Talk:Narcissistic personality disorder/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Narcissistic personality disorder. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Regarding External Links

Let me spell this out here. I will fight Sam Vaknin on this site, tooth and nail, to the last man, the last gun, and the last bullet (maybe not in that order?) over NPD related content, but only when, and because, he is wrong and insubstantiated. When he is right, or I am mistaken, as I was about the deletion of http://samvak.tripod.com/npdglance.html, which I had not noticed over Christmas, and noticed today, and which was discussed weeks ago and a concensus arrived at by several people that this one site should stay, I will uphold him as I would any other person. Our personal issues DO NOT BELONG on Wikipedia (and not only because the software does not permit of a swift kick in the place where I personally believe he needs it most, there is also a tiny matter of right, wrong and justice).

That means the same must apply to anyone else. Including http://www.chameleongroup.org.uk/npd/index.html, which as it stands, has to be the most ill informed, amateurish site I have ever seen, even before you take into account the "click to donate" on every page.

If you look at the archive ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Narcissistic_personality_disorder/Archive_1#Compromise_regarding_External_Links ), Sam Vaknin had to make a case for retaining the one site he has posted here (and he has not even got "click to donate" buttons on it), I see no reason why the owner of http://www.chameleongroup.org.uk/npd/index.html should not have to do likewise. No to me, Sam Vaknin, or any of the NPD regulars, but to the real objective community of Wikipedia.

Since I have got to know this site I have come to believe passionately in everything it has evolved to stand for, which is why, even during an heated personal online war, I have not opted for editing Sam Vaknin's text in the ways that would most annoy him, nor even touched it at all. Wikipedia is not about personalities, it is about an evolving coral colony of an information resource that is quite extraordinary.

From now on Sam Vaknin will have to make an objective case for every line he has posted here, sooner or later, and so will I, thus it follows that those who want to see http://www.chameleongroup.org.uk/npd/index.html included in the external links must also be prepared to do so, even if it means upgrading the quality of information available.

If the site is upgraded to the point where a realistic case can be made for it's retention I will fight for it myself. But until then it does not belong here (there is more to being right or righteous than knocking Sam Vaknin, though, of course, it does help ;o) )

Either it is about taking the time and trouble to participate in compiling valid, objective, information or it is about personalities, which is it to be? (And that means you too Sam Vaknin) --Zeraeph 09:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I advise anyone new to wikipedia to read the "help" pages and explore the various tabs and links to get a better "feel" for the way this site works. --Zeraeph 12:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding external links part II

I can see that this discussion is a bit old, but I very much welcome comments about my web-site and particularly comments which demonstrate that all I say is so ill informed etc. Why did the author not bother to contact me personally and inform me about my short comings? I am always open and very keen to discuss matters. Additionally, I would like to point out that a lot of what I wrote was based on my personal experience and I state this as well. I must have read ca 100 papers on the issue, several books and had conversations with quite a lot of people on this issue. At one point I run a npd forum. Finally, I must have counselled something like 50 people who suffered from a npd relationship seemingly successfully. If I am still amateurish, I must be an idiot.

Dr Ludger Hofmann-Engl 05.06.06

P.S. I don't know who tried to add my link to the npd site here, but I can only say that a lot of people have emailed me expressing that my pages have helped them.

P.P.S The biggest difference between my (cognitive) approach and the psycho-dynamic approach is that I don't believe in the myth that npd's are traumatised victims. As we know most bullying in school comes from middle class, well-off girls who think they are above everyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hofmannengl (talk • contribs)

Your web pages are entirely composed of unverified, unreferenced, personal opinion and "click to donate" buttons, none of which is appropriate to wikipedia. If you ever choose to upgrade them to an academic standard and dispense with the "profit" element, please feel warmly welcome to post the link to be evaluated, once again, on the merits of the content of the site alone, rather than any of your other reading and activities. --Zeraeph 18:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I must add that now the "click to donate" buttons have finally disappeared which, while it is a considerable improvement, the rest of the page remains one man's journey into defining NPD soley in terms of specific relationships that have not suited him (without even passing reference to the DSM IV), and a veritable mine of misinformation.--Zeraeph 21:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Cheers for the comment. Would you please specify what exactly is wrong with my pages. I really would not want someone to follow some wrong advice I have given.

The pages are not thought to be of academic nature (nor are the wikipedia pages) but there to help people who encountered the problem. The site makes this very clear.

However, if you want to read something more academic of mine related to this issue, you could try:

http://www.chameleongroup.org.uk/research/abuse.pdf

but I doubt whether it is of help to the general public. Even academics seem to be puzzled over it.

Still, as said I would be interested to learn about my mistake. --Dr Hofmann-Engl06.06.06

Very simple, you are making up NPD as you go along, to suit yourself, without reference to the DSM IV or other accredited sources (which IMHO would NOT include Sam Vaknin, but even what you say about him and his "work" is grossly inaccurate) which will never help anybody including you. You are a Doctor of music, you aren't qualified to go around re-inventing personality disorders to rationalise your last divorce (yes it is THAT obvious). NPD may be an unpleasant condition but it isn't even close to your "account" of it!

And what you have written on other topics is of no relevance to whether your site is worthy of inclusion in this article. The abuse essay seems properly sourced and validated (thus proving conclusively that you DO know better). On close examination, much of your source material is so obscure as to be untraceable and the notion of breaking down child abuse into mathematical equations as a conclusion is so bizarre that, frankly, I am not in the least bit surprised academics are puzzled by it! I can't see how it tells us anything new or useful and, even if it did, it is not relevant to this article. --Zeraeph 07:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, if you read my paper on child abuse, you will find that I am referring there to three scales related to NPD. I really don't think someone in distress can be helped by referring to a manual. Additionally my paper does what all psychometric measuring does: Formalize the evaluation process. The only difference to some other mathematical models is, that my math is more complex than the math of some others.

I also would like to add that there is no standard definition of NPD and the term narcissist has undergone a lot of changes and probably will undergo further modifications. I think my paper is relevant because it points to Wiehe (2003) who established that narcissistic hypersensitivity is the main characteristic of an abuser, and my pages make this very clear that this is the case. As a psychologist, I am reluctant to follow the psychiatric tradtion of dealing with psychological issues in analogy to the medical science. It is a rather unfortunate fact of history.

I am not sure where you get your information from but my PhD was in psychology (Dep. of Psychology, Keele University, UK). Additionally, I have been working in the mental health field for about 4 years.

If you don't mind me saying this, but your messages indicate some form of anger. I am not sure why you feel so angry, but there must be some reason.

I am not particularly interested in Sam (although you still have a link to him on your npd site. Why?). It's just that a lot of people felt quite hurt by the forums he runs. At times, I picked up the pieces.

Finally, I would like to point out that none of my references are obscure. In the majority they are taken from the leading scientific journals. If you want to get hold of them, it might be an idea to go to a university library. --Dr Hofmann-Engl06.06.06

Music Psychology - totally unrelated to clinical psychology. (music tuition is not generally considered a "mental health field" even when the pupils are "special needs".) http://www.chameleongroup.org.uk/members/cv.pdf

Though frankly, even if you were the Dean of Harvard Medical School it would not render the amateur, unverified, subjectivity of your website suitable for inclusion in this article.

I think you will find a "standard definition" of Narcissistic Personality Disorder in the DSM IV. You may not agree with it, but that is the only topic of this article. You may find Anti-psychiatry a more appropriate place for your link?

Sam Vaknin's link remains here after prolonged discussion and agreement to which I was not a party. If you feel it should be removed feel free to open a discussion on the subject, but be prepared to validate your case considerably better than on your stated homepage. --Zeraeph 11:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You say music psychology has nothing to do with clinical psychology. How do you know?

I only can repeat that my pages clearly state that they draw on my personal experience. Additionally, you still have not pointed out which of my statements is amateurish or ill informed.

I also may add that it was not me who included my link in wikipedia at first. Someone else did that. After it was removed I tried to put it back on a few times, because I couldn't quite get why it would be removed. After a few attempts I moved on.

You are right, I am not a clinical psychologist (at this moment in time), but my field has been cognitive psychology (cognitive similarity particularly which has a lot do with conditioning etc.). I still claim that a more cognitive approach to npd is more useful than a psycho-dynamic or a psychiatric one. Still, this does not make me anti-psychiatry

Would you mind explaining in what capacity you are judging my pages. Are you a cognitive psychologist? What is your background and what are your qualifications?

I am happy to reply but only if you state a concrete example of me being ill-informed. Judgmental statements just don't do it for me. --Dr Hofmann-Engl06.06.06

Funny thing, every single time that link was placed, it was from the same UK internet provider http://www.global.net.uk/, no variations. I, personally and subjectively, dislike fibbers. Wikipedia, as a whole, is set up to be able to detect and ban all forms of sockpuppetry as soon as they are noted.

Let us be more specific, you have never been a clinical psychologist either. You "field" is music, a treatise on providing a groundwork on cognitive similarity in music is hardly clinical cognitive psychology! To suggest that it is is like suggesting work on cognitive similarity in linguistics is equivalent to speaking fluent cantonese.

As a vitriolic vent against your ex spouse your pages may be, for all I know, well informed, though hardly presented objectively or impartially. On the topic of NPD they are irrelevant, from start to finish.

I do not have to explain my background. I am not the one trying to insist that my website diatribe against both my ex spouse and (for variety, apparently) Sam Vaknin is valid information on a Personality disorder. --Zeraeph 12:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Your claims are becoming more hostile than necessary. However, cognitive similarity (as a psychological concept) forms an essential part in my thesis relating it to all major work in the field at the time when the thesis was written (Goldstone is probably the most important expert on it). Cognitive similarity in linguistics - interesting question. I have not come across it. Are you talking about psycho-linguistics?

To imply that I have been lying without any proof (I am not the only person living in the UK, which might have escaped your attention) is defamatory, and I don't appreciate it.

As yet you have failed to provide a single example. I guess, let's call it a day. If you can't see that this is not an acceptable form of communication, well I can see it. I don't like the rules of your shpiel as we would say in Yiddish.

Regards

Dr Ludger Hofmann-Engl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hofmannengl (talk • contribs)

Could we get back Narcissistic personality disorder now?

Initially, the talk on this page is a squabble regarding permission to quote and/or paraphrase the DSM-IV-TR. The talk then segues to a discussion involving IPs, and whether or not Sam Vaknin is actually a Macedonian woman. Following we have a who can delete whom first and faster pissing match, that culminates with the posting of Zeraeph's personal information, presumably by Sam Vaknin, who heretofore was attempting to post with an alternate ID or anonymously. When was this talk ever about Narcissistic Personality Disorder? Am I missing something? Or, is a certain participant presenting with various aspects of the DSM-IV-TR NPD diagnostic criteria in action? 72.16.41.16 17:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[I think it has been a bit "show not tell" on the topic lately 72.16.41.16, let's hope it is all different now. (Though the DSM thing Is a serious issue) --Zeraeph 18:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)]

[And leave everybody's private life to private mail? --Zeraeph 13:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)]

[I have removed all posts that reference, off topic, personal matters in the hope that we can return to topic and stay there. No all of these posts were my own but I hope all parties find this return to topic agreeable, if not, I apologize --Zeraeph 14:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)]

Using real names

you posted my real name, my real life location, and my e-mail address on this discussion area. You started it, not I. Don't post my real name and I will not post yours or your e-mail address or your location. If you want to attribute all the unsigned posts with the unsigned tag - no problem. But then you should apply the tag to your anonymous posts as well as 82.195.137.125. --Samvak 12:28, 08 January 2006 (UTC)

[As far as I know I have, but if you can find any others please do me the courtesy of applying the tags yourself, they are unintentional omissions though perhaps it was a little over-zealous to replace the posts signed with 82.195.137.125 with the unsigned tag as well? Thus: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANarcissistic_personality_disorder&diff=34363970&oldid=34363820 --Zeraeph 13:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)]

Luckily, everything is documented forever in the discussion's history, so you cannot alter the facts by deleting them. --Samvak 12:28, 08 January 2006 (UTC)

[Luckily indeed, because you (not me) identified yourself (as you so succinctly remarked "you cannot alter the facts by deleting them"):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Narcissistic_personality_disorder&diff=32083823&oldid=32083700

And your own real life location (which you expanded upon only today):

Sam Vaknin

Samvak

You are trying to post somebody's real name, email and location, it is not necessarily mine. (Please stop replacing these details and resolve any issues you have with the person so named by private email --Zeraeph 14:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC))

Offhand I cannot imagine any intention, other than the harassment of the person you name, that you could have in so doing.

As you obviously possess their email address I suggest you continue your personal quarrel in private --Zeraeph 13:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Attribution required (Wikipedia rules AND copyright laws)

82.195.137.125 (Zeraeph), please stop removing the link to "Narcissistic Personality at a Glance". It is the source text for this article. Wikipedia rules, copyright laws, (and plain fairness) demand attribution 12:28, 07 January 2006 (UTC):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Narcissistic_personality_disorder&diff=34367328&oldid=34366908 )

Removing the attruibution to the original text (removing the link, as you keep doing) constitutes copyright infringement and contravenes Wikipedia rules. It is also unfair in the extreme and misledaing.

You and I have a long history of online enmity, invariably initiated by you. It is regrettable that you carry your personal grudges into your otherwise admirable editing work on this article.

The text of the article that I submitted on December 12, 2005 was approved for publication at the time by Nupedia's Psychology Editor (a professor of abnormal psychology) and was peer reviewed. It now constitutes the introductory chapter to my book on the disorder ("Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited") and I grant Wikipedia copyright permission to reproduce it and treat it as its own content in any and all ways - subject to attribution and credit.

I like the article as it stands now very much. The collaborative effort has improved it, to my mind. It is a lot clearer.

DanielCD, when I edit, I login as Samvak, because I want attribution and I want to be able to follow all my edits in one place. I have no idea who 62 or 82 are. See more detailed response under your questions below. --Samvak 12:28, 07 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this can be entirely true. I was curious because I keep finding so many anomalies in text provided by this editor that I wanted to know who approved it, see:

*Webarchive, "Articles in Progress" Nupedia April 2003

*Webarchive, "New Articles" (all finished articles) Nupedia April 2003

He doesn't seem to be on either and there doesn't ever seem to have been a Psychology Editor appointed, unless someone knows differently? --Zeraeph 17:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sam Vaknin you are SUCH a fibber (you even edited your own comment as 62.162.222.164 see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Narcissistic_personality_disorder&diff=34232289&oldid=34232134 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narcissistic_personality_disorder&diff=prev&oldid=34230570 and again from 62.162.208.43 see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Narcissistic_personality_disorder&diff=34363970&oldid=34363933 - This is blatant sockpuppetry, apart from being VERY SILLY INDEED ):

The Article is not copied from your page any more (if it ever was, and if you claim it still is, THAT could soon change). It is highly unlikely that, in more than seven years, nobody from Macedonia posts to any of your various forums and yet, as soon as something you do not like happens on Wikipedia, where you have no special control, and where anonymous IPs are displayed, you are suddenly defended by half mt.net.mk's Skopje subscribers, who all use terminology and syntax remarkably similar to your own. That hypothesis is not even mildly convincing.

I have a better idea, why not come out from behind the skirts of a chorus of fictional "Macedonian Women", or trying to act out a personal vendetta you imagine is relevant here and just defend yourself on the facts, as yourself, without giving "imperial commands" under a fictional name.

If you had done so in the first place, you might have pointed out, under your own name, that letting you have a single link had already been discussed and agreed and that sometime over Christmas that single link had been deleted. Had you done so, your position would have been unassailable, even by me, who had not noticed the deletion of your single, permitted, link until now. I choose to accord with previous agreements and leave you your single agreed link. --Zeraeph 12:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC) (The artist formerly known as 82.195.137.125, but you can call me Z, speaking of attribution, will you please stop "attributing" names to me? ) ]

Z you misunderstand the nature of the Wikipedia. This is a collaborative effort. No editor (including you) is in the position to "accord" or "approve" anything. You can merely suggest. Stop editing my posts in the discussion area. It contravenes Wikipedia rules. --Samvak 12:28, 07 January 2006 (UTC)

[I am not "editing your posts" Sam Vaknin, I am removing your attribution of a real name (which is in questionable taste and of dubious accuracy, and therefore has no place here. If you have issues with the person you insist upon naming inappropriately, why not deal with them appropriately by private email?). I believe I may have already asked you to desist from attributing names to me. If I wish to be identified I will do it myself. Kindly cease from removing my perfectly acceptable attribution of IP (almost ALWAYS your own mt.net.mk, suggesting sockpuppetry) to unsigned comments --Zeraeph 13:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)]

This Site Really Doesn't belong here

[Somebody keeps putting this site up on "external links" http://www.chameleongroup.org.uk/npd/index.html it has to be one of the most ill-informed, amateurish sites I have ever seen and I don't think it belongs here. Far better sites have been removed from this article with my heartfelt blessing. Thoughts? .—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.195.137.125 (talk • contribs) .21:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)]

I fully, fully agree with you! Keep on the good work. Meri.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.162.208.57 (talk • contribs) .

No permission to reprint DSM critera

Original Message -----

From: "Chad Thompson" <CThompson@psych.org> To: "Sam Vaknin" Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 2:17 AM Subject: RE: Permission to reprint DSM diagnostic criteria in Wikipedia

Hi Sam,

We are inclined to deny Wikipedia permission to use our content as we do not allow anyone to alter our material and we do not want our material posted online. I can assure you that we have complete rights to our material and Fair Use does not apply to DSM material or any other APA/APPI content. Please forward any permission letters, previously obtained, to me for review.

Thanks

Chad

[Just out of interest, why did you suddenly delete your own mt.net.mk email addy after posting it for three weeks? --Zeraeph 13:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)]

[I received a similar response reproduced further down, without personal identifiers, which were also similar .—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.195.137.125 (talk • contribs) . 10:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)]

If they claim that they have compete rights they are claiming to have create them as a ficticious thing. No one could copyright facts (like the suns rises and sets down, 1 km = 1000 m, an so on) 87.0.142.18 16:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Something I Should Clear Up

I have just realized that another poster was using this same IP (a router with many users) on 23rd November with very negative effects. This was NOT me. I continue to use this IP without logging in because I do not feel safe to identify myself further around the followers of Sam Vaknin, and if anyone knows a nicer way to put that truthfully, feel free to edit my comment without sanction but I really doubt that such is possible.

Unless (and I do not recall with any certainty whether I did or not) I posted while logged in, from a totally different IP on one quite different topic, over a year ago, (rather mundane) I had never posted ANYTHING on Wikipedia before yesterday.

Perhaps people would like to factor that into their thinking before continuing? .—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.195.137.125 (talk • contribs) . 21:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Refactored

As a lot of information was lost during a talk page edit[1] I have saved the old version in archive 1 and deleted duplicate content from this page.

On 4 December Samvak (talk · contribs) uploaded a version of the page that had beed approved by the Nupedia psychology editorial board[2]. Today, 82.195.137.125 (talk · contribs) has been editing the article heavily without actually indication what concerns there are about the content. Some discussion will be taking place below. JFW | T@lk 17:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Deleting Other People's Comments

Sam Vaknin, woke up this morning and removed acres of other people's comments thus: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANarcissistic_personality_disorder&diff=31185242&oldid=31169609

Why was that ok? 82.195.137.125 (talk · contribs)

Listen buddy, if I'd noticed I would have reverted him too. But this is the second time in a day you "accidentally" remove a comment by Vaknin. Please don't let your antipathy inform your editing behaviour. Further offensive comments aimed at anyone (including myself or Vaknin) will be met with sanction. Just contribute constructively to the article without name-calling and other unpleasantness.

Also, your editing of talk pages is chaotic. Just leave comments in topical sections, in a chronological order and indented as required. This makes it easier for other editors to understand the flow of events. JFW | T@lk 17:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[I never claimed to have "accidentally" removed ANYTHING. What I removed I removed deliberately, under the impression, as a newcomer to editing, that was ok, when I saw you refrain from remarking the removal, by Vaknin, of such a vast body of comment this morning (obviously "by accident").

I find it offensive that you apply one rule for Vaknin and one for others and allow him to behave as he pleases with the words of others while making up most of his "facts" as he goes along.

If this occurs again I shall have no choice but to report the matter to Administration.

Surprisingly enough, I also find it offensive to be referred to as "buddy" by total strangers. 82.195.137.125 17:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)]

Perhaps he should have said "Buster" instead. I think that's more the way it was meant. --DanielCD 17:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Son, I am the administration. I think you should stop your ad hominems. I'll avoid "buddy" if this offends you. Is "dude" okay? JFW | T@lk 17:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[You are "part of" the administration, and a very small part at that, I doubt if the rest would be unduly impressed, shall we try them? 82.195.137.125 17:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)]

I'm not sure if there's any point. Try administrator noticeboard if you think there are any merits to your case. JFW | T@lk 17:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[As I have just done. I do not believe there is a need to "make a case", I believe that the facts here will speak for themselves to any who care to examine them 82.195.137.125. 18:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)]

I'll await responses. I signed your post for you. JFW | T@lk 19:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

RfC Review

I've been nosing around here, and I don't see what the problem is. If the edits were mixed up by saving/adding/reverting mishaps, the person to blame is the person who made those edits. These pages shouldn't be altered in a way that causes comments to be deleted. I'll have to look at the edit history a bit and see what happened. Who made the edits that cut the page up and why? --DanielCD 20:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

What I'm seeing is that comments were deleted by 82.195.137.125 and 62.162.217.175. Most of it seems to be from 82.195.137.125. There is no excuse for this, and if an admin had to patch up the page...well, I'm not sure exactly what he did, but I'm assuming he retraced the page and rethreaded the comments in the proper order. If it were me, I may have just put it back here, but I don't think there's anything wrong with the Archive page. I do believe there should be a note here and on it:

[I deleted two comments, under the impression, as a newcomer, that it was perfectly acceptable to do so after seeing several days of comments deleted by samvak first thing this morning, followed by the deletion of several comments of my own during the course of the morning without remark of any kind from Jfdwolff. You cannot have one rule for Sam Vaknin and another for everybody else. As soon as this was remarked Jfdwolff archived the entire discussion page. The content of the discussion deleted this morning by samvak is also a seperate and serious moral issue that could bear scrutiny from the wider community. --82.195.137.125 20:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)]

Some comments were deleted and then edited over by 82.195.137.125 and 62.162.217.175. They have been retraced on [[here]]

And put something of the like on the archive page. Now, did I make any wrong assumptions. Comments please. --DanielCD 20:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Like I said above, I don't see much damage besides a few bruised egos. I think the main effort at this point should be restoring the user relationships. Apologies ("sorry I blew my cool; let's begin fresh", etc.) and such might be good. But let's get this on the table. --DanielCD 20:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[Daniel, I make it a policy never to apologize unless I am actually sorry for something.

So, I apologise for the time I wasted last night trying to work out the subtle distortions that are Sam Vaknin's trademark (well that's the truth, I don't think it's my job to hide it) from the original article.

I apologise for taking Jfdwolff's personal integrity and impartiality seriously enough to bother to attempt tp participate at all.--82.195.137.125 20:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)]

In regard to the slash-and-burn editing that has gone on today, are there, at this point, complaints with the article as it is? --DanielCD 20:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[I spent considerable time last night researching and removing distortions from the original article, I was going to spend more, all of which was deleted by Samvak this morning, I shall not bother again, as this individual seems to have nothing better to do than play a form of deletion ping-pong all day, and I do not have time for it. I have also requested permission to use the actual DSM criteria rather that Sam Vaknin's revised, and slightly distorted version 82.195.137.125 20:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)]

I destroyed some talk page comments by said 82.195.137.125 on one occasion[3] because this editor had again deleted someone else's comments. I gave a lengthy explanation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jfdwolff (talk • contribs) .

[The above does not seem to bear the slighest relation to the facts of what happened? What does THAT achieve? --82.195.137.125 20:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)]

There are some editors who feel that Sam Vaknin has an unreasonable influence in the NPD community online. This is all off-Wiki, and they have taken their feelings to this page. No actual content dispute is being conducted. There are just attempts to dilute Vaknin's original version, which is fine because this is a Wiki, but there should not be wilful distortion of article material just because one writer is not liked by another in some off-Wiki dispute. JFW | T@lk 20:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, better picture emerging. Someone should tell "Sam" to get an account. He's the 6 anon, right? Well, for the anons, I can say this: when in conflict over edits, a third party should be consulted. There's no reason why edits can't be worked into a compromise if all the info is correct. The grease of this community is civility. When it goes out the window, all the wheels start screeching. Let's just take this as part of the learning process.

If there's an off-site issue, it should stay off-site. Edits should never be made as a result of anger. If this person is referring to himself or is using some other form of pull than what's proper (citing sources, reasons for edits, etc.) then that's not right. I don't want to accuse anybody of anything, so I'll leave it there for the moment. --DanielCD 21:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

62.162.217.175 please sign your comments. What do we need here to make things good? --DanielCD 21:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

82.195.137.125, if you think you edits are just, I suggest this: take a break and cool your heals until tomorrow. Then return with a clean slate and do what you need. If there's a problem, message me and we'll work on it. Also...please get an account, makes it easier to refer to you and such. --DanielCD 21:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

82.195.137.125 ...It's best to put each new response at the bottom and use the colons to space each comment to tell them apart (look at the edit page to see examples). I'm missing some of your comments because they are all being spaced around on the page. It might be ppl are missing some of what you are saying. --DanielCD 21:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:"Daniel, I make it a policy never to apologise unless I am actually sorry for something."

You don't have to formally apologise. I mean show a willingness to put the crap behind and work on the problem civilly. Then there's a basis for renewed discussion. --DanielCD 21:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[Daniel I cannot use my account as it would identify who I am with my IP and I have already explained why I cannot do that, but I can promise you that I will only ever post from this IP on this particular issue, if I ever post anywhere else (doubtful) it will be logged in, and if this IP posts anywhere else (particularly in relation to Elvis) it will NOT be me.

Sorry about comments but I suspect I a missing something about merging and a LOT of remarks got ahead of me. Apart from which, I am very much afraid there IS no way to work civilly with Sam Vaknin, never has been, and after his behavior today I have no confidence whatsoever in Jfdwolff (lie ABOUT me and how am I to believe you about anything else?).

I would like to see the administration to review EVERYTHING that is going on here, in my ideal world I would like to see the topic presented by people of integrity and sincere, impartial interest and WITHOUT Sam Vaknin's toxicity (or me, I have no real interest and have to research every word!). But there is no such thing as an ideal world. --82.195.137.125 21:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)]

Vaknin already has an account. He is Samvak (talk · contribs). And this is starting to become rather tedious. Civility alert. JFW | T@lk 21:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

OK...plot thickens. I have two questions here.

Why is Samvak (talk · contribs) using a sock puppet account? If he's editing and not signed in, it's still a sock puppet.
What is the deal with you asking for a Civility alert? Tedious? The two comments you've made in this entire discussion doesn't seem like something I'd call tedious.

--DanielCD 21:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

DanielCD, when I edit, I login as Samvak, because I want attribution and I want to be able to follow all my edits in one place. I have no idea who 62 or 82 are. I am sorry that you find comments like these acceptable: "Sam Vaknin's toxicity" and "I do not feel safe to identify myself further around the followers of Sam Vaknin". I think that's what Jfdwollf meant by (lack of) civility. There is a group of "editors" who bring their personal grudges against me into Wikipedia (at least one of them was banned from my online groups a while back). I removed from the discussion page comments which constituted actionable libel and defamation. Restoring them, even to the archive, creates another potential Seigenthaler case for Wikipedia. What I don't understand is why personal, defamatory, and libelous attacks against one editor (me, in this case) should be allowed and be made available for public vieweing? The discussion should revolve around the article, not around me. Hope this clarifies my point of view.--Samvak 14:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[The IP 62.162.216.57 is Macedonian and owned by mt.net.mk one of Sam Vaknin's Internet providers (he has public announcement lists mailheaders from which clearly display this information) postings from 62.162.217.175 frequently appear within minutes (or in at least one case a single minute) of Samvak and serve no purpose except to support or repeat his postings.

I do not find it acceptable that myself, or anyone, should ever have cause to feel afraid of reprisals from the followers of Sam Vaknin in the event that they challenge his frequently questionable body of work. Neverthless that is the case. Sam Vaknin is, of course free to absolve himself from all connection with these abuses by admitting their existance and requesting that his followers desist, publicly, through his various forums. He has never chosen to do so.

I find it hard to believe that he can identify TlhInganHom as "banned from my online groups a while back" as he clearly did in a previous edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANarcissistic_personality_disorder&diff=31185242&oldid=31169609 , which he removed himself without retracting the claim, without having the faintest idea of her gender. --82.195.137.125 16:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)]

Don't bring your paranoid delusions into this discussion. What "reprisals" are you talking about? And how do you know the gender of another vandalizing editor if you are not in close collaboration with her? And how can Vaknin divine her gender from her screen name? I am posing from Macedonia, but I am not Vaknin. Just someone who thinks that he is doing a great job, having saved my sanity and marriage. There are 500 of us Macedonians on his list. You post from a Greek provider, so I suspect that it is the hatred between Greeks and Macedonians that partly motivates you. Well, Vaknin is an Israeli, not a Macedonian. I hate to see you guys picking on him and in the process sacrificing everything that is so beatiful in the idea of the Wikipedia, that's all. And, btw, I am a woman, too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.162.222.185 (talk • contribs) .

[ If you check http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=npd_family (posted clearly in the sections Sam Vaknin deleted yesterday http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANarcissistic_personality_disorder&diff=31185242&oldid=31169609 ) you will soon discover, as I did, that TlhInganHom is a woman. For the rest, you are incorrect about both the nationality of my provider and your imputation of "paranoid delusions", but you are entitled to your opinions. I have repaired your omission to sign your contribution. 62.162.222.185 is indeed a Macedonian provider I will soon know which - (this is also mt.net.mk--82.195.137.125 19:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)) --82.195.137.125 19:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC) ]

If any other comments are needed please find another administrator. Good luck. --DanielCD 22:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

However, I'm not going to overlook such a blatant violation of policy as to ignore Jfdwolff's deliberate deletion of a comment by another user. Granted it's not exactly on topic. Perhaps remove it to the user's page, but it's in no way so far off topic as to justify deletion. --DanielCD 22:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The discussion has now moved from discussing the article to individual actions by individual users. That's tedious enough. Perhaps you can take over the interesting job of mediating here, because I've got better things to do than being lectured. JFW | T@lk 11:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

"Individual actions by individual users" are gravely important if users are actively trying to sabotage this talk page (by constantly deleting anything that would be unfavourable to them) or are trying to use the article as a means of self promotion, using forgery, multiple posting handles and intimidation as a means to do so. A few weeks back some users took active interest in restoring what was a parody of an article littered with multiple links (direct or implied) to a single user here (Sam Vankin) and faced a barage of re-edits trying to impose the afforementioned links to the rest of the wikipedia community. Not only that, but in an reversion to an edit, Vankin made reference to one users greek ip service provider mentioning something seemingly inane ("in greek vandalism even disguised a moral crusade...blah blah..you can find it in the edits history of the talk page) while referencing the users ip adress as being greek, as an obvious means of intimidation. If even the talk page, can't be let alone, but is contantly being "expurgated" to suit the means of a single user, i don't know HOW we can proceed at editing the main article at all. Very importantly also, if most of us here are dealing with a bonna fide npd sufferer verging on the sociopathic bearing (according to his self admission and his actions) so many pathological characteristics of the disorder (has a sense of entitlement,is interpersonally exploitative, lacks empathy, is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her etc. etc. according to mentalheatlth.com ) I don't see how we can procceed to discuss the issues here in a civil manner. We cannot. And hence the awful condition of this talk page. In addition, as others have pointed out before, this page sets a very unsettling precedence of having a sufferer of a psychiatric condition dominate both the article and the talk page of this condition, especially in a condition where sufferer's show little or no real insight into their condition (and npd is typical of that, although narcissists can feign insight to the untrained eye) and where the condition is characterized by markedly antisocial behaviours.

In view of all that, the bottomline is that this page requires careful and diligent consideration by wikipedia editors because individual users lack the time, and frankly, the stamina to put up with the goings on here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.38.143.120 (talk • contribs) .

Restoring DSM IV Criteria

[I wish to restore the original DSM criteria on the grounds that other mental illnesses defined in Wikipedia reproduce DSM-IV criteria verbatum.

I respectfully submit that if it is an infringement of copyright to post DSM-IV-TR criteria in this article, then it is an equal infringement to post them on the articles above or any other mental health related article, and if the must be removed and transcribed here they must also be removed from other articles and transcribed.

I also submit that a transcription so far at variance with the original criteria of DSM-IV, changes the meaning and nature of the diagnosis and cannot be acceptable, and that any transcription of DSM-IV criteria must be closely monitored for similar distortions. (see below DSM-IV-TR criteria for comparison http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/narcissisticpd.htm )

(Interpretation, Criterion 1)Feels grandiose and self-important (e.g., exaggerates accomplishments, talents, skills, contacts, and personality traits to the point of lying, demands to be recognised as superior without commensurate achievements);

(comment)There is considerable difference in meaning between the two, the DSM-IV does not, for example, mention "lying", "demanding", "contacts" or "personality traits".

(Interpretation, Criterion 2)Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame, fearsome power or omnipotence, unequalled brilliance (the cerebral narcissist), bodily beauty or sexual performance (the somatic narcissist), or ideal, everlasting, all-conquering love or passion;

(comment)"Obsessed" is substituted for "preoccupied" in the interpretation, though the two words have totally different meaning in psychiatric terms. The DSM-IV does not mention "fame", "fearsome", "omnipotence", "unequalled", "(the cerebral narcissist)", "bodily", "sexual performance", "(the somatic narcissist)" or "everlasting, all-conquering love or passion", but the interpretation does, the hyperbole employed completely changing the meaning and insensity intended in the original.

(Interpretation, Criterion 3) Firmly convinced that he or she is unique and, being special, can only be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate with, other special or unique, or high-status people (or institutions);

(comment)This one seems close enough

(Interpretation, Criterion 4)Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation – or, failing that, wishes to be feared and to be notorious (Narcissistic Supply);

(comment)"adulation, attention and affirmation – or, failing that, wishes to be feared and to be notorious (Narcissistic Supply)" is not mentioned by DSM-IV-TR and changes the meaning considerably.

(Interpretation, Criterion 5)Feels entitled. Demands automatic and full compliance with his or her unreasonable expectations for special and favourable priority treatment;

(comment)Apart from the hyperbole, this seems similar enough

(Interpretation, Criterion 6)Is "interpersonally exploitative", i.e., uses others to achieve his or her own ends;

(comment)This seems similar enough

(Interpretation, Criterion 7) Devoid of empathy; is unable or unwilling to identify with, acknowledge, or accept the feelings, needs, preferences, priorities, and choices of others;

(comment)DSM-IV-TR does not mention "unable", "acknowledge, or accept" or "preferences, priorities, and choices", the interpretation does which totally changes the meaning

(Interpretation, Criterion 8) Constantly envious of others and seeks to hurt or destroy the objects of his or her frustration. Suffers from persecutory (paranoid) delusions as he or she believes that they feel the same about him or her and are likely to act similarly;

(comment)"Constantly" is substituted for "often" completely changing the meaning, DSM-IV-TR does not mention "seeks to hurt or destroy the objects of his or her frustration. Suffers from persecutory (paranoid) delusions as" or "and are likely to act similarly;" this totally changes the meaning and adds an whole new dimension that DSM-IV-TR does not even suggest.

(Interpretation, Criterion 9)Behaves arrogantly and haughtily. Feels superior, omnipotent, omniscient, invincible, immune, "above the law", and omnipresent (magical thinking). Rages when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted by people he or she considers inferior to him or her and unworthy.

(comment)"Behaves arrogantly and haughtily" is a similar enough substitution for the whole criterion. "Feels superior, omnipotent, omniscient, invincible, immune, "above the law", and omnipresent (magical thinking). Rages when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted by people he or she considers inferior to him or her and unworthy." totally changes the meaning and adds an whole new dimension that DSM-IV does not even suggest.

--82.195.137.125 14:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC) quotation of DSM-IV-TR criteria removed ]

[I will now, as a compromise, try to render the transcription closer to the original by removing all superfluous text and hyperbole --82.195.137.125 14:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)]

[I would now appreciate any comments on where my transcription differs in meaning from the original DSM-IV, and any input on how it can be rendered even closer - I mean that seriously, until the question of copyright can be resolved I would like to see what does appear to be as close to the original in meaning as possible. Please change the wording if you feel I have strayed from that intent --82.195.137.125 15:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)}

For a change, we fully agree. The article should quote the DSM criteria verbatim - not anyone's interpretation of them (Vaknin's or yours). However, according to US copyright law, rephrasing is copyright infringement. Why don't you ask the Wikipedia administration to obtain permission from the DSM's publishers, APA? Btw, you infringed on the APA's copyright by posting the full text of the criteria on the discussion page without their permission. Finally, the fact that the Wikipedia violates copyright elsewhere does not mean that it has to do so in this article as well. Meri.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.162.208.57 (talk • contribs) .

[I had these misgivings myself, therefore I feel it would be far safer to replace the text (mine or Sam Vaknin's) with a link to the the original criteria as posted with full permission pending a resolution of the copyright issue, not only here but also on the rest of Wikipedia. I see that you are also posting from mt.net.mk? Sam Vaknin's internet provider? --82.195.137.125 18:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)]

Excellent solution. But, again, it is the Wikipedia administration - not you - that should obtain the permission to reproduce the criteria. I will be monitoring and, if necessary, will get the APA copyright permission office involved. I also removed the disclaimer (not allowed in the body of the article). This is what the discussion area is for. Again, creative and excellent solution. We can work together productively if we only put our mins to it. Thanks. Meri —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.162.208.57 (talk • contribs) .

[Perhaps you would care to elucidate on how to ask the Wikipedia Administration to obtain permission? Until that is given I am happy with the link to original criteria. Failing which, I feel that by involving the APA copyright permission office you will only facillitate the resolution of this question on the whole of Wikipedia, thus I encourage you to do so post haste --82.195.137.125 18:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)]

It is the responsiblity of the contributing editor to obtain permission for any works he or she wants to include. Such permissions, if obtained by email, should then be forwarded to permissions@wikimedia.org. However, under the present circumstances there is a decent case for fair use in that the such criteria (even if quoted for a number of articles) comprise only a small portion of the DSM-IV and are unlikely to affect its market value. Ordinarily in fair use cases, one would prefer to paraphrase their work, but in this case doing so is unlikely to accurately perserve the meaning, so there is a reasonable argument for simply quoting the relevant section. Providing such quotations, properly identified, in the context of an encyclopedic discussion of the disease is also a natural context for invoking fair use. However, since the APA appears to be fairly liberal in allowing reproductions of their criteria, it may be sensible for one of you to ask them for permission so as to avoid any potential ambiguity. Though, it is important to note that Wikipedia cannot accept permissions that are granted purely for reproduction in Wikipedia itself. A grant of permission must be sufficiently broad to be compatible with redistribution under the GFDL. This means that by giving us a blanket permission to reproduce and quote their diagnostic criteria, they would neccesarily be allowing anyone else (including commercial entities) to copy and collect all such information that appeared in Wikipedia. Many publishers are understandably reluctant to grant such a permission. I suspect that the best resolution of this issue that we are likely to achieve is either to accept fair use as justification in quoting their material or to do as 82.195.137.125 suggests and simply link to the criteria as they appear on some other site. Dragons flight 21:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[Copyright law isn't my area Dragonsflight but my gut feeling goes with every word you say, particularly about the undesireability of paraphrasing (Wouldn't Patient Instructions for Pharmecuticals be a similar case

I've restored the deleted material. I'm not sure I understand the issue here. First, we're not quoting; we're paraphrasing (although quoting would be better). And anyway, we're allowed to quote so long as we attribute it. It's not a long quotation and it makes up only a tiny part of the DSM, so why would there be a problem with it? Zeraeph, would you mind forwarding me any emails you received from the publisher? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop restoring it until it's resolved, all you can cause that way is trouble. The email I recieved was a cc of this one sent to Sam Vaknin (posted above and THAT'S another story). Note particularly the words about "altering":

Original Message -----

From: "Chad Thompson" <CThompson@psych.org> To: "Sam Vaknin" Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 2:17 AM Subject: RE: Permission to reprint DSM diagnostic criteria in Wikipedia

Hi Sam,

We are inclined to deny Wikipedia permission to use our content as we do not allow anyone to alter our material and we do not want our material posted online. I can assure you that we have complete rights to our material and Fair Use does not apply to DSM material or any other APA/APPI content. Please forward any permission letters, previously obtained, to me for review.

Thanks

Chad

Mjformica seems to be "connected" and is going to do his best to get them to reverse this, defiance at this point would only serve to antagonise the APA and prejudice that (the APA is notorious for that, I checked with several people who have been forced to take DSM criteria OR paraphrasing down from their sites by them).

You need to ask Chad Thompson why they have a problem with it (seriously, I think you should also mail them), personally I agree with you, and even with the specific paraphrasing you used, but it would be insane to antagonise them now. --Zeraeph 02:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

DSM Criteria AGAIN

Please take note that Slimvirgin's edit would represent my personal ideal of how the DSM criteria should appear on this article. For the record (see below) I believe we should not only be allowed but ENCOURAGED to use the DSM IV TR criteria on all relevant article, even if (as is understandable, to avoid distortion of meaning, which may be their major concern) they insist such text be rendered impossible to edit. However, see below :o( The APA specifically refused permission for this page, and the decision was made to comply and use a link, pending further information. There has been no further information, particularly on the subject of using a transcription.

If you disagree with this please mail "Chad Thompson" <CThompson@psych.org> and try to find a way to change his mind, or get permission for the specific transcription Slimvirgin used (which is excellent). Don't revert, because to revert this, specifically refused, page is to risk the APA going on the warpath with whole site.

I have also raised the discussion again here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

Thank you --Zeraeph 13:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I have just removed and attempted to replace an whole paragraph that baldly misrepresented the DSM criteria for two disorders. If the would give permission to post the criteria this could have been caught and removed months ago - I just needed to say that --Zeraeph 15:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I have contaccted the APA as to specific guidelines for the presentation of diagnostic criteria on Wikipedia, such that said presentation would not create a situation of copyright infringement. In my experience, and as an APA member, while the criteria are strict, they are available.

I am currently approaching this through regular channels. If I don't find satisfaction there, a colleague and very good friend of mine is one of the Directors. I can ring him up in DC and take it from there. --Mjformica 17:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

big beaming grins* THANK YOU - this is JUST what we needed, let us know asap --Zeraeph 18:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyrights and dsm...

They can't copyright the information. Just rewrite the list in your own words, and there's no claim for them to make about it. The lists in the DSM look like crap anyway, they're made for helping people diagnose things, not writing encyclopedias. --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 23:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Zeraeph, please stop deleting that material. The email you have says that "fair use" does not apply, but of course it does. I will contact him directly myself, but in the meantime, please leave it alone. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh. But, I think my idea is a better way to organize the content. :) --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 02:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but then there will be objections that we're not paraphrasing it properly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they can copyright that information, because of the unique circumstances of psychiatry: NPD, by definition, is whatever the American Psychiatric Association lists it as being in the DSM-IV-TR. There are no underlying, unquestionable, inherent "facts" about what makes up NPD or any other psychiatric disorder; a given set of diagnostic criteria consists entirely of the consensus opinion of the people responsible for putting together the DSM. Twenty years from now, the DSM's diagnostic criteria for NPD may be wildly different from what they are today; NPD may even be absorbed into an entirely new disorder or perhaps even thrown out entirely, based on the results of psychiatric research yet to come. As such, we have two problems on WP: Not only can the APA copyright the diagnostic criteria, we also cannot paraphrase the diagnostic criteria without inherently changing it and thus rendering it inaccurate. Every single word of every single set of diagnostic criteria is argued over by the best professional psychiatrists and researchers for years before a new edition of the DSM comes out. So if we just rewrite the NPD criteria to "get the general point across," we're going to screw up somehow and leave something out, which will make it a major leage WP:V violation and utterly useless to the reader, possibly dangerously so. I say we keep things as they are, and just link to an external copy of the diagnostic criteria, unless we can get the APA to let us post it here directly (which I doubt will happen, but you never know). --Aaron 03:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, NPD as defined by them is, obviously, NPD as defined by them. ;-D But there are other, more complete definitions and descriptions of NPD, inside the U.S. and particularly overseas. Please bear in mind that the APA is just one organization in one country. It's perfectly acceptable to quote them, so long as we don't quote huge chunks, and it's also perfectly acceptable to paraphrase, notwithstanding that they believe every word to be vital. They are not the Torah. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You can post any definition you like, but not as "DSM Diagnostic Criteria" (as you tried to do), and if the definition you post is an accurate description of any recognised sourcve it should not be a violation.

This is a possible compromise, the wording very carefully avoids any suggestion that these are DSM criteria, it is possible to substitute this for the existing "DSM IV TR Diagnostic criteria", the link is optional:

==Diagnostic Criteria==

At least five of the following are necessary for a diagnosis to be made:

is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by other special people
requires excessive admiration
strong sense of entitlement
takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
lacks empathy
is often envious or believes others are envious of him
arrogant affect

(see also full list in DSM-IV-TR)

Personally I like the list format, it seems clearer to me, others do not.

However, in the long term the best course is to pressure the APA to grant permission, sitewide, I think it can be done particularly if enough people ask for it --Zeraeph 06:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I just noticed that's exactly the same as what you were reverting off the page, except it doesn't credit the DSM-IV-TR, and would be a copyright violation. For fair use to work, you have to credit the source. --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 17:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That list is NOT from DSM IV TR (Didn't you realise that? Check the link and you will see the actual criteria, they are not as concise), it is a description of the DSM IV TR criteria (and a very good one), which is why it should NEVER have been posted as "DSM IV TR criteria" in the first place (as it was originally).

The APA state "fair use" doesn't apply to verbatum use of their wording (which actually seems quite insane to me, you would think it would be to their advantage to encourage and insist on the promulgation of their criteria strictly without alteration) which they have refused permission to reproduce here, on this specific page. THAT would be the copyright violation the APA have already objected to, reproducing the actual criteria with credit!

So the only option is to go with a "description" which is what the list above amounts to, and avoid even suggesting it is from the DSM. It is sailing VERY close to the wind, but less trouble than reproducing the actual criteria credited to the DSM now, AFTER the APA have already stated "fair use" does not apply.--Zeraeph 18:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Then why didn't you just remove the part saying it is from the DSM, instead of the whole thing? Well, I instated your version. --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 21:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Because, the idea of presenting it as (what it is) a DESCRIPTION of the diagnostic criteria occurred to me ONLY as a result of the discussion ;o) That is what discussion is ideally for, to give people IDEAS they would not otherwise have...

A combination of "Just rewrite the list in your own words, and there's no claim for them to make about it." and the fact that it is pretty much my favorite description of the criteria (simple, concise and alarmingly accurate) did the trick. --Zeraeph 21:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The manner in which this information is presented is wholly unacceptable. The presentation of the DSM criteria in any wauy, shape, or form is considered a violation. The re-writing of the information to present it is EXACTLY what the APA does not want done.

We have gone over this and over this. The copyright office of the APA stands in direct opposition to the presentation of the material by anyone who is sanctioned to do so, and Wikipedia, despite several attempts by several qualified individuals to aquire that sanction, is not.

You guys are playing with fire and, as we've already been threatened with a lawsuit and a forced shut down of the ENTIRE SITE because of this nonsense, should check your egos at the door and take this stuff down.

Looks the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders article could use a discussion about copyright enforcement. I wrote a little tid about a somewhat similar situation-- in the mini-mental state examination article. I think an interesting discussion could be had about ICD [4] & DSM and open access & open content. Nephron T|C 23:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait(Megalomania)

Isn't the definition of Megalomaniac is someone delusional about power. MegaloManiac 13:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is. A truer modern synonym would be "pathological compulsion to control". It's quite different to Narcissistic Personality Disorder. --Zeraeph 19:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks. MegaloManiac 18:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it has always bothered me very much that Megalomania doesnt have its own page. Jack Cain 10:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It should have and I meant to research and reinstate it...so much wikipedia, so little time...so I have reinstated the last stub Megalomania (without the lists, see talk, decent article first, THEN lists...) let's see if we can get a good solid article up there in the next few days? --Zeraeph 11:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Mnemonics

Mnemonics are common in the medical literature. So, I think they ought to be apart of Wikipedia. They make things more memorable.

Examples from PubMed -- that is the medical literature:

Pinkofsky HB. Mnemonics for DSM-IV personality disorders. Psychiatr Serv. 1997 Sep;48(9):1197-8. PMID 9285984. See article on antisocial personality disorder.
International Myeloma Working Group. Criteria for the classification of monoclonal gammopathies, multiple myeloma and related disorders: a report of the International Myeloma Working Group. Br J Haematol 2003;121:749-57. PMID 12780789. See article on multiple myeloma.
Nakamura T, Higashi SI, Tomoda K, Tsukano M, Sugi K. Primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC)-CREST overlap syndrome with coexistence of Sjogren's syndrome and thyroid dysfunction. Clin Rheumatol. 2006 Feb 22; PMID 16496080. See article on CREST syndrome.
Thapliyal N, Shukla PK, Kumar B, Upadhyay S, Jain G. TORCH infection in women with bad obstetric history--a pilot study in Kumaon region. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2005 Oct;48(4):551-3. PMID 16366124. See article on TORCH infections.
Cobb WM. Facial mimetics as cranial nerve mnemonics. J Natl Med Assoc. 1972 Sep;64(5):385-96. PMID 5077620. See article on Cranial nerves.

I see no reason the mnemonic should have been deleted, thus I re-inserted it. Nephron T|C 23:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)