Lianalupe
Welcome
edit
|
Thanks for showing interest in Histrionic personality disorder. The content you added to the article was removed as it does not meet wikipedia guide lines. Some of the important points were it went off - ??? que quiere decir esto???
- unnecessarily verbose with a lot of jargon: needs to be rewritten to be cover the main argument lucidly and concisely.
- the writing style is more suited to a blog not an encyclopedia-make it neutral and factual.
- The way I was educated, you do not simply delete someone's work and input; you can offer your counterview. Please try for respect and integrity in discourse. yes the way you were educated may be better than others, but thats not pertinent to the article. All discussions, comments and chats belong to the articles talk page:Talk:Histrionic personality disorder. Doing otherwise makes bad blood. My experience in editing is that wikipedia is hit by atleast one attack of vandalism every 10 minutes. Im sorry to say that on first read the stuff you wrote reads remarkably like patent nonsense, which might explain why someone deleted it before. Please make your points on the talk page.
Staticd (talk) 12:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Haha! EXPLAIN sweet bigot. Familiarize yourself with the discourse I am drawing from, and then argue. "Patent nonsense" doesn't cut it... :-( My writing is not verbose; every word has a place there. I am a conscientious writer. Be a bit more open, bigot. Humility over arrogance. Really that is all I am talking about. Tell me what words you don't know, and I'll define them for you. "The way I was educated" refers to a community of scholars that values academic integrity; deleting someone's work is improper. I am not a narrow person, I know to affirm me, and you better give me some good reasons when you tell me to stuff myself.
And who the fuck are you? What do you know about what I am saying? Besides that it makes you uncomfortable?
I am not an arrogant person. Don't you dare call me so when I am speaking Against erasure of voices. Try it with someone else.
For me the entry in place is chock full of nonsense. Opinion. You've got one, I've got one. I'll go ahead and delete that dangerous, silly 'scientific' entry day in and day out; like you do, paragon.
I'm not the editor(s) in question who deleted your original contribution, and while I can't speak for her / him / them, I suspect I can answer some of your objections. I'm not convinced it is going to do any good; the fact that you refer to someone as a "hateful savage" does not give me hope that you will be open to listening. Furthermore I don't know what academic tradition you come from, but in my academic culture, deleting the peer-reviewed contributions of others in response to a perceived offense is perceived as an immature act.
There are two potential, independent objections to your contribution. One is process, the other is content. In the discussion page for the article, more than one editor indicated their receptiveness to your message, provided you resolved the process issues. These are:
1. The writing is jargon-heavy and not accessible to the average Wikipedia reader. This is not a value judgment, and I will leave aside the matter of whether or not that jargon adds to or detracts from the ability to communicate ideas, unless you specifically wish to engage on that topic. My own field is also jargon-heavy, but I don't use that jargon in Wikipedia articles. It is very rarely the case, in my experience, that one's thesis cannot be expressed in widely accessible language.
2. The material was not well formatted or attributed.
3. You did not engage others on the discussion page and follow established process for contributing potentially controversial material. It helps to bring this up to other editors.
Content is a different matter. I'm not going to delve into it all that thoroughly unless you really wish to do so, but, here's a response. I absolutely agree that psychological diagnoses are culturally biased, and that some diagnoses in particular (personality disorders being among them) are at times used to marginalize people who are different in some value-neutral way, especially people on the losing end of the power relationship. I also agree that when someone's options for communication are sharply limited they may be left believing they have no option but to engage in behaviors others find objectionable.
However. What makes a personality disorder a disorder, and not just a personality style people find abrasive or distasteful, is that it interferes with the patient's life to such a degree that they don't get what they want. Simply being highly emotional is not a disorder. I personally don't enjoy that style of communication in most settings, but there's nothing objectively wrong with it. The people I've known who were actually diagnosed with HPD, or other personality disorders, all sought help because they were incapable of managing their lives, relationships, etc. In effect, they only knew how to use one or two tools in their toolbox -- emotional displays and attention seeking behavior, for example -- so they used them in situations where they were not terribly effective. It is the inability of the individual to adapt to different situations that makes them personality *disorders*.
I suspect it is the fact that you did not consider the distinction between personality difference and a disorder (which adversely impacts a person's ability to get what they want), and came to the table with what appears (from the outside) as "having an axe to grind", which made someone dismiss the content of your contribution outright. I have many specific objections to your thesis I don't really think that's appropriate for the article per se. That I disagree with you does not make you wrong, nor make your contributions less useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.235.227.198 (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I called the person a hateful savage because they did not listen. They responded to a plea to listen by doing the very opposite. They were derogatory- i.e. hateful. By savagery I mean indelicacy, brutality. I mean savagery, though not the bloody kind.
I also explain below why I deleted the entry. I felt that if information is being controlled in such a way that no counterview may be posited, even when the original entry is left untouched to reek its harm, the original entry should not be there either-- because that is not fair (I thought this was an open forum, that's my mistake) and because the entry may be harmful to some. The person who contacted me seemed small and bigoted to me- certainly indelicate and ignorant- so that made me put less stock in his rules and in the Wikipedia domain he oversees.
I'm open to being as rigorous in the work I put together as I need to be, but I won't be talked down to when I have my truth- and I am very particular about 'truths', postmodernist about the idea of truth. I don't talk to people that way. I know better. When I'm shocked by such lousy behavior, I don't know what to do apart from showing them what it's like in turn. Someone who can talk to a stranger that way, a stranger who is basically advocating empathy, is someone I would suspect as harboring the potential for all kinds of savageries. But that's just me.
Sure I have an axe to grind, I have a reason for caring and for knowing what I do; I tried to tell what I know succinctly (in a few pars.). The first editor didn't care to hear.
I appreciate all of your commentary about what I wrote- my addendum to 'HPD'-and understand.
I think some of this probably comes down to miscommunication due to (sub)cultural differences. To me at least, "hateful savage" has strongly elitist connotations, with a presumption that the person so labeled is inferior and thus their viewpoint should be automatically dismissed.
In my opinion, the trouble with "showing them what it's like in turn" is that it's not effective. It elicits further resistance rather than cooperation. It may feel good to do, and I've certainly engaged in those sort of tactics myself, but it fails at utility.
I suspect you'll find there is some resistance to postmodernist views of truth here, in particular the notion that one's personal truth is comparable in utility to consensus reality. I'm not saying one's personal truth ought to be dismissed outright, or that consensus reality is necessarily objective or bias-free (in most scientific fields of which I'm a participant, the notion of objective truth has been abandoned outright in favor of utility ... the map isn't the territory, but if it gets you to your destination it's good enough). But, what one believes about oneself isn't necessarily an endpoint, because one's memories, perceptions, emotions, etc., are all subject to distortion (and that's assuming we take people at face value that they are being honest ... which I tend to do, assuming bad faith does little good). Or to put it more bluntly, sometimes "my truth" says more about my prejudices, expectations, etc. than anything else.
With that in mind, however, I feel your points have validity, I think they are important to raise; someone might otherwise for example read the article and say to themselves "I'm emotional, maybe there's something wrong with me". I would hope most people are well aware of the dangers of society labeling people who are simply different as "crazy", and thus marginalizing their voices, but it can only help to explicitly address this. I have run across primary and secondary sources which address these same issues, so I know they exist. 132.235.227.198 (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, to say "my truth" does connote bias and limited experience and limited apprehension and knowledge, but it's a romantic statement, and I primarily come from poetry. I believe that even if it's painful, you should leave your cherished beliefs open to dismantling, but on some things I personally draw the line. I can't be convinced that it's okay to skin alive a rabbit for fur, for example, and some people do think that is okay, and it is done. I believe in visceral truths in that way; but, regarding the example I just gave, it does also return to theory in that it can be said that what I'm against is unwelcome, violent transgression of boundaries. You can verbalize it and put it more intellectually, but that it's something -felt- as wrong I think is really enough. That's not a foolproof method, for sure, but sometimes it's spot on. So to tie any "truth" necessarily to speech goes too far in my view; I respect what is felt, that cannot be put into words, as by a child, by an animal, etc. I don't know so much about Lacanian theory, but the assertion that language creates reality seems very nervy to me...
As for it being elitist to hail the word "savage" at someone, I'm not classist, but again, I do have personal standards. I believe someone from any kind of background can have the quality I aspire to and of course can fall short of, which is sensitivity.Lianalupe (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
It is a loaded word that has been used in unsavory, or enraging, ways uncountable times, so that really is something to think about. I just wanted a strong word for indelicate, a shorthand way of saying limited but pumped with certitude, full of gall, gratuitously malignant. I view gestures and acts on a continuum, the putatively innocuous, or excused, a valence of the strident, of what gets no sanction or pass. For me, what he said to me, was telling. This is a quote from Gloria Anzaldua, on "la facultad," or intuition; I don't think it fits into the "verifiability" schema of Wikipedia that I have been schooled on. La facultad- “the capacity to see in surface phenomena the meaning of deeper realities… It is an acute awareness mediated by the part of the psyche that does not speak, that communicates in images and symbols which are the faces of feelings… The one possessing this sensitivity is excruciatingly alive to the world." {Well verifiability in this vein comes in a reversed way, after the fact, like when a serial killer's journal is discovered and it's full of pictures of little dead animals, that she or he killed; then you say aha! I knew it was not nice when he spit at my feet when I said hello, or when he shot down that cardinal and fed it to his dog, though others said it was small potatoes, and now look, he's killed a slew of humans; but that's an exceptional demonstration; intuition is for poetry, not for an encyclopedia, and assumption is the intolerable flip side of intuition.} While most likely the editor I took issue with would also call the quoted passage patent nonsense, it is from a seminal text of feminist theory and Anzaldua is a valued poet. She had a right to be, and some are glad she existed, since the opacity otherwise is too much, is too tiring.Lianalupe (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
And you can't be serious. What the person- Staticd- did is what you say here, maybe you don't know-- "I think some of this probably comes down to miscommunication due to (sub)cultural differences. To me at least, "hateful savage" has strongly elitist connotations, with a presumption that the person so labeled is inferior and thus their viewpoint should be automatically dismissed."
This dismissal you speak of was done To Me, and you're imputing that disrespectfulness to me. My entry talked about responses in kind- about not labeling the one attacked, but examining first the one who initiated.
I've had a lot of the same here, and it's certainly insidious and maddening, but I don't know if it's deliberate or if it's clueless.
Words do not have flat meanings; see above what I say about "savage." --signed female and ethnic, racial minority Lianalupe (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
June 2011
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Histrionic personality disorder with this edit. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Bentogoa (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia! Although one of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view, we would like to remind you not to undo other people's edits, without explaining why in an edit summary. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Thank you. Bentogoa (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Favonian (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Lianalupe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please, why is your editor allowed to delete information I put in simply because he finds it distasteful, while he clearly knows nothing about the academic conversation I am taking part in. He deleted my entry, and attacked me personally, calling my writing verbose and "nonsense." I have been trained to write a certain way. No words I use are "filler," they all mean something, and I offered to define any unknowns to him. If he does not like my writing style, he should critique academia at large. And the claim of "nonsense" says nothing to me or to anyone. What does that mean? I asked him for academic integrity, for a considered response to my entry, I asked to be argued down! And he was only capable of blunt deletion and insults. I found the entry in place to be inadequate, erroneous and potentially damaging, when taken with total credence, when applied universally. I am sorry your editor is not aware that this is a real problem, I'm sorry he has no concept of cultural bias and the profound effects it may have on people. This editor implied that I was arrogant when I mentioned that the academic standards I am familiar with include not deleting someone's work, with no articulated reason for doing so; I mentioned that the way I have been educated, that is not how things are done. He said to me that how I have been educated is not pertinent-- as if my argument relied on any credentials. He is the one who only insulted and gave No argument. I amended information that I found biased, and I did so circumspectly and respectfully-- I asked for an alternate take to be Considered, not swallowed, and the information I gave is Studied, and I provided sources in-text. Still that way, I was suppressed, silenced. What your editor did is arrogance and bigotry, not what I did. He is behaving egoistically and accusing me of his own faults. Please correct this situation, or have someone talk to me who is more than a hateful savage who wants to limit the spread of information, who instead wishes to safeguard information that is potentially harmful to young women. I made the point to him that "scientific fact" is also a discursive form, it does not escape that, it does escape being politically marked.
Decline reason:
Personally attacking everyone else involved, including calling people hateful savages, is not the way to get yourself unblocked. In fact, further personal attacks are likely to get your block extended -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Lianalupe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
When he or she deleted my information frivolously, Then I responded in kind. If Wikipedia is a partisan to agendas and bows to ideology in editing, if this community will not permit revision; then No potentially harmful, controversial information should be on the site. If it cannot be balanced with counterviews, it is irresponsible to have it up. And if you do not have a record of my entry into "histrionic personality disorder," please ask me. Your editor should not be let to speak on my behalf. Is it possible for him/her to give you my entry doctored? I have a copy of what I put on the page.
Decline reason:
Your request fails to show awareness of and remorse for why you were blocked: you were blocked temporarily for disruptive editing, which included removing content and references (apparently out of spite), the persistent addition of unsourced information which amounted to 'commentary within the article' (and there were no citations, not even for Speculum of the other woman), and a complete failure to engage the editors who disagreed with you. Consider the number of disruptive edits you made to the article (the multiple blankings, for instance), you could have been blocked for much longer. The personal insults you deliberately strew around don't help the matter either. I suggest you acquaint yourself more thoroughly with the guidelines of Wikipedia, for starters Wikipedia:Five pillars. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- A few things: you seem to have a habit of signing your name in article contributions. That's not allowed; it suggests that those contributions are commentary, and their tone bears that out--such as the statements about the DSM and how homosexuality is no longer etc. While it is true, it does not bear directly on the subject matter. What works in an academic, persuasive essay does not work in an encyclopedia. If you want to add a relevant note, and I think it's important enough, it needs to be done in neutral, encyclopedic language, chockful of citations. Some off-hand reference to Irigaray may cut it in the classroom, but not here. Phrases like "It's critical to be aware of the potential for phallogocentric bigotry" are simply not encyclopedic--the very first words already aren't, since encyclopedic articles do not give advice. Phallogocentric bigotry may well be there in a conventional diagnosis, but not on the basis of your authority (your "studied" view)--you need secondary sources there, and not probably not Irigaray, but sources that discuss the subject directly. I am sure those sources can be found. Drmies (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- One might start here. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Lianalupe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I insult when I am insulted-- It is very frustrating and very unfair to have things done To me imputed to me, with no expression of recognition or remorse for the lack of courtesy I was treated to. And you are talking over me, I did say why I deleted content; I explained that I find it dangerous, irresponsible, if it cannot be balanced with other information that takes away its totalizing effect. And Stop talking about my academic background; Why are you making an issue of this? I was insulted and I am defending my right to speak as best as I can, and I am being told basically to stop whining about my education, that it's unseemly and counts for nothing! I am being Made to give credentials, and then lampooned when I just hint at them! Why is it okay to keep information on this site that is potentially harmful? Why is this the "official" entry, while what I add has to be on the talk pages as commentary? I already said, what you have here is not untouchable, but by relegating anything else that could potentially be said to the Talk page, you are making the entry already in place final and central. I'll do the rigorous citations, and then what? What I have to say is still marginal, because... And I don't have a habit of signing my articles, this is the only article I have ever posted. Who are you people to be so condescending and controlling of information in this way? Yeah... it probably Isn't too hard to find the replete citation information, Boss, thanks for your tone there; but clearly you people do not want to be helpful. I was spoken to in a derogatory way, and I countered that; and you persist. I am an academic. I'll come back to you when I'm good and published maybe, but I did not realize this was a forum for world-famous academics/"secondary sources" only... I will never be able to give you statistics, not based on my own work, I deal in philosophy- my views mixed up with those I have Studied, again. The idea in my area of training is Not to drown out my own voice.
Decline reason:
I'm really sorry you felt lampooned or insulted, but the correct response to what you perceive as disruptive behaviour on someone else's part is to start one of Wikipedia's dispute resolution methods and not to start behaving disruptively in return. That's why, although I'm sorry, I have to decline this unblock request. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- I'll let another admin decide on this request, but let me say something: I am an academic too. The first lesson of Wikipedia for academics is that it's a different thing--period. "world-famous/'secondary sources' only", that's the name of the game here: WP:V. What you are doing here, self-admittedly, is original research, and it's a non-starter n Wikipedia. I don't know where the rest of your commentary comes from, but fighting insult with insult is not productive--not on the job market, not before the T&P committee, and not on Wikipedia. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, that I can understand-- thank you.
- It is a really important and interesting matter. With the help of the references that Google Books delivers (see link above) it really shouldn't be too difficult to add a neutral and well-verified section. I'll see if I can make a start in the next couple of days. Even the DSM itself comments on it (and I don't know if this is in the article). And there is plenty more, right up our alley: I see that one book says "Unfortunately, histrionic personality disorder can be criticized because it has strong overtones of sexism". As far as I can tell, this could be an interesting little research project, leading to a bigger one (outside of Wikipedia), as well as an exercise in encyclopedic writing, which is an acquired skill, not a natural one, I have learned. Your block will be over soon, and then we can get to work. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, that I can understand-- thank you.
To Salvio- Thank you, I just don't think there was much perceiving or interpreting to do with regard to the editor who told me that what I had posted was patent nonsense. Did this person want to make me repeat myself for kicks, or did he really so grossly misread my post, or does he actually disrespect the idea of a plurality of voices so much? Because he did the same thing my entry was warning against- he dismissed, he was closed-minded, he demonstrated a kind of bigotry. He maybe perceived some reactionism in my entry, because I'm aware of the real-life consequences of cultural bias and it's not a joke to me; and maybe his perception that the vigor of my entry was poorly motivated (again, exactly what the entry warned against) made him or her be reactionary, defensive, derogatory. But in his position he should know better. He behaved like any blogger, not professionally. And I don't know what word to put on someone whose response to a plea to listen is to do the very opposite. I think that's a pretty bad thing.
Thank you Drmies-- I'll look into it more, there's so much reading I haven't done.
To this-- Personally attacking everyone else involved, including calling people hateful savages, is not the way to get yourself unblocked. In fact, further personal attacks are likely to get your block extended -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
What is "boing"- is that like "In your face!" well then, ok. I explain above why "hateful savage" is not a phrase I wish to amend and is not an extravagant phrase when you parse it- though maybe it sounds punchy and theatrical- but precise and fitting. --- I wrote above- I called the person a hateful savage because they did not listen. They responded to a plea to listen by doing the very opposite. They were derogatory- i.e. hateful. By savagery I mean indelicacy, brutality. I mean savagery, though not the bloody kind.
I also explain below why I deleted the entry. I felt that if information is being controlled in such a way that no counterview may be posited, even when the original entry is left untouched to reek its harm, the original entry should not be there either-- because that is not fair (I thought this was an open forum, that's my mistake) and because the entry may be harmful to some. The person who contacted me seemed small and bigoted to me- certainly indelicate and ignorant- so that made me put less stock in his rules and in the Wikipedia domain he oversees.
I'm open to being as rigorous in the work I put together as I need to be, but I won't be talked down to when I have my truth- and I am very particular about 'truths', postmodernist about the idea of truth. I don't talk to people that way. I know better. When I'm shocked by such lousy behavior, I don't know what to do apart from showing them what it's like in turn. Someone who can talk to a stranger that way, a stranger who is basically advocating empathy, is someone I would suspect as harboring the potential for all kinds of savageries. But that's just me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lianalupe (talk • contribs)
- Hi. If you were treated rudely by one person (I'm not judging it either way), then just discuss it in a civil and friendly manner with the rest of us, and we'll do what we can to help - it's a very big community, and its working relies very much on assuming good faith rather than assuming someone must be a savage because they upset you over something. If you just lash out angrily in your unblock request, calling people hateful savages, etc, then you absolutely will not be unblocked - the purpose of a block is to prevent disruption, and unblocking someone who appears to have their fighting head on would not achieve that. As for the disagreement over the content itself, you should discuss that on the article's Talk page. We work by consensus here, and we achieve that by discussion, so if someone reverts your changes, the next step is civil discussion on the Talk page. And please bear in mind that what counts here is verifiability, not truth, and content must be backed by reliable source citations. An encyclopedia is, as someone has said, a very different thing from leading edge academia, and we cannot accept something based on personal expertise. (As for the meaning of my username, you appear to have jumped at an assumption that it is something adversarial - if you are really interested, there's an explanation on my user page) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict with Boing!)Lianalupe, I remarked on this at Wikipedia:Ani#User:Lianalupe_at_Histrionic_personality_disorder. In a nutshell, my assessment of the situation is this: you made a good-faith edit aimed at improving the article, for all the right reasons, but your edit did not conform to Wikipedia guidelines (for various reasons outlined above). Your edits were reverted without anyone ever taking the time to explain why. The first two times this was done by new editors, the other times it was more experienced editors--but none of them welcome you, explained anything, or engaged in conversation until a brief note appeared on the article talk page. By that time, you were angry, and the back-and-forth of unfriendliness started (that's where I joined the fray as well). The result was that you got blocked. Strictly speaking, the editors who reverted you, increasing your anger, acted properly--but my contention is that they did not act properly in the larger sense, and could have done a lot more to explain what they considered wrong about your edit, which would probably have defused the situation long before you got blocked. I think that you, as a new editor, are much less at fault than initially appeared from the article history, though of course you went too far. As an administrator, I really had no choice but to deny your request, and the same goes for Boing--but it also seems clear to me that you felt pushed and belittled, and while I initially thought 24 hours was too short, I do not believe that anymore.
I'll tell you what I would like to get out of this. I want the article improved, and I think the stuff you were talking about should be added, properly verified and in the right tone of course. I also want established editors to be less curt with new editors (we have a guideline on that--WP:BITE), since it turns away new editors and we want to keep you (yes, you).
I did look at a couple of those book sources, and at the article itself and its problems. I can sort of see what's going on and what I think the issues are, but this is pretty far outside of my field, and I don't think I could write it. User:Penbat has experience in these matters, and their comments on the talk page are helpful (although I don't understand the caveat "I don't agree with it", but that's another matter). At some point, ideally, you and Penbat could write a much better version of the article (preceded by mutual apologies, and followed by a hugfest, of course). You both know things, and Penbat knows tone and references and Wikipedia style and stuff. I wish I could make some sample edits to the article to point in a direction, but again, this is just not my field, and it's too important to have someone just dick around in it (Irigaray would appreciate the association between the phallus and screwing up, haha).
Is this helpful? Drmies (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- PS Boing!: I think it wasn't one editor being rude--it was at least two, and possibly four. That doesn't excuse, but it does mitigate. Thanks, BTW, for your comment. Drmies (talk)
- Yes, that certainly helps to mitigate things. My overall assessment is pretty much in line with yours - what we have is the unfortunate result a new editor trying to help, not understanding the way to go about things here, but being bitten instead of being helped. And then it just escalated. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict with Boing!)Lianalupe, I remarked on this at Wikipedia:Ani#User:Lianalupe_at_Histrionic_personality_disorder. In a nutshell, my assessment of the situation is this: you made a good-faith edit aimed at improving the article, for all the right reasons, but your edit did not conform to Wikipedia guidelines (for various reasons outlined above). Your edits were reverted without anyone ever taking the time to explain why. The first two times this was done by new editors, the other times it was more experienced editors--but none of them welcome you, explained anything, or engaged in conversation until a brief note appeared on the article talk page. By that time, you were angry, and the back-and-forth of unfriendliness started (that's where I joined the fray as well). The result was that you got blocked. Strictly speaking, the editors who reverted you, increasing your anger, acted properly--but my contention is that they did not act properly in the larger sense, and could have done a lot more to explain what they considered wrong about your edit, which would probably have defused the situation long before you got blocked. I think that you, as a new editor, are much less at fault than initially appeared from the article history, though of course you went too far. As an administrator, I really had no choice but to deny your request, and the same goes for Boing--but it also seems clear to me that you felt pushed and belittled, and while I initially thought 24 hours was too short, I do not believe that anymore.
Thank you very much, I appreciate it. I have a lot more work to do on my own, so much more reading, before I try this again, but thank you for being open to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lianalupe (talk • contribs) 15:42 (UTC), 16 June 2011
- I'm always happy to help with policies, procedures etc (if not the actual content), so feel free to come on over to my Talk page any time if you have anything I can help with (though I am quite busy in real life at the moment, so I might not be able to respond quickly). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User:Staticd, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. TNXMan 16:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear user,
I'm very sorry if you were offended by what I wrote. I was offline till now or I would have got back sooner.
I've not added or removed anything from the HPD article as it is not my area of expertise. I noticed the back and forth changes and tried to help by welcoming you and giving you a 3rd party interpretation of what was going on and maybe help you learn the ropes.
No insults were implied in what I wrote(though my phrasing and terseness were not too good).
- by verbose with jargon i was referring to the style advocated for wikipedia articles.- for a person unfamilliar with the field, what you wrote would be very hard to process. As an example i'll give the first draft and final version of a sentence I added to the article stargazer:
- First Draft: They have an electroplaque that is ontogenicaly derived from the extraoccular muscles
- Final version: They have an electric organ consisting of modified eye muscles. (I've lost a little bit of clarity by using approximate common words but made it accessible to lay readers.)
- yes the way you were educated may be better than others, but thats not pertinent to the article I was not calling you arrogant, only making a well meaning jest( a rather badly failed attempt at being droll shall we say?), while pointing out that your comment(to the person who deleted...) to the other editors who removed your writeup belonged to the discussion page talk:Histrionic personality disorder and not the main article Histrionic personality disorder. Putting inter-editor discussions on a main article is not good for the encyclopedia.
- And finally the last bit about patent nonsense: As I said before, i'm not the person to judge the content. what I was trying to communicate is that your edit might have been mistaken for vandalism so you neednt get too upset over the deletion. Wikipedia is hit by an attack every 10 minutes or so and many editors find it convinient to remove changes that look odd at the first glance as they rely on contributers of good edits to meet them on the talk pages if they were mistaken for vandals. It happens quite often.(yes its not the ideal way to do things). What I tried to tell you was that at first read an unfamilliar editor could have mistaken what you wrote for a random assortment of jargon: at wikipedia this sort of attack is called patent nonsense. see Wikipedia:Patent_nonsense.
get back to me on User_Talk:Staticd if you need help.
P.S "assume good faith" is called a Pillar of wikipedia for very good reasons: People are usually not intentionally malacious.:)
Staticd (talk) 07:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)