User talk:Permstrump

Hello, Permstrump! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Gronk Oz (talk) 08:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

P.S. I love your User page, created just so your User links won't be red! I don't think you misunderstood at all; it looks just fine to me.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur. :) Welcome to Wikipedia! I sincerely hope you stick around and become part of the community. -- œ^™ 08:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gronk Oz and œ! Now my "Talk" link won't be red either! My goal right now is to work on being WP:BOLD. :) Permstrump (talk) 10:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For all the work you're doing in the Chaneyverse :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: Thank you for my first barnstar! I hope you're having as much fun sleuthing as I am. :) Permstrump (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MarnetteD|Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.

Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size Permstrump as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD|Talk 04:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Permstrump,
I saw your post here regarding the translation of the Slavery in Malta article from French to English. If you're interested in writing the article, I had started a draft of the article some time ago, but I never got around to finishing it. There is also some background information with regards to slavery in 18th century Malta in the Background and Consequences sections of the Conspiracy of the Slaves article. If you decide on translating the article, I'd be happy to help out :) Best regards and Happy New Year, Xwejnusgozo (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, we started identifying rape survivors, now it looks like we are outing rape VICTIMS. Did you see the "Rape on Campus" article? "Jackie's" first and last name has been prominently outed in the lede. I hope everyone is proud of themselves. 2602:306:8B40:CC20:4195:1D14:8B79:3887 (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your link to the article should read American Psychiatric Association. Sundayclose (talk) 01:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Good catch. I guess my fingers were on autopilot. Permstrump (talk) 02:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at the merge discussion on the talk page. Would it be better to simply move this discussion to AFD, where more editors could see it and weigh in?E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: Sorry I didn't have a chance to respond before you created the AFD. You must have done that while I was in the middle of writing my reply. I was going to respond on Talk:Anti-semitic anti-Zionism, but I refreshed the screen right before posting and saw your link to the AFD. I was going to suggest WP:RFC, but either way, I think the important thing was opening it up for discussion somewhere that more people will know about it and can weigh in. I'll give my opinion on the AFD after I have a chance to read through some of the sources and the arguments people have already made on the talk page and AFD. PermStrump (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I also hope that some editors familiar with the topic will improve the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep removing information on the Neturei Karta? They are a well known anti Zionist group. They are very small but get significant media coverage and their existence is used widely by other anti-zionist and anti Jewish groups to work against Israel. This is there wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neturei_Karta — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.145.80 (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was this meant for someone else? I've never edited that article and I don't remember hearing of it before. Where did I remove something about them? —PermStrump(talk) 01:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is your removal (cur | prev) 09:04, 6 April 2016‎ Permstrump (talk | contribs)‎ . . (80,675 bytes) (-2,041)‎ . . (→‎Anti-Zionism and antisemitism: Removed paragraph re: Shulamit Aloni WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION; removed section re: Neturei Karta: WP:WEIGHT;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.145.80 (talk)

I've given up. Jackie has again been outed in the talk page for "A Rape on Campus". I have repeatedly asked to not out rape victims but no one wants to listen. See you guys win. Her name is now exposed for all to see. A pity. 2602:301:772D:62D0:2D48:C895:8340:48C2 (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I removed her last name again, because the talkpage is subject to the same policies as the main article. PermStrump(talk) 23:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you believe that the category Category:People with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is not defining under WP:CATGRS, then you would need to nominate it for deletion rather than emptying it. Take care. Tanbircdq (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tanbircdq I suppose for some of the people it could be defining, so that's why I didn't nominate it for deletion. In the first half of the alphabet, there were about 5 people that it was at least arguable, so I didn't remove their names from the category. Most people just had a passing mention of ADHD in a questionable source (or no source). PermStrump(talk) 14:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the category on articles where there are available sources supporting its inclusion and left it omitted on the articles where there is not. Tanbircdq (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tanbircdq, the ones where I left the statements about ADHD within the body at least had sources that seemed like they were verifiable and indicated noteworthiness. The standard for WP:DEFINING is higher though and I had a pretty low bar for "defining." For example, I didn't remove Katherine Ellison from the category, because she's written a book about raising her son when they both have ADHD. There are plenty of sources about her that don't reference ADHD, because she was notable before that, but even though someone could argue that it's not defining for her, I left her in the category, because there's at least an argument that it is. On the other hand, the one source for Avril Lavigne was a video of her saying, "I'm, like, so ADD I couldn't sit still on the plane" and the other was a gossip mag/not RS. The vast majority of sources about her don't mention ADHD, so it's clearly not defining, and I'd say it's even questionable that she ever meant it more than a figure of speech. PermStrump(talk) 16:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To do the right thing, you must come forward and be courageous. "Who are you?" "I am Spart---- anonymous man." Canlawtictoc (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you removed a link I added to an article I started. I have no problem with the removal of the link (which no longer seems to work). I do have a problem with your edit summary. It was not spam. At the time I added the link, I did so because it seemed pertinent to the article. Feel free to examine my edit history - you will see that I am not a spammer. Please be a bit more courteous in your summaries. LadyofShalott 15:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LadyofShalott: My apologies. I wasn't intending to call anyone a spammer. I was removing a lot of spam at the moment, so I did assume too quickly when the link was broken to a website wasn't in English. PermStrump(talk) 15:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I apologize for being grumpy! :) LadyofShalott 16:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Permstrump - Thanks for agreeing to take on the rewrite of the diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I would be happy to help but I do not know the nuances of the Wikipedia copyright/extensive paraphrasing policy at all let alone how to avoid violating it in a tricky situation like this where we want to preserve fidelity to the definition without veering into "extensive paraphrasing" or use beyond what fair use allows, which already seems to have been an issue in WP articles on DSM topics. As you're probably aware, there is greater attention on NPD right now than ever before. Some are even arguing that one or more current U.S. presidential candidates may meet the diagnostic criteria. It would be incredibly helpful for educating voters in the U.S. if we could point them to a WP article that included up-to-date diagnostic criteria so they can study and make their own decisions on the topic, or at least learn a bit, so if you have time to work on this soon it could be a very timely edit. Everydayrationality (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Everydayrationality - I did update the criteria with this edit a few hours after I posted on the talkpage. Here's a link to the edits with the previous version before I removed the copyright violations. It wasn't copied from the DSM, but from whatever was the source given. Did you think it was still too closely worded? PermStrump(talk) 19:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I share your pessimism about getting a useful result from an RFC. Few outside respondents would read the article before replying, and even fewer would spend any time looking for other sources. It would have a higher than usual risk of attracting personal opinions instead of source-based editing.

At this point, there's so much traffic and so many discussions going on that I don't expect good results. It might be effective for you to pick a single, less-controversial fact or a single, less-disputed paragraph (not in the lead) and see if you can find consensus around that single thing. It's slow to work through an article like that, and you may have to put up with them trashing the rest of the article around you, but you might be able to get a few bits stabilized. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for helping edit the Sensory Processing Disorder wiki. I have a question. The internal link you deleted was added to calm down disputes between different "factions" of theory in the SPD community. What should we do if there is conflict again? Personally, I would rather leave things the most according to Wikipedia editing protocols. Chibs007 (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! @Chibs007: I don't see any conversation about it on Talk:Sensory processing disorder. Is it in an archive? To be honest, I'm not aware of what the factions or disputes are in relation to SPD. It was a purely stylistic edit. It's hard for me to imagine what kind of dispute that would resolve when the table of contents is right above the classification section that had the internal link I removed. PermStrump(talk) 17:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted on the Volunteer Ministers mention related to 9-11 on the Scientology page. I've transferred it to the main Volunteer Ministers page. Thank you.Nonchalant77 (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for the great work putting together the table of descriptions and references at Rick Alan Ross! JbhTalk 13:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you asked a good question at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Common_law#Overlinking%20in%20lead My reply on that Talk page -- can I have your comments? Thank you.

98.229.147.75 (talk) 10:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I confess I've never heard about young Earth creationist movement until last week, so your latest Talk page msg struck me as funny. Separately, I think that "unchurched" is a code word for "atheist" because the movements who use this term cannot bring themselves to spell out "atheist". :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K.e.coffman Do you mean the comment where I said I was removing the unsupported line from lead that said, "Tenets of Young Earth creationism nevertheless enjoy substantial support among the general population in the United States..."? They have such substantial support, I can't imagine how you hadn't heard of it until last week! That's funny about "unchurched". I thought it was the guy trying to be polite and not say something like "heathens" or "blasphemers". Did you see my comment on WP:FTN#Creation Museum about "theistic evolutionists"? The one person who responded didn't think it's a dig, but I'm not so sure. I feel like there's no reason to specify otherwise. —PermStrump(talk) 02:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. Such a popular destination that I've never heard of the Museum either. My general editing area is World War II history, but I'm finding a lot of similarities between pseudoscience and WWII mythology (check out my user page for examples of the weird POV, apologia and downright silly stuff that I found). Creation Museum, AiG, etc. all have the hallmarks of mythology: taking the org's word as gospel; portraying every minute fact in intricate detail; obfuscation; using dubious sources and / or primary sources; etc. BTW, I responded on the Noticeboard discussion. I'm not that well versed in creationism, but anything that looks like obfuscation is suspect to me. Good work checking in on the sources and highlighting the synthesis that was going on. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Funny. I guess all of the fringe is the same no matter what article you're on. I'm mainly interested in editing psychology-related articles and they have a bunch of pop psych, alternative medicine, and scientology fringe that I was thinking reminds me of the Creation Museum. —PermStrump(talk) 03:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously claiming that the old lede summarized the article better than my suggested version? Valetude (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I responded at Talk:Judy Blume#Lead —PermStrump(talk) 13:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your comments and I was dismayed by the derogatory, attacking and dismissive comments made by others, especially regarding "core policies" and the disparaging remarks such as "waste of time." I noted too a tendency of some commentators to relish the detail of this article, which is as excessive as I've ever seen. Perhaps the only place where they were more excessive was in William L. Uanna before that article was edited, principally by k.e. coffman, after I initiated a GAR. It still relies excessively on primary sources. I wonder what is going on in those articles that they seem to be afflicted that way. Coretheapple (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coretheapple I was so glad to see your comment at the bottom of the GAR, because until then, I honestly thought I was in the twilight zone. You were really spot on when you said... "fancruft", "echo chamber", "systemic issue". My gut reaction to skimming some WP:MILHIST GARs since yesterday, is that it feels like a WP:WALLEDGARDEN of massively undue weight and fringe promotion of obscure WWII military topics. It would be less confusing if it didn't seem like it was supported by the project. I'll take a look at the Uanna article. —PermStrump(talk) 19:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I actually understand the enthusiasm. Figures from WWII tend to be either evil or heroic, even if one is not related. But I do think that there is a tendency to get stuck in the weeds. And yes, when I brought what I thought was a slam-dunk GAR I was stunned by the replies too. Uanna at one point had little substantive on the reason for his notability, which is that he was head of security for the Manhattan Project. Instead, because of heavy editing by the article creator, his son, the article was a repository for family reminiscences and sheer trivia sourced to primary documents. Coretheapple (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you guys are spot on the "echo chamber" effect. As far as dismissive comments from the lead reviewer, the explanation perhaps can be found in the MilHist coordinators thread, where unnamed editors (presumably myself, as I'm mentioned later) are described as "aggressively pushing" what the editor refers to as "the very hard line anti-Nazi de WP [attitude, being adopted] to the detriment of numerous articles and lists...". He also suggests that the retired editor "has been hounded off WP (a least in part) by such actions".

On my Talk page, the same editor alludes to "en Wiki" as if rules here are different vs other wikis (?) and describes a "dim a view on deletionism" that en Wiki supposedly has. He also refers to my "unique" interpretation of what WP:RS is: Nominations for deletion of Knight's Cross holders.

Also see "That is not how we do military biographies on en WP". K.e.coffman (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My original message. —PermStrump(talk) 01:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Just a clarification — I had noticed the yearlong block and its rationale. My point was that every other block had been unrelated or had had sockpuppetry as a complicating factor.

• 30 June 2016 — breaking his ban
• 15 March 2015 — sockpuppetry and breaking his ban
• 18 March 2014 — sockpuppetry and breaking his ban
• 25 September 2013 — sockpuppetry
• 18 October 2012 — sockpuppetry
• 30 May 2012 — edit-warring
• 29 May 2012 — edit-warring
• 21 December 2009 — edit-warring
• 9 December 2007 — edit-warring

So basically, I couldn't say "Last block for ban evasion was for a time of X" because he hadn't previously gotten blocked merely for ignoring his ban. Thanks for the additional details! Nyttend (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My reply. —PermStrump(talk) 01:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My meaning was (b), since the previous blocks were for ban violation and sockpuppetry; this block was for stuff that wouldn't have warranted sanctions if not for the ban, but all previous blocks warranted sanctions even aside from the ban. Nyttend (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying! —PermStrump(talk) 01:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quite welcome. Nyttend (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your input was appreciated and i don't know how to add lulz as friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbboherp (talk • contribs) 03:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sean's apples — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbboherp (talk • contribs) 03:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted about the article on the BLP noticeboard. Chilton (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there is nothing contradictive. the first assumptions concenrning prenatal mental life stem from rank. also others were thinking about that and had anecdotes of prenatal life. later academic psychologists and physiolgists and so on delivered empirical data.

so, in fact, the sentence you deleted describes the historical development perfectly right. Mr. bobby (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC) Mr. bobby[reply]

I'm moving this discussion back to Talk:Prenatal and perinatal psychology, because there's no reason to have it in more than one place. —PermStrump(talk) 13:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James I thought it was a mistake because of the font...

like when I accidentally put a space in front of a new line of text and it looks like this. 

It didn't seem like it had a reason to be there since "manic depression" is already an alternative title in the lead the other two phrases had the word "bipolar" in them, so my first thought was "That had to be an accident. I'll tidy it up." But if it was a conscious decision, I don't really care if it's there. :) —PermStrump(talk) 22:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the font was change a while ago. We could talk about changing it further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong, gender differences are not covered in the 'Epidemiology' section. Bipolar disorder is generally evenly distributed by sex, however, it's clearly detailed that Bipolar type I is more common in men, Bipolar type II and Cyclothymia is more common in women. Again, this is not detailed in this 'Epidemiology' section.

Furthermore, I had good information and studies, sourced from the NCBI that you deleted - I would recommend reading the studies and reconsidering.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuormak (talk • contribs) 12:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zuormak: See my response at at Talk:Bipolar disorder. —PermStrump(talk) 23:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a response to your question reagrding the "age of consent template" on the "reliable sources" page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Age_of_Consent_template:_primary_vs._secondary_sources

Fabrickator (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrickator: Oops sorry I forgot to respond. I saw that yesterday and then got distracted by the actual article. I will respond now. :) —PermStrump(talk) 23:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Permstrump, I appreciate you bringing my project to WikiMedicine's attention! Always good to get another opinion. Let me know if you are ever interested in what my group is doing! Ongmianli (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC) Ongmianli (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my response to your note on my Talk page didn't come across as terse. I know that's a fine line and didn't mean to sound aggressive in my reply. I really did appreciate your post. I've edited my comment there slightly so there's no ambiguity. [2] LavaBaron (talk) 05:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I thought it was very polite. Thanks. :) —PermStrump(talk) 06:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 23rd of June you have removed (hid in comments, actually) some references in the main text of Narconon article – special:diff/726677937.

However you have not removed the citations themselves, and now they cause a list of errors at the and of the article:

Cite error: A list-defined reference named "....." is not used in the content (see the help page).

Could you, please fix that, either by restoring <ref>–s or by removing unused citations...? --CiaPan (talk) 11:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CiaPan: Thanks for the heads up. I didn't notice those error messages all the way at the end of the reference list before. I think I fixed it. Cite clutter is back in the lead, but I don't really know a better way around it since my first attempt didn't work. —PermStrump(talk) 13:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Maryland Barnstar
		Many thanks for helping wade through copyright issues and braving Comic-Con to get the right picture. TimothyJosephWood 13:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are being quoted in the above discussion, I thought I would let you know about it. This one is not extensive as the one where the quote is from, but the concerns are similar. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: Thanks. I've been too terrified/obsessed reading the news about the election to pay much attention to WP recently. —PermStrump(talk) 22:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: Messed up the first ping so doing it again. :) —PermStrump(talk) 23:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Permstrump. You have new messages at Talk:Henrietta Lacks.
Message added 16:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shearonink (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Permstrump. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that a few months back you removed content from Medical social work (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch which was reverted by an anon. This would appear to be an IP Hopper from Kerala, India. See User:Jim1138/IP Hopper from Kerala Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jim1138 Since you pointed that out, I was reviewing my old edits and noticed that the IP hopper archived[3] my comments on the talkpage and placed an autoarchive template set to 30 days[4], which is absurd considering the almost nonexistent volume of posts there. If I restore it to this version[5], think I'll just be inviting a war? Out of all of the articles to spend energy on, Medical social work isn't exactly at the top of my list. I have a lot of social work articles on watchlist, so it seems like I'm always stumbling across drama with the IP hopper. I haven't interjected, because it's always so hard to follow. —PermStrump(talk) 09:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted about 12k of the anon's text here. (wp:deny) So, the conversation is rather moot. If the anon reverts me, he will probably be blocked as a sock. Feel free to do what you want with the archive - restore or leave. I set the archive age to 120 days. I doubt that the anon will bother you much given the trouble I have dealt him recently. Please let me know if you see activity. Any other articles I should add to my watch list that are not on User:Jim1138/IP Hopper from Kerala? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: feel free to revert anything on social-work related articles that an anon who geolocates to Kerala, India. Leave and ES of "rv sock per [[wp:deny]]" or something like that. If the anon is reverted by more people, I would think he would be more likely to give up? Or, maybe work harder. OCD? Thanks Jim1138 (talk)

Jim1138, will do. As of now, I can't think of any articles that aren't already on your list, probably because I never realize it's the IP hopper until someone else calls it out. Each time, I think "The IP hopper again? On this article?!" Like when I removed that junk on Medical social work, the IP hopper hadn't occurred to me until your message. It's all starting to make more sense though, so I think I'll be able to pick up on it next time. —PermStrump(talk) 21:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention. I don't have any objection to the content added by the Kerala sock per se. If you want to restore all or part that would be fine. Just as long as it is not added by the sock. (wp:deny) I think it does need more references. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You reinstated a text by Jewish activist Tim Wise. As you were referring to 'logic' would you be so kind to explain the logic of this text? Why don't you use the article's discussion page as there is a discussion section about this? Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Betternews (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on the talkpage. —PermStrump(talk) 01:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This refers. You make two points. (1) that the references are all to a work from the 1880s. But this is because the article is precisely about that work from the 1880s. (2) That it is difficult to understand because of jargon, etc. It's very hard for me, being familiar with the subject and the sometimes technical vocabulary, to grasp which parts would be unfamiliar to a beginner reader. I agree that Wikipedia has an target audience which is not specialist and the whole point of an 'educational resource' is to be educational. But you will need to help me out here! Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Emotional lability, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that emotional lability can be seen in conditions such as personality disorder, bipolar disorder, ADHD, and alcohol intoxication, or after a stroke? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Emotional lability. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Emotional lability), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit to Common Era you gave the edit summary " copy and pasted from the source "in the year of the Lord" the brackets are unnecessarily distracting". However, no changes were made to the citations, and I am unable to find the passage you inserted in the cited sources. The content guideline WP:WHYCITE states "sources are also required when quoting someone, with or without quotation marks, or closely paraphrasing a source." Please do not reinsert your change unless you comply with this content guideline. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc3s5h: I responded here on the article's talkpage. —PermStrump(talk) 03:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Would you be able to explain why you keep creating so many redirects to Frederick Douglass High School (Baltimore, Maryland)?. TheDragonFire (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDragonFire: I had trouble finding it because other schools with common names are disambiguated with just "(Baltimore)", e.g., Western High School (Baltimore). At first I was just going to create the one redirect for Frederick Douglass High School (Baltimore), but then I figured I'd do a couple more while I was at it. Was that annoying? I didn't think anyone would notice. —PermStrump(talk) 18:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! That's all good. All article creations — including redirects — go into a patrol queue, and are reviewed, so I was just ensuring that it wasn't vandalism. I don't think we need that many redirects, so I've tagged some of them for deletion, but the one from Frederick Douglass High School (Baltimore) is fair. The article may actually need to moved there, but I'll leave that for someone else to do. Have a great day. TheDragonFire (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDragonFire: Would you mind also keeping the redirect from Douglass High School (Baltimore)? Locally people usually just call it "Douglass". —PermStrump(talk) 18:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Feel free to remove the speedy tags from any you are particularly attached to. It's just so many is unnecessary, especially one's with incorrect capitalization. TheDragonFire (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDragonFire: the capitalizations were overkill, but I do think the main 2 (Frederick Douglass High School (Baltimore) and Douglass High School (Baltimore)) would come in handy. —PermStrump(talk) 18:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no objections there. :) TheDragonFire (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2016 Cure Award

In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic God and Sex. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Permstrump. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:Permstrump|<font color="indigo">—'''PermStrump'''</font>]][[User Talk:Permstrump|<font color="steelblue">(<u>talk</u>)</font>]] : —PermStrump(talk)

to

[[User:Permstrump|<span style="color: indigo">—'''PermStrump'''</span>]][[User Talk:Permstrump|<span style="color: steelblue">(<u>talk</u>)</span>]] : —PermStrump(talk)

—Anomalocaris (talk) 09:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 10:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Permstrump. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your views on Alexander are such nonsense it's sad that you are this ideologically possessed that you perpetuate in your position.

InSite injection site in Vancouver has been doing research with same conclusions where addiction is increasingly seen to be a disorder of social disconnection.

What about R. Corey Waller of the American Society of Addiction Medicine? Or Robert Malenka of Stanford?

I urge you to divest yourself of this discussion if you earn money counselling or providing any sort of service or product for addiction because that will come out.

I'll bet good money that you are a hardened self-determinist (probably Jewish upbringing) that insists on perpetuating the model of society that rejects more attached familial and communal relationships that would support some individuals and move them away from addiction and other disorders of social disconnection. Johan Hari's book says the same thing, as does tons of other research from Europe and Canada. The US continues this most lucrative of all the matters for the psycho-babble profession. Canlawtictoc (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Back in 2016, you made this. I have not seen reviews to support the claim that CBT is just as effective medication for those disorders. Notgain (talk) 08:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of drugs that can be smoked has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article provides minimal encyclopedic value and generally fails WP:NLIST guidelines.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]