User talk:22catch

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, 22catch! I am WBOSITG and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 15:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline personality disorder[edit]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Borderline personality disorder. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's still commentary, and an expression of your personal opinion, without citation to any sources. Please don't keep making this edit. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- You wrote: "i am troubled that your craving for citation is valid and not/citation is rare in encyclopaedia culture". Well, whatever the case for other encyclopedias, citations are required here. See Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." You seem to be arguing that Wikipedia policy should be something different other than what it is, and that you should be allowed to post your opinions (or the opinions of unspecified "some people") without citing any sources. That's not going to work. Please respect our policies. If you want to post your opinions, please do so on your own website. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - I have cited our policies to you several times now. The problem is that you seem to want to insert an Anti-psychiatry point of view into the lead paragraph of Borderline personality disorder. Although you are correct that alternative points of view are not ignored on Wikipedia, neither are they given equal weight with mainstream opinion. As stated in WP:NPOV: "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." In my opinion, the positions you are trying to state belong, if anywhere, in the Anti-psychiatry article. I don't intend to debate this further with you, especially in light of the numerous insults and personal attacks you have directed at me by email. If you are determined to add material to Borderline personality disorder, I strongly urge that you propose your changes at Talk:Borderline personality disorder and attempt to develop a consensus. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rough summary: - I note you say you are not prepared to discuss further - I wish to say and ask a few things - I would be pleased for a reply - But only if you wish to - No rush – think about it - reply if you wish - when you not in a hurry:

1: I did not pick bpd randomly as place to put that passage. Any one with an overview of what is going on [the debate in the mental health arena] will know why I chose bpd: i) It is, and has long been, the most controversial label [schizophrenia is catching up now though]: ii) It is within established texts that bpd teaches us something about mental illness definitions and personality disorders: iii) It is paradoxical in that the more extreme the case the less visible it is – unique and curious and of great difficulty to explain within the field of psychiatry: iv) Other reasons too technical for me to bother you with:

2: Can you tell me how many people are going to be logging in to discuss on bpd page. I WILL POST THIS THERE THOUGH ASWELL AS ELSEWHERE I GUESS:

3: I feel inclined to expose the emails I sent you – compelled actually. Openness in a dispute that someone has become sulky in is important I feel - It helps heal ALL of tribe: I emailed you out of consideration – but I prefer no secrets!!!:

4: Can we put article in with references – it does imply it is or may be a minority view. If not can I put disclaimer for wiki of any mental illness caused by reading a narrow received opinion?:

5: We could put it at bottom of article – I could add more – but NOTE AT HEADER TO SEE BOTTOM OF ARTICLE FOR ROUNDED VIEW WOULD BE ESSENTIAL? I could put the passage in anti psychiatry (which I did not know existed) BUT WOULD INSIST ON A LINK FROM ALL PSYCHIATRIC LABELS we can manage: This paragraph or a link must come near top (I did not put it at very top – I put it where it would be seen and where the following text ran seamlessly onward from it) AND BE CLEAR – see next point:

6: Wiki is not considered a reliable source for the technical – [despite a recent brilliant piece on bbc radio 4 ‘thinking allowed’ where a member of public compared wiki with Britannica on a varied selection of topics of which they were well versed – conclusion “the cathedral is dead - long live anarchy” TO PARAPHASE] – despite this rousing recommendation your reputation falls foul in others’ eyes of what you similarly wield then at others you see as beneath you - it would appear – THUS THE MAJORITY OF READERS WILL NOT EVEN KNOW OF BALANCING VIEW – MANY WILL BE SUFFERERS I SUSPECT – THIS IS DANGEROUS FOR BPD SUFFERERS AND CARERS – AS A POSSIBLE FIRST PORT OF CALL:

7: I AGREE WITH ALL THAT YOU HAVE SAID (see below point 8) - EXCEPT THE INSULT THING - YOU DEFINITELY STARTED IT - I BELIVE HUMOUR IS THE (one of) BEST MEDICINE - ADMITTEDLY THERE ARE at least TWO SIDES TO THIS ARGUMENT AND JOKES CAN HIDE AWFUL ABUSIVE MEMES – I THINK YOU WILL FIND YOU ARE PROJECTING AT ME FROM YOUR HIPPOCAMPUS AND HYPOTHYLAMUS etc STUFF THAT YOU HAVE PATTERNED FROM STARING AT SO MUCH VANDALISM OVER THE COURSE OF YOUR TIRELESS WORK - NO DOUBT - HUMOUR ASKS US TO SEE THINGS DIFFERENTLY - AT BEST IN A VERY CONSTRUCTIVE WAY - IF WE ARE too aloof & ARROGANT TO LOOK IT, CAN FEEL LIKE AN INSULT or we miss the point:

8: I have been very patient with you. You have ended up playing the ‘card’ you should surely have played first (and I would have expected first) last: i.e. That the article should be placed elsewhere or is not a majority view and so deservers little billing:

Of course this would mean that years ago gay would be a vicious attack on people as an entry: That ‘blacks’ should be whipped into slavery would be standard unquestioned stance in your wiki:

So I hope you see that in some articles wiki should be ahead of the game for reasons of GOOD WILL TO ALL (WO)MEN and children etc. MORAL compass etc:

9: you do not mention that some administrators (I have found one straight away) may agree about progressively fostering genuine sub cultural anthropology etc (please don’t suggest I stick it in anthropology section) – it is probably, world wide across time, a majority view – can site examples if you wish and that wiki encourages opposing views for balance:

10: The issue of verifiability here is going to be important for the reasons of the ethics of the victor writes the rules. I cite modern historical study as moving toward accepting this paradox and trying to allow for it:

11: I have my own model of the universe as does everyone including you:

12: I note your use of the word OUR wiki in a sentence that excluded me:

13: I have not reviewed your biographies as yet but I URGE you to stop and thinkfeel - In this article, I want, (if you say I do sir), though I don’t feel I ask for it, an exception - Not for me as YOU INSULTINGLY put it more than once. But for the people the very entry is defining:

Who are you to dictate wiki policy in a conflict of rules and interest situation? Stop playing games and god? What is knowledge for? Let form follow function IN THIS ARTICLE?:

14: I would prefer to leave the body of the article untouched and add this paragraph (you exclude point blank with a litany of bias within wiki world of rules) to article but I could go and justifiably with citation spend (waste) hours hacking it to pieces if you prefer. The omissions and lack of emotional balance in society are everything in the bpd world my friend! All humans share the bpd traits - let not wiki - if only in this article! Think of bpd and other negative labels as actually people carrying the load under sensitivity that you don’t feel:

15: We have proved you don’t like labels. I rarely label a child or any for this reason. I say not you are an idiot. I say is that not an idiot thing to do or idea? QED. This entry MATTERS. If you don’t like it - why should a fascist’s entry not have proportionate balance in terms of effect - not your personal view of wiki hierarchy?:

16: Example: Should one place a ‘proven’ negative about someone everyone says is good ‘ GOD ’ like - at the very top of article - say a judge or the bloke the Catholics recently dug up and put in a glass box for all to (file/’phile’ past) bow to and made a saint – yet he seems to have been an abuser and had a personality disorder:

Similarly should a positive view of someone everybody wants to negatively label be put forward when individually they may have done only ‘ GOD’s ‘ work.

Tricky entries my friend - Need love? - Children are reading wiki as source - The study of the cult of psychiatry (psychology is clearer but needs to be seen in a wider context) has in my experience driven sensitive searching people over the edge as it is not an answer to the human condition as commonly thought and is presented but is a system of management or at least view which does not ‘add up’? All systems are imperfect so it is (can only be) perfect within its framework? THIS IS IMPORTANT:

17: For the record - Social anthropology devours psychiatry and psychology as foundations - I do not like or dislike them - I am impartial - BUT I AM partial to love - I am a shrink - A psychologist - Child psychologist - And more and less:

18: I give thanks: .-)