once and for all? There are some technical reasons why the checkuser folks might not undertake the request, but if you agree to it, then they might consider it after all. Thanks! | Mr. Darcy talk 18:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue has been resolved...there were previous allegations and those were unfounded. I am not going to glorify this uncivil user's personal attacks. The matter seems to have been resolved for now. DPeterson^talk 16:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to say, sorry if I misled you in any way, I did think User:Grace E. Dougle might just be stressed out, but since I was offline, having a weekend, I notice she really doesn't seem to be ready to listen to any kind of reason. --Zeraeph 02:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem...she seems to have left for now. regards DPeterson^talk 16:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser shows no relationship. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/DPeterson JonesRD_talk 19:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

RFC

You need to list your RFC vs. DorisH on the requests for comment page. FCYTravis 01:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

ACT page

Hi,

Thanks for the message. I was wondering why you kept deleting my edit! To explain, the reason I made the change is that the "none are licensed mental health providers" statement makes it sound like they are not experts in the field. In fact, they seem to have written extensively about the subject, as shown in the links. So I was trying to counterbalance the "none are licensed" statement. Maybe it makes more sense just to take that out, though. Just about every academic in every field would need that qualifier if this were the rule! PsychPHD 01:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

They may have written a book (or two) now in the popular press and have a lot of promotional articles on their website, but they don't qualify as experts in the field. Actually, most "academics" in clinical psychology, social work, marriage and family counseling, psychiatrtry, etc are licensed in their field of expertise. DPeterson^talk 01:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The links for Sarner and Rosa were not a full CV, so there wasn't much detail, but Mercer's includes the following publications and presentations related to attachment therapy Mercer, J. (2001). "Attachment therapy” using deliberate restraint: An object lesson on the identification of unvalidated treatments. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 14(3), 105-114. Mercer, J. (2002). Child psychotherapy involving physical restraint: Techniques used in four approaches. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 19(4), 303-314. Mercer, J. (2002). Attachment therapy: A treatment without empirical support. Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, 1(2), 9-16. Mercer, J. (2002) Attachment therapy. In M.Shermer (Ed.), The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience (pp. 43-47) .Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Mercer, J. (in press). Violent therapies: The rationale behind a potentially harmful child psychotherapy and its acceptance by parents. Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice. Mercer, J., Sarner, L., & Rosa, L. (in press). Attachment therapy on trial: The torture and death of Candace Newmaker. Westport, CN: Praeger. “Law, policy, and attachment issues”; presentation at the Second Annual Conference on Attachment of the New Jersey Psychological Association. June 9, 2000,Newark, NJ.“Misuse and abuse of attachment theory”; keynote speech at 2002 Annual Meeting, New Jersey Association for Infant Mental Health, Piscataway, NJ, Nov. 2002. If that doesn't qualify her as an expert, I don't know what does -- she may be the most prolific writer on the subject out there! As for the license, it seems clear that she's not a clinician, and does not claim to be, thus no license. Based on all that, does it sound reasonable to made the edits I suggested? PsychPHD 02:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I only count three publications in peer-reviewed professional journals, all five to six years old. They are interesting opinion pieces, but I don't see the content representing any detailed scientific exploration of the subject...It is fine to publish your personal opinion as Mercer does...that does not make one an expert, especially in a clinical field when when one is not a clinician. Finally, the article has the statements you want....DPeterson^talk 21:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

But three publications in peer-reviewed journals makes my point -- that's probably more than anyone else has done on the subject! And that CV seems dated because it doesn't even list a recent one in Medscape that I've come across. It seems to me that four or more peer-reviewed journal articles definitely makes her a bona fide expert on the matter. Like I said, I wouldn't have bothered pointing it out except for the "they are not licensed" statement, which seems like it's intended to undermine their credibility. If that were taken out, I would say the statement about their publications is not necessary. But if stays in, I think it is important to balance it out. As for your question about my interest in the issues, it's actually more personal than professional. As you can probably understand, I'd rather not get into the details in a public place like this! PsychPHD 00:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, Mercer is not a licensed mental health clinician and neither are Sarner or Rosa, so they really do not understand clinical issues in a professional sense and the papers are opinion pieces not research. They are not licensed mental health professionals. They are advocates...and are lay-people, not professionals in the relevant field. Writing editorials does not make one an expert in a particular field. Furthermore, the statement you wish to add is already there in the article, and therefore not necessary to state again.DPeterson^talk 12:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I still disagree about including the licensing statement. (I see there is now some fighting going on about this.) Is there some way to get the view of neutral third parties? PsychPHD 03:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the poll in progress will help clarify what is the consensus. DPeterson^talk 20:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the poll is that it's addressing a different question. It's addressing whether they are licensed. My concern, by contrast, is that even if they are not licensed, the statement is inappropriate. Also, the key is to have neutral people weigh in. From the little bit I've read on the talk page, there seems to be a long-standing debate about many issues, involving many of the same people over and over. Instead of polling the same people, what would be great, I think, is to get some dis-interested Wikipedia editors to weigh in. Like I said, if I have time I might look into it in the future. PsychPHD 21:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, its the same question. If the statement is factual and attributable to a reliable source then it belongs in the article...That is what an encyclopedia article presents: factual and verifiable material that is attributable to a reliable source DPeterson^talk 21:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:Archive

instructions.DPeterson^talk 12:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

RfC Comments

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I think it's really disruptive that you keep editing in the "Outside Views" section of RfC's. I commented about, but I thought I'd talk to you personally. I can appreciate your problem - many of those who commented in the section had prior involvement with the topic; however, you shouldn't edit the "Outside Views" section to reply - a RfC is not a discussion. However, what you CAN do, is make a note in the "endorse here" section saying that this user is not a valid "Outside View", and link to the talk page - where you can give your evidence instead. Also - it's not vandalism to refactor someone's comments made in your own Outside View. --Haemo

A piece of advice

When adding or removing text in articles that is under discussion, please use the discussion page of the article to explain the reason behind the edit and also leave proper edit comments. This will help avoiding missunderstanding and conflicts. Voice of Britain 12:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I recommend you do the same. DPeterson^talk 12:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. - Voice of Britain 13:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Voice of BRitain, you are also edit warring, you have the same number of reverts on that page, and have just gotten off a 3RR block yourself. Seek consensus on the talk page first. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HighInBC (talk • contribs) 13:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Dispute resolution

Wikipedia has a number of possible dispute resolution steps that can be taken. See WP:DR. If it's one editor acting obnoxiously or in violation of WP norms then a possible next step would be a request for comment on users. Another avenue, probably furher down the road, would be to ask for arbitration. As it happens, the ArbCom is currently considering a case against another stridently-pedophile editor. While it may not make sense to fold another case into that one, at least they are familiar with the terrain. Thanks for helping balance some unbalanced edits. -Will Beback · † · 05:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I filed an RfC. DPeterson^talk 13:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The next step is Wikipedia:Request for arbitration. IMO we have a strong case, and especially as JonesRD was accused of making an illegal statement in an edit summary today. He's been blocked for 48 hours and I suggest we wait and then take the case to arbcom when he can respond, SqueakBox 19:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Attachment Therapy

Could you give me more info on the backstory here? Perhaps some if it's been written somewhere already? I've got email activated or there's my user page. It looks like this is long and complicated dispute, so some guidance would help. -Will Beback ·:· 05:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll review it and see how I can help. -Will Beback ·:· 00:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about you. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

are you OK?

those are identical statements. are you OK? did you open them. they are exactly the same. why do you think one is natl and one is utah? Please open the link and read what it says. FatherTree 22:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No they are not...one is a link to the UT statement and the other is to the NASW National Delegate Assembly stmt:

WHEREAS, The physical restraint of children for purposes other than safety violates the NASW Code of Ethics, which prohibits physical contact that may be harmful; therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the National Association of Social Workers is opposed to the physical restraint of children for purposes other than safety.— Delegate Assembly [7 August 2005]

DPeterson^talk 23:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

DID YOU OPEN THE LINKS AND LOOK AT THE PDF FILE???? FatherTree 23:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please the link is to the above, which is a NASW national stmt. DPeterson^talk 23:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

OPEN THE PDF FILE! what you are quoting is what children in therapy says. now if you want to accpet everything they say a verifiable that is OK with me. are you just trying to avoid this or do you not really understand what is being said here. Ask Fain maybe she can explain it to.

You have said your piece, please stop cluttering up my talk page with shouting and the same arguments you've already made...it's bordering on harrassment. DPeterson^talk 23:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You need to get a source from the natl people. why dont you see that??? FatherTree 23:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

':::::You have said your piece, please stop cluttering up my talk page with shouting and the same arguments you've already made...it's bordering on harrassment. DPeterson^talk 23:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)'

hi

Man, you're sensitive. My comment was meant as a joke. It just seemed that you hadn't read my edit carefully, so I thought I'd kid you a bit. Didn't mean any harm.

Since you were on my talk page, you probably saw the note someone left about you being in Buffalo. Do you have any comment? StokerAce 00:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

And the relevance of that is? Please stop your harrassment. DPeterson^talk 01:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the person who left the comment on my page, you and Dr. Becker-Weidman are both in Buffalo and closely linked. I'm not saying you are. I'm just asking if you have any reaction to his assertion.

By the way, on the 3 revert request you made, I think the reverts all have to be of the same text for the rule to apply. The ones you listed were not the same. I'm not harassing -- just trying to help. ;) StokerAce 01:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

And the relevance of my location? Please stop, what I experience as harrassment. The issues have nothing to do with personal issues, which you keep raising. I ask you 'AGAIN' to please stop. DPeterson^talk 01:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to give you a chance to respond to someone's allegation against you. If you don't want to respond, you certainly don't have to.

Anyway, it would be great to get this recent Craven and Lee piece. If you can think of a way, let me know. Cheers. StokerAce 01:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You already know the response to this from an RfC filed that was noted on your talk page, so your request is a disingenious and deceptive. Again, for the third time, please STOP making false allegations and Personal Attacks. DPeterson^talk 01:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Resp

Sorry you interpreted that as shouting. I was trying to emphasize clearly where you are not understanding. You seem to be not working with the others and putting erroneous data on the article. I have asked you questions and you will not answer. You tell me to discuss and then you will not discuss. I feel that you seem to think you own this article. And I am allowed according to wiki rules to post on your talk page.

I have also seen that you think other people are harassing you. I think you should take a break from wiki. Seems like you are getting stressed out. You claim to be a psychologist but will not answer some simple questions. I think you are Becker-Weidman. Everything points to that. Are you? Just tell us you are not. You are putting in sentences in the article that are not backed up by resources. You accuse Mercer of self-promoting but it seems you do it yourself. Unvalidated treatment hurts people. And costs society. I hope it stops. FatherTree 12:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I recognize this pattern very well, so you are not alone in making such an observation. V.☢.B 13:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR

If I have broken the 3RR rule don't I get an official notification? Not just threats from you? Anyway, you guys revert more than anybody to keep the page stagnant. Please don't trouble to come and threaten me on my page again. It might also be a good idea to stop harassing and personally attacking people with your accusations or harassment and personal attack.Fainites 15:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

re Attachment Therapy

I responded on User:RalphLender's talk page and will write more on the article talk page.Herostratus 22:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. I read through it. It's pretty dense. It sure makes Attachment Therapy look bad. "...verbal abuse on a child, usually for hours at a time", yeesh. However, I am not expert on this, at all, and lots of useful theraputic approaches look weird to the layman. Maybe arbitratrion would be the best option here. Herostratus 22:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think one of the ways to arbitrate this would be with an expert in human rights and rights of the child, not only or not necessarily an expert in therapy.-- Ziji  (talk)  23:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is dense. Attachment Therapy, as defined in the article, is a real problem. The fact that it sometimes confused with legitimate approaches to the treatment of children with Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Reactive Attachment Disorder is another problem. The confusion between useful therapeutic approaches (those with empirical evidence to support their efficacy and that are consistent with the poliies and protocols of National professional organizations, such as the National Association of Social Workers, American Psychological Association, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Association for the Treatment and Training in the Attachment of Children, and American Profssional Society on the Abuse of Children) and AT aka rebirthing, and holding therapy that use coercive and intrusive methods.

Complicating the dialogue is that some members of the Advocacy group, Advocates for Children in Therapy, have taken a pretty fringe stance on this issue and may have recruited a number of editors to become involved in the dispute on this page. You will note a large number of editors who recently created accounts and who only (or nearly exclusivley) edit this article. Your involvement would be a great help. I see that the group I just described has no interest in mediation and am not sure where that leaves us. Your comments and advice will be greatly appreciated. DPeterson^talk 23:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to [5]

I figured I'd respond here rather than pollute that talk page with more irrelevant banter. I have nothing against DDP. Everything I know about this therapy has come from Hughes, Becker-Weidman, or the Child Maltreatment reports. The experts seem to agree that DDP is probably harmless, but that it lacks the rock-solid evidence base necessary to label it "evidence based". This is the extent of my opinion on DDP. Furthermore, I do not think I've made a personal attack against you, but I am happy to apologize if you could point me at whatever slanderous remarks I have made against you. Cheers, shotwell 01:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The past RfC's etc seem to point in a different direction. You are entitled to you POV...just as ACT and its followers are. Craven & Lee define DDP as evidence-based. It has a number of empirical studies demonstrating its effectivness while other treatments were found to be ineffective, all in peer-reviewed journals. You may wish to ignore those facts (as other editors and advocacy groups seem to do), and, again, you are entitled to your POV. DPeterson^talk 01:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Craven & Lee do not say that DDP is "evidence-based." They say it is "supported and acceptable" (just as they say holding therapy is). There's a big difference! StokerAce 01:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

In the final analysis, it will be your actions that will reveal or betray your true feelings...as the above comment and RfC filing do. DPeterson^talk 12:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/DPeterson

I have filed an RfC concerning you at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/DPeterson. shotwell 01:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Jillium

No, a checkuser query was run and determined that Jim Burton, VoB, and Jillium were separate individuals. However it did show that Jillium was a new account of a user who has gone by several different names and who regularly edits pedophilia-related articles. As a result of that eposure he decided to change names again. When I informed him that I'd be filing a case with the ArbCom in regard to his behavior he committed minor vandalism with the intent of being banned and the new account is now blocked. Pending reversal by the ArbCom or an admin the user is now community banned. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Indenting my comments

Please stop indenting my comments unnecessarily. It sometimes has the effect of making my comments look like a response to someone I did not intend. This is especially important if I say something like "you". For example, see [6]. Help:Talk page and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines have more information. shotwell 22:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Formal Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Attachment Therapy, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. shotwell 19:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you plase take a look at Talk:Reparative therapy

There is an interesting row about whether and where to include "ego-dystonic sexual orientation".LCP 23:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input!LCP 02:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

{{spa}}

Please see WP:SPA. {{spa}} is intended for cases of vote-stacking during XfD's or similar situations. Other uses of the tag are discouraged. In particular, there is no reason to tag parties to mediation with this tag. shotwell 20:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is why in this instance it is perfectly accurate and warranted. However, the mediator can decide otherwise if that person so chooses. It really isn't your place to own the page. DPeterson^talk 21:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Own the page? I removed them once and you promptly reverted. shotwell 21:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct, you do not own the page and should not have deleted other editor's additions...that is for the mediator. I continue to question your sincerity about the RfM process given these actions and comments and your comments on the Attachment Therapy article talk page. DPeterson^talk 22:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed my implication. That's ok. What actions and comments have given you reason to question my sincerity? shotwell 22:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)'

Se talk page...

Hello, you removed text from the article and refered to the talk page. However, the talk page clearly states that it should be included. What is your view here? Nandaba Naota 21:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That is simply not so, SqueakBox 21:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Be gone. Nandaba Naota 21:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What? This is DPeterson's user page and if he wants me to be gone I will respect that but you aint him, SqueakBox 22:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please try act your own age for once. Nandaba Naota 22:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

STOP, Namdba. Your comments are offensive and bordering on personal attacks. Keep it off my talk page. DPeterson^talk 22:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's your talkpage, feel free to remove any information you dislike. Nandaba Naota 22:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally I feel I am acting my age and we dont know how old anyone else is though I assume from your user page Nandaba that you are still a young person, SqueakBox 22:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Our newbie friend curiously knows about 3rr

[7], SqueakBox 22:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

So I see. Now that the page is protected, maybe some sanity can prevail. DPeterson^talk 23:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

On a lighter note see the changes to Child pornography and the banning of Dfpc as an SPA. I think we need to remain calm and concerted on this one. Cheers, SqueakBox 23:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...very informative. DPeterson^talk 00:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Little context in DPeterson/MyList

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on DPeterson/MyList, by RJASE1, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because DPeterson/MyList is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting DPeterson/MyList, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate DPeterson/MyList itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 22:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem, as I now see, is that you put it in the mainspace and not in your user space, it was DPetersen/MyList that got deleted and User:DPetersen/MyList isnt disputed, SqueakBox 23:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

OOPS, that's fine....my error. Thanks for the explain. DPeterson^talk 23:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually you should ask Fred to file a check user not ask him how to (re cases relating to paedophilia), SqueakBox 23:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Check User

Can you run a check user on the following editors to the Child sexual abuse article? Their edits & style seem very related: User:Kinda) User:Nandaba Naota User:Voice of Britain If you would respond on my talk page, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. DPeterson^talk 00:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nandaba Naota is definitely Voice of Britain. The other one is unrelated. Fred Bauder 01:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, no surprises there (I guess one gets a feel for people while "collaborating" with them). Thanks, Fred, SqueakBox 01:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Since VoB is blocked, what can we do about Nandaba Naota? DPeterson^talk 02:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I see he's been blocked. DPeterson^talk 02:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Attachment Therapy. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC).

Unfortunate edit summary typo

I chortled.[8] --tjstrf talk 00:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

OMG...what a slip!!! !!!! cute! DPeterson^talk 00:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Paedophilia etc.

Hi, you seem to be, if not an expert on the matter, extremely knowledgeable on the psychological issues involved. I've written an essay on the subject, under user:Jonomacdrones/paedophilia, if you could have a read and point out my mistakes i'd be very, very grateful. Cheers, Jonomacdrones _(talk) 16:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I like what you wrote...the problem will be that much of it is Original Research WP:OR, and Wikipedia does not allow for that. I made a few comments. You might want to find sources for your OR statements, or just see if you can delete them and still have a good article. I'll be glad to help from time to time. Very nice work. DPeterson^talk 22:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, its more intended as a collation of work from wikipedia (et al) and other ideas which came up in a discussion- its not a draft article per se, merely an essay- its hard to explain. I'd hoped that i'd not made any leaps in reasoning and that it made sense from the standpoint of someone like your self- that i wasn't advocating nor condemning paedophiles, just stating that ultimately it comes down to a treatable illness if society stops stigmatising paedophilia and paedophiles, and makes sure its safe for them to come forth before they do harm. Thanks a lot for your input- i really appreciate it. Cheers, Jonomacdrones _(talk) 22:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, in that case, give me a few days to read it over and think about it...I'll be glad to help.DPeterson^talk 22:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, i'd be interested for your personal views, too- but yeah, take a look and get back to me whenever you have chance- no need to go out of your way. Cheers, Jonomacdrones _(talk) 22:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

a peeve

Just got to get this off my chest. It bugs me that you admonished me on child sexual abuse talk as I were reverting and bordering on vandalism when I have not even edited the page. That was someone else--not me. I felt erased. Probably I'm too sensitive, but that's how it felt. -Jmh123 00:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The comment was directed toward Kind0 not you...I am sorry if you thought my comment was directed to you...it was not. I apologize. DPeterson^talk 01:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! -Jmh123 02:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Back at ya

Why thanks! Want one? You've earned it! I appreciate your work. Herostratus 17:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The PAW barnstar, awarded to DPeterson for contributions to project goals. Herostratus 17:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages

I recommend reviewing Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. There are several circumstances in which removing or editing talk page comments is appropriate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've read it and I don't see that in this instance those two editors have cause to remove my comments. DPeterson^talk 00:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Now I see why there is edit war in the article... 00a00a0aa 00:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, when individuals with a POV continue to push that and try to support Pedophilia, others do object on Wikipedia policy grounds. DPeterson^talk 00:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have anything against homosexuals? I find that very offending. 00a00a0aa 00:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Against homosexuals? No, Against Pedophiles, yes! Your comment seems to suggest that the two are the same. They are certainly not. I find it offensive that you would imply that they are the same!!!DPeterson^talk 00:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are you comparing homosexuals with pedophiles? I am a homosexual and I find your comments offensive. 00a00a0aa 00:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not comparing the two. You raised the issue when you said, "Do you have anything against homosexuals?" in reference to the article, Child sexual abuse, implying that the two are identical. I find that offensive and the literature finds it to be false. I am offended that you suggest the two are the same, they are not. Now, 'stay off my talk page,' please. I am done with this discussion. DPeterson^talk 01:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, sorry for being homosexual, I guess I just don't fit into your world view? 00a00a0aa 01:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That is a terrible comment to make. Cant you see the difference between what consenting adults do and child sexual abuse? DPeterson has never expressed homophobia on wikipedia, SqueakBox 03:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

So you think it's wrong to work against homophobia? 00a00a0aa 08:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and RfC on the entry, perhaps?

Thank you for the apology. What bugged me was that you repeatedly stated that "everyone but X and X" supported your view on that issue when I repeatedly stated that I did not, and that you treated me so harshly when I deleted the warnings from talk that are intended only for user talk space. I understand that you viewed that differently. Apology accepted, and let's put this behind us.

I'm not interested in escalating hostilities with particular users or in endless exchanges of argument and edit wars, and all that they may lead to in terms of Wikipedia procedures. I find them singularly ineffective except as an opportunity for more endless exchanges of argument. An RfC on the entry itself might be a good idea. What is really needed is several scholars who know the literature on the subject well, have quick access to the articles and books under discussion, and are able to refer to studies which counter those cited by pro-pedophile editors. Without this, we are going to continue to have a problem, no matter how many heads of the Hydra are cut off. -Jmh123 20:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Good points all. I have some access to lit and materials as this is an area I practice in. I will so some searching. regards. DPeterson^talk 20:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Good. Unless you want to live on Wikipedia, some additional help wouldn't hurt, especially a researcher and/or professor teaching research in the field. Someone recently retired who needs a hobby? :) You have to admit that the pro-pedophile folks really know the research that supports their POV. I don't get the impression that any of the current editors are anywhere nearly as well informed about the state of research in the areas of child sexual abuse and pedophilia in general. When a cite is questioned, as in the case today, I think the most effective response would be to verify immediately that the studies cited did indeed control for variables, supplying a quotation from the specific studies if necessary to support this. Repeating back the words of the entry is a non-answer which allows for continued disputation. -Jmh123 21:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You make it sounds like a pro-pedophile conspiracy, what is happening in reality is however that two competing paradigms of research are clashing. The Moralists versus the Liberals. It's not about promoting pedophilia but about a moral viewpoint versus a scientific. The viewpoints are crudely sketched as follows:

Moralists Sex with children is wrong, what facts can we find to support this?

Liberals Sex with children may or may not be harmful, what does the data say? 00a00a0aa 22:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That is a very partial description, claiming that liberal and scientific are synonymous while implying moralists arent scientific. This isnt creationism and I strongly dispute the accuracy of your sweeping statement, 00a00a00a, SqueakBox 22:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The comparison with creationism hits the mark pretty well, and trust me, I have put things in a very diplomatic way compared to the researchers themselves. 00a00a0aa 22:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've asked you before to stay off my page, please. DPeterson^talk 22:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The two editors in question have been blocked indefinitely as single purpose pedophilia activists. I would appreciate feedback (by email) if you think we have overstepped in any particular instance. Fred Bauder 14:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You should activate your email address, SqueakBox 18:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I just did. Thanks. DPeterson^talk 18:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Attachment Therapy Mediation

If you no longer feel mediation would be appropriate or productive, you are more than welcome to withdraw and the case can be closed. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sarner comment

I'm confused. What was inflammatory about the Sarner comment on the Elvis film? StokerAce 00:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

on your talk page. DPeterson^talk 01:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you clarify for me which parts are inaccurate and inflammatory? Thanks. StokerAce 11:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, those are inflammatory and inappropriate comments which include false statements. No question it is abundantly clear. RalphLender^talk 16:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ralph: Which ones are inflammatory and inappropriate, in your view? I'm just not sure I follow the concerns that have been expressed. StokerAce 19:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)So you guys would argue that DDP has no relationship to Foster Cline's approach? StokerAce 02:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The comment speaks for itself and is clear in its intention and purpose. DPeterson^talk 02:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I can see why you disagree, I'm just not sure why it's offensive or inflammatory. It's just his opinion. Anyway, we'll leave this for mediation. On another topic, that's an interesting pedophilia discussion you are involved in. I'm not sure why some people are so eager to argue there is no harm from pedophilia. I definitely wonder what their motives are, but it's hard to say for sure. StokerAce 18:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up on FatherTree

You could relist the report at the incidents noticeboard, but I'm not sure if that will help. I'm not an admin so I can't execute a block myself, but a lot of people seem to think I'm an admin, such that if I respond to a report, they can move on the next report. Anyway, I think your best bet is to contact an individual administrator on his/her talk page and ask them to investigate. I'd start with User:Mackensen, who did the checkuser on your account. YechielMan 04:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, Thank you. DPeterson^talk 11:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

AT Mediation

DPeterson, you are now in the position of having reverted three times on this mediation request. This is the result of a simple misunderstanding about who originally changed the items. If you check the history, you will see that Daniel originally changed the additional issues to be mediated. [9] shotwell 20:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Peterson, I see that you added an additional item to be mediated, which is acceptable, and then Sarner deleted it. I support the additions. The one regardng COI and financial interests is nearly identical to the first one there....This appears to be a provocation and an attempt to suvert the mediation before it even begins. Patience. JonesRD_talk 21:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. DPeterson^talk 00:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand where the breakdown in understanding is happening. Please look very carefully over the page history. You broke 3RR and then promptly requested full page protection for a mediation request page over this. Mediators are not required to take cases and this sort of strange behavior (reverting the mediation committee chair, for example) doesn't help our month-old request for mediation. shotwell 01:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I made three reverts to remedy the deletion of my additions to the section on Additional items to be mediated, which is open to all to add...It's not your place to delete my additions. And it certainly is provocative when the subject of the material (Sarner and Mercer) delete the material. Given the coordination between you and Sarner, your deletions of my material are equally provocative. If you have a problem, you should seek the mediator's intervention. It is very strange that you would engage in such provocative behavior when you want to engage in mediation...certainly this is not supportive of such an effort. I suggest you leave my additions alone and let the mediator decide. DPeterson^talk 01:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You made four reverts.[10][11][12][13]. I simply restored the "additional issues" section to the list given by Daniel -- I didn't delete anything that wasn't already deleted by the mediation committee. A mediator did decide and you fail to recognize the fact despite being told multiple times.

You have yet to answer my question , instead you just keep insisting that Sarner is acting provocatively (this must be the 100th time you, JonesRD, RalphLender, SamDavidson, or JohnsonRon has said that precise thing). Finally, what coordination are you talking about? shotwell 01:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope, only three in the 24 hr span. Yes, Sarner is acting provocatively....and the reversions of my additions by you and Sarner are also unhelpful for mediation and needlessly provocative. I suggest you leave my additions alone and let the mediator decide. DPeterson^talk 03:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel like checking timestamps, but if you simply waited for the 24 hour timespan to elapse then you violated the spirit of 3RR. Moreover, I have already told you that the mediator did decide. shotwell 03:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope, you still got it wrong. There were only three reversions. Just leave it for the mediator to decide. My addition is a new item so the mediator has not looked at it....and, of course, it is identical to the first one in the listing, so there should be no problem with it. Although Sarner and Mercer and friends obvioulsy object since it is about their clear COI and financial interests in the dispute. But, enough...I'm done with this discussion. If you wish to continue it, please do so elsewhere. DPeterson^talk 14:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have filed an arbitration request concerning Attachment Therapy and listed you as an involved party. You can provide a statement at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Attachment_Therapy. shotwell 11:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mass_redirects_with_no_consensus. Thanks.--Flamgirlant 22:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 17:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes, see wikipedia:Arbitration policy. 2. Yes, respond to accusations to ensure that the Arbitrators see your point of view on the issues they bring up. 3. Yes, examining policy violations is one of the major points of arbitration, so go right ahead. Feel free to ask other questions if the arbitration policy page isn't clear enough about where to post what. Picaroon (Talk) 21:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Remedies

I split the remedy you proposed into two different remedies, one for each user. Please see the further comments I made about them. Thanks. Picaroon (Talk) 01:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, and thank you. DPeterson^talk 01:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

ex: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar for an example of what these things will look like if they pass.

arb

Its only a remedy so far so you dont need to stop editing yet. I have been keeping an eye on your arb case but find the details someaht perplexing so havent made a statement etc myself. Hang on in there, SqueakBox 22:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

DC Meetup notice

Greetings. There is going to be a Washington DC Wikipedia meetup on next Saturday, July 21st at 5pm in DC. Since you are listed in Category:Wikipedians_in_Maryland, I thought I'd invite you to come. I'm sorry about the short notice for the meeting. Hopefully we'll do somewhat better in that regard next time. If you can't come but want to make sure that you are informed of future meetings be sure to list yourself under "but let me know about future events", and if you don't want to get any future direct notices \(like this one\), you can list yourself under "I'm not interested in attending any others either" on the DC meetup page.--Gmaxwell 00:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Note on checkuser

A checkuser request is the mode by which non-checkusers request checks. Checkusers who want to perform checks, while still held to the same standards outlines by the checkuser policy, do not need to be filed or noted publicly. Jayjg has presented all the evidence required, because, of course, listing the IP used by MarkWood and his three sockpuppets would be a privacy violation. Hope this helps. Picaroon (Talk) 03:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I assume we were typing to eachother at the same time, so your first question is answered. As to the second one, no, there isn't any need for Jayjg to present further evidence to the arbitrators. They are the ones who made him a checkuser in the first place (back when he himself was an arbitrator; see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee#Member history for more info), and they recently reaffirmed that he is trusted as a checkuser. In conclusion, you can trust Jay that the four are the same person, because there are other checkusers, and from time to time they look over each other's work to ensure accuracy. Picaroon (Talk) 04:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

For example, that's how I determined that you also are one of the parcel of sockpuppets; I double-checked Jayjg's results. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy note, to read

Dear DP,

I am in a position where I feel it necessary to spell out where I see you as being, so that you understand my perception. Please note this is my view only, but take it seriously.

There is a significant trail of evidence to support the concern that a lot of your wikipedia editing is for POV warring, personal attack, puppet use, breach of NPOV, breach of OR, breach of TE, breach of DISRUPT, breach of AGF, and breach in short of most core policies we have on Wikipedia. Your case is presently being considered (along with the conduct of others) at Arbcom, where five sockpuppets used to control and dominate debate for OWNership and POV warring and bad faith allegations, have been noted, and where arbitrators have removed "sock supporting sock" texts.

You have not received a temporary block or ban pending the arbcom case to date, but several of your socks have been blocked by arbcom and checkuser members. Despite this you continue to edit in a way that does not follow policy or further constructive mutual neutral editing, considering all views. You proceed to still edit to argue just the one view and revert or stonewall discussion on it by bare assertation.

This is inappropriate. I hope you can stop doing this, and your associated accounts and editors, but I would like to ask you to read the following items from block/ban policy, so that you understand how such continuaing activity is viewed on Wikipedia:

A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. A block for disruption may be necessary in response to: persistent vandalism; persistent gross incivility; persistent harassment; persistently posting material contrary to the biographies of living persons policy; persistent spamming; edit warring or revert warring; breaching the sock puppetry policy; persistently violating other policies or guidelines, where there is a consensus among uninvolved users that the violation is disruptive. (WP:BLOCK)

The purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment. The duration of blocks should thus be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behavior. Longer blocks for repeated and high levels of disruption is to reduce administrative burden; it is under presumption that such users are likely to cause frequent disruption or harm in future [emphasis added]. Administrators should consider: the severity of the behavior; whether the user has engaged in that behavior before. [...] While the duration of a block should vary with the circumstances, there are some broad standards: incidents of disruptive behaviour typically result in 24 hours blocks, longer for successive violations; accounts used primarily for disruption are blocked indefinitely; protective blocks typically last as long as protection is necessary, often indefinitely. [emphasis added] (WP:BLOCK)

A Wikipedia ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. A ban may be temporary and of fixed duration, or indefinite and potentially permanent. Blocks may be used to enforce bans. (WP:BLOCK) Partial bans are sometimes used when a user's disruptive activities are limited to a specific page or subject matter. For example, a user may be banned from a single article or an entire subject area. Users who violate partial bans are blocked temporarily to enforce the ban. Where appropriate, partial bans may extend to include talk pages. (WP:BAN)

I would not like to apply any of these, but you need to know patience is running low and these are the options the community has sanctioned when patience expires. Even minor repetitions are becoming tiresome over a year of repetition, and should not have to be bourne by others or the editing community as a whole.

Please do ask me if you need help understanding any policy matter, or have a question, but do not continue editing in conflict with policy, even if you are sure your activity is okay, when in fact you have been clearly told by multiple users (most of whom you have attacked for it) that it really isn't. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't like going the block (or article ban) route. But administrators are given that option because they are trusted to use it where appropriate. The above are the guidelines which I and any other admin refer to, in deciding whether protecting Wikipedia, its articles, its discussions and editorial environment, is necessary. As that is what I refer to, it's important you read it so you can understand it too.

Obviously if I didn't think your conduct has headed that way I wouldn't be saying anything. But perhaps reading the above note you will understand what is okay, and what isn't, and nothing more would need saying. That would be preferable. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

A Revert Explained

Dear DPeterson, I reverted back (temporarily) to the earlier version of "Anti-pedophile activism", which restores the Bill O'Reilly material. I have explained why on "Talk:Anti-pedophile activism". If you still feel it should be removed, feel free to do so. Sincerely, Welland R 15:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked for 24 hours, for tendentiously repeating the insertion of this edit, which breaches WP:POINT, WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, WP:NPOV, probably WP:DISRUPT, probably WP:OR, WP:CONSENSUS, and a few others. You are well aware these are disputed edits with concerns over neutrality, synthesis, or other concerns, and that the appropriate action is to discuss, not repeatedly reinsert.

Full details are at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Attachment_Therapy/Evidence#Basis_of_block.

In particular, note that this was discussed in the presence of some 45 admins and two Arbcom clerks, as a final review to confirm appropriateness and neutrality. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

k

im glad to see that the bill o reily thing is still up and infact has been improved. --Eshay 04:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep going

Please stay here, you are a welcome editor IMO, SqueakBox 04:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I intend to and appreciate your encouragement. DPeterson^talk 02:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Reversion

Hi, DPeterson! You reverted an edit without explaining why on the talk page. Please, explain your reasons on the article talk page. A.Z. 02:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that you are blocked now, so I guess I'll have to wait for at least 24 hours. A.Z. 02:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If you wish, you can write it here and I'll copy it to the talk page. A.Z. 02:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Block (2)

Admin note: - This block should be read in the context of the first block, documented above (DP talk page) and also at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Attachment_Therapy/Evidence#Basis_of_block. The first block was discussed and checked beforehand with two arbcom clerks in the presence of several dozen admins, for neutrality and review. This is a repeat of the identical matters.

You have been blocked a second time for 24 hours, for tendentiously repeating the insertion of this edit, and also this edit and this edit, within hours of the expiry of your first block for tendentious editing. In these three edits, you repeat not just once but twice each, the exact same insertions for which your last block was given, that expired only hours previously. As noted above, these edits breach WP:POINT, WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, WP:NPOV, probably WP:DISRUPT, probably WP:OR, WP:CONSENSUS, and a few others.

Full details are at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Attachment_Therapy/Evidence#DPeterson_(2).

When the block expires this time, it would be sensible to discuss it on the talk page or seek WP:3O or WP:RFC or other dispute measures, since this set of three edits could readily be dealt with as a content issue if you do not ignore others views, and work without POV warring. Please read WP:BRD and WP:DR for more guidance. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)