Hello, Star767, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! -தமிழ்க்குரிசில் (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Star767! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Flamenco: Fire and Grace, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Into the Dark (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to make you aware of this discussion I started at Winter storm naming. I have no intentions of making any changes to the article myself, but was just hoping to get input from editors previously involved in the article (or recently-closed AfD) in an effort to improve the article and clarify its purpose. I will leave any changes to the consensus of other editors who decide what's best. Your participation would be welcome, regardless of your views on the issue. Thank you. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've been watching the discussion and agree with your points. I'll weigh in if I think I can be helpful. Best wishes, Star767 (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with Artificial waterfall. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! You could probably get a good gallery of pictures of artificial waterfalls from that category on the Commons. Star767 (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	This is the first barnstar I have ever left anyone. After over 100,000 edits. Thanks for being so kind as to help me out by cropping a photo for me at DYK, when I made a plea for assistance. Epeefleche (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• WoW, thanks! Star767 (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Running from Crazy at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! CeeGee 12:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks! Star767 (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your write-up was deleted from Harlem shake (dance). I've added part of it to Harlem Shake (meme). —rybec 08:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that! Star767 (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For your tireless copyedit works, you get this barnstar! Best, Tito Dutta (contact) 20:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Star767 (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job. The article is just 1-2 sentences short of being applicable for a DYK by itself, as a 5x expansion :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've expanded a bit and DYK nominated it. Star767 (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Shepherd Racing Ventures (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Talladega and Victory in Jesus

John Carter Racing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Victory in Jesus

Morgan Shepherd (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Victory in Jesus

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Star767. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Boudreaux's Butt Paste.
Message added 17:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito Dutta (contact) 17:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tito Dutta!

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Toyota i-Road at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 11:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Human Sexuality Barnstar
		For coming to and providing such good edits on BLPs in human sexuality.— James Cantor (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, James Canter! Star767 (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I have noticed you have added Harry Reems several times today. He died the 19th and is already listed. Please check source info to make sure the date you enter him for is the day he died. Thanks. Sunnydoo (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Star767, Eduemoni has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! Eduemoni↑talk↓ 15:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! You cheered me up, Eduemoni. Star767 (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you note on my talk page. I think you have a misunderstanding. Those aren't "annotations." They aren't there to justify content. They are reference resources for people who want to get more information from credible sources on the subject matter covered by the category. I'm a little concerned since this happens to be one of the most valuable services Wikipedia provides. Is your idea that they don't belong there? Greg Bard (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the guidelines for Wikipedia:Categorization clearly state such information should not be added, but should be in the article space. When I asked a question about this, I got two responses at the Village Pump/Policy. One editor said: "Categories are for navigation in the article space. So they should not, in my opinion, contain reference sources." Another said: "Have you contacted the editor who added/returned the link box to the category page, and asked him why he thinks it should be included? In general, I would agree that sources belong in article space and not on navigation pages... but there might be a reason why an exception should be made in this particular case. (I only told them about one case.)

So, I'm asking you if you have a special justification for the use of reference sources in these two categories? Lets take it to the Wikipedia:Categorization/Noticeboard if we disagree. Star767 (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding this to be pretty shocking. I think you need to find a compelling reason to remove them. So why is that exactly? The policy you have referred to does not justify your claim.Greg Bard (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found them very distracting and out-of-process for a category. I've never seen that before. I removed them from one page and you reverted me without an explanation. That you should inflect your own agenda on a category I find shocking. It seems POV to me. Why not put the sources in the article where they belong and where they will be scrutinized by others for appropriateness and accuracy. The links were confusing to me. I couldn't tell where they were going and when I clicked them I had trouble, and then I couldn't see the relevance of the material in them. So, y6ou think they're important. Why? They don't add anything positive to the category except your view of what should be there. Can I add my own set of sources? Can everyone? Star767 (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have split out "process theory" from "process philosophy." I am dubious about the distinction, but I am perfectly willing to live with it, if it is useful to you or any others. However, in the case of any category tagged within WikiProject Philosophy, I have to ask that you respect that there are people who are looking for these resources. If you feel strongly that "process theory" is not for philosophy articles, and use it as such, then by all means remove whatever you want from it so as to suit your needs.

However, I have to again point out that you seem to not understand what is and is not POV pushing. POV involves portraying some theory or another as the correct one or the prevailing one. Academic areas aren't theories in that sense. It is the goal of ANY field of study to provide an account of ALL the various theories that explain a particular phenomenon. That means that for topics that are studied within two or more academic areas (e.g philosophy and math both study logic; philosophy and psychology study mental content; etcetera.) it isn't POV pushing to cover the content that each academic area provides. That is how you create comprehensive articles. Territory disputes really have NO place at wikipedia, and if it is your intention to engage in one, then you really have missed the point. Perhaps I am wrong and that is not your intention, but I really don't understand what your intention is, and your impression that the template is somehow not aesthetically pleasing is just not a substantial nor serious reason for removing reference resources. Greg Bard (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I split out "process theory" from "process philosophy" in the hopes that it would draw attention to the several tiny articles that are dictionary definitions of terms used by one man. Because the AFD discussion for Process (philosophy) seemed to demonstrate how wrong-headed some of the distinctions in some philosophy articles are. I think there is a great misunderstanding in how some of these terms common to many disciplines are being misapplied in some of the philosophy articles. Annotations in categories are improper and serve to perpetuate some of the misunderstandings. They are totally unnecessary and redundant to the articles themselves. As Wikipedia:Categorization says, if there is controversy, then make a list article with the annotations and include it in the category. That way the sources can be scrutinized and edited by others to modify your POV, and a consensus can develop, as it is on the AFD for Process (philosophy).

Certainly what you did in Category:Metaphysical theories is extremely POV, separating out the Philosophy articles from all the other articles with a big orange banner and huge lettering. And this is all dictated by you, without consensus. In my view, some of your thinking is misguided. I'm not a philosopher but I am a scientist. We need to get outside views to resolve this. Star767 (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

A few people have been reverting your tagging (adding templates) over many pages - could we get you to slow this down - instead take the time and fix the problems were possible - see WP:OVERTAGGING for more info.Moxy (talk) 05:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be randomly picking on articles and dumping tags on them without contributing to the talk page or attempting to deal with the issues you see. This is highly disruptive, it it continues then it goes to ANI for resolution. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having just found some more articles where you have removed legitimate categories I would repeat the request for you to slow down. You seem to be taking a very restricted view of science and philosophy. In particular the close links between modern Philosophy of Mind and Cognitive Science. There is a considerable overlap of the two these days ----Snowded ^TALK 02:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

READ WP:BRD You have been bold, you were reverted DISCUSS READ WP:3RR and consider this a formal warning of edit warring. If you carry on a report will be made at ANI with a request that you be blocked ----Snowded ^TALK 01:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Threats are not good. Threats to block editors? And when wikipedia is seeking to retain editors?

I have been using the talk pages as you suggested, but you aren't. Are you unaware of various methods of dispute resolution, discussion and reaching consensus, without the need to resort to threats? Your only attitude toward me has been one of hostility. Is this the best way to cooperate on wikipedia and enlist the goodwill of editors? You have made no attempts to assess what I know or what my motivations are. I am concerned about the welfare of wikipedia and the quality of our articles here. That is my only motivation. But I don't think threats are productive to the overall functioning of wikipedia nor to the enlistment of motivated editors to work on articles.

BRD is an essay and does not carry the weight of a guideline or policy. It isn't a consensual method of proceeding. I have been using the talk pages since you suggested it, and also explanatory edit summaries, but you haven't. Saying I'm "on a mission" is only uncritically repeating Gregbard's assessment, and not explaining the logic of why you think I erred in my edits. Star767 (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is however enforced, read the 3rr rules. You are not using the talk page to present arguments you are simply making unsupported statements. Unless you change your behaviour you are disrupted not helping wikipedia. Its your call, but if you carry on the way you are I am going to raise an ANI report for community review. ----Snowded ^TALK 02:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know the rules and I've never violated them. You are tag teaming with Gregbard, since he solicited openly on the WikiProject Philosophy. Doesn't that violated the spirit of the 3RR rules? Star767 (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well on the basis of that statement you don't understand the rules and you may not really understand the terms (such as tag-teaming). If you think you are being mistreated then take it to ANI but I'd caution against that unless you are very confident of your position. ----Snowded ^TALK 02:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being condescending is not a favorable quality. Nor is bullying. Nor are threats. Show me where I have violated 3RR. I know that Gregbard openly solicited members of the Philosophy project to follow me around and revert my "disruption". This was without any effort to discuss with me, other than to tell me to "desist" removing his spamming. (This is after I received support for my views at the Village Pump and he didn't.)

I have improved many of the category pages. Some categories had no main article when one was easily available, or even the wrong article and a misleading one at that. Gredbard's spamming templates and his huge template headers disrupt navigation in the categories. I was shocked to see the bad condition that the philosophy articles used as the "main" articles were in. When articles in other disciplines are used, the categories are often wrong and misleading, and not supported by the main article at all. The purpose seems to be to overly promote Philosophy by sticking it in every category, and with a huge, dictatorial orange template promoting Philosophy. However, the effect is the opposite, and shows that Philosophy is preoccupied with garish templates and over categorizing to buff up Philosophy's importance while neglecting to present quality articles.

Is there any effort to reach FA or even GA status. Or is all the effort wasted on spamming templates in categories, over-cateorization of Philosophy articles, and reverting disambiguation pages. Look again at Gregbard's latest article effort: Process (philosophy) which instantly raised my awareness of the condition of Philosophy on wikipedia, and caused this ruckus to begin with. Star767 (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've given you a warning not claimed that you have violated it (yet). You clearly do not understand the term 'tag-teaming'. Otherwise you have not explained your deletions on the talk page of the various articles and some of the deletions you have made indicate that you have little or no knowledge of the field, in particular Philosophy of the Mind. Otherwise I'm not getting into your debate with Greg about Process Philosophy. There is also a limit to my patience in responding to you and its about run out. Use the talk page to explain your reasons not assert your opinion, slow down and get agreement before you make major changes and generally do a little research on the fields where you are editing. ----Snowded ^TALK 03:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. Your hostile attitude is not conducive to discussion. And your constant threats and condescending statements make contact with you most unpleasant. Star767 (talk) 03:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I thought I was being tolerant and trying to prevent you getting reported to ANI, Ah well. ----Snowded ^TALK 03:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Frances, an aquaintance, found his Wikipdia page and felt it was too much in the range of "personal gloss." He asked me to try to make it more "a statement of issue." I'm a Wikipedia newbie, but more hacker than most of our aging psychiatrist set which is why he asked. The version at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:1boringoldman/sandbox is what I came up with - and he liked it. As a newbie, I know nothing of how to negotiate changing, merging, whatever with an existing page. My own credential is my blog http://1boringoldman.com and Allen's request. What happens next? --1boringoldman (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, [[ <[Frances page]> ]], has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going [[ [Frances Talk Page] |here]], and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 1boringoldman (talk) 04:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC) --1boringoldman (talk) 04:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done so. Don't think making Allen Frances' biography into a opinion piece is an improvement. You know that he was chair of the DSM-IV task force? So he has a lot to defend. Star767 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I'm new at this. I wrote it, not Dr. Frances. I'm aware about neutrality, so I tried to document the DSM-5 part factually. That he has an agenda is without question. And that agenda is his biography. In-so-far-as I was able, I tried to stick to the thread with references as he's written about it. How would it be written differently? I'm not trying to be contentious, I just don't know how one might present that piece of his story in a different way. An example would help. --1boringoldman (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply on your talk page, as his bio is guided by Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Star767 14:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Star767, what is your reasoning behind this? I've been removing them, considering that paraphilias are not defined as sexual orientations by any authoritative source (such as the American Psychological Association or the American Psychiatric Association). Flyer22 (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. What category do you suggest besides the general category of "Psychology"? Maybe just removing it from "Psychology" is enough, or is there a subcategory? Star767 14:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't revert this or this because the articles briefly discuss sexual orientation. Likewise, I reverted myself on this because that article discusses sexual orientation (especially homosexuality), certainly in greater detail than the other two. This article and this aticle, however, are not about sexual orientation. I don't have any existing category to suggest, but, like I stated here, a Sexual preference category is what would fit paraphilias in addition to sexual orientations. I don't recommend creating a Sexual preference category, which could appropriately cover sexual orientations and paraphilias, and anything else considered a sexual preference, but I wouldn't be against it either. Not sure what I think about you removing Category:Psychology with this edit. Why remove that and not, for example, Category:Sexology? Because psychology is broader? Flyer22 (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, psychology seems like a dumping ground for disparate topics that editors don't know where else to put, or they just include psychology for the heck of it. So the category isn't very helpful if a reader or editor is looking for a specific subject, but I don't have strong feelings about it. Although you're right about sexual orientation, I think most will be looking for the general topic of sexuality; maybe orientation as a subcat in that. But do as you like. Star767 16:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also reverted myself on this, and added an extra hidden note about it. I don't have strong feelings about inclusion or removal of the Psychology category; it currently doesn't look that much bigger than the Sexology category, and someone is likely to add it back to any article you remove it from, though. As for sexual orientation, I believe that it's best to keep things that are not sexual orientations (by any authoritative definition anyway) out of Category:Sexual orientation and Category:Sexual orientation and psychology...unless the article discusses sexual orientation. Category:Sexology, and some other sexuality categories, can handle the general topic of sexuality. Flyer22 (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that Category:Psychology currently has 23 subcategories and 162 pages vs. Category:Sexology having 22 subcategories and 76 pages. But that is understandable, given, like I stated, psychology is broader. But I also understand what you mean about the former being a dumping ground. Flyer22 (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't continued worrying about the psychology categories for now after our last communication. Psychology seems like a free-for-all - anything and everything is considered psychology! Star767 17:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits on the category page which confused one editor with another (and implied that a respected long-standing admin was basically lying) Please go easy on the accusations and try to read more carefully next time. Cheers, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry! Which one was it? I apologize. Star767 16:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see which one it was. I'm very sorry! Star767 16:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no worries - mistakes happen - I'd suggest striking your last comment on the cat talk page and then apologizing to the relevant user there or on their talk page. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Will do. Thanks, Star767 16:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Star767, No problem. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

George K. Simon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Manipulation

Hy Gardner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Herald Tribune

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. Star767 20:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that i am far from happy from your work on psychology. You are destructively ripping big chunks of cited text out of psychology articles on the spurious basis that they are not relevant when clearly they are relevant. You seen to have a strange agenda for example ripping out connections between narcissism and related topics for example knocking out the connections between defense mechanisms and narcissism just because defense mechanisms arent exclusively about narcissism (who ever said they were) but they are still a very important aspect eg narcissistic defences. I see that other editors have had problems with your work as well. --Penbat (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misapprehend many topics in psychology. I urge you to carefully use reliable sources per WP:MEDRS. It's not right to use popular authors as major sources, such as George K. Simon for psychological manipulation. He is talking about psychopathic manipulation. He never uses the phrase "psychological manipulation", even once. Further, Narcissistic personality disorders may be selfish, self-preoccupied etc. but they are not prone to psychological abuse or bullying. And Otto Kernberg is an object relations theory psychiatrist, which is not current thinking. Star767 20:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Star, you are building a reputation with several editors for tendentious editing. I suggest you slow down a bit and listen more or its going to end up at ANI. Another question - have you previously edited under another name? If so better to declare it now ----Snowded ^TALK 09:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snowded, who is having a problem with me besides Penbat?

I see that you and Penbat have been discussing me.User talk:Snowded#User:Star767 problems He apparently is unwilling to discuss specific problems regarding the material with me.

What do you think of using popular authors as major sources, such as George K. Simon, Harriet Braiker, and Martin Kantor for psychology articles like psychological manipulation? (Those authors don't mention "psychological manipulation". They are mostly talking about psychopathic manipulation.) Penbat made a template {{Psychological manipulation}}, apparently based on that article, and transcluded it on hundreds of articles, including articles like Exaggeration that aren't about psychology.[1] I've removed many, including the one on Exaggeration, as totally inappropriate and misreading to readers. Likewise his template {{Narcissism}}.

I really haven't had many editors complain, at least to me. I was upset that a user "tag bombed" a page I was working on and I asked admin Bbb23 about it. (I tried to fix the article and removed the tags but was reverted.) He basically said the only way to go was was to fix all the problems the tags noted before removing the tags.[2]

Moxy asked above that I stop "tag bombing" and helpfully suggested I read WP:OVERTAGGING so I did stop tagging problems in philosophy articles, which admittedly I was doing for a short time and I appreciated his suggestion. You followed his words with a threat to take me to ANI, which was unnecessary as I had stopped.

And you accused me of edit warring above and of 3-RR. But you are the only such complaint I've had.

I know that my questioning the use in philosophy categories of transcluded templates listing external reference sources and links to external sites (not related to wikipedia) was argued against by Gregbard. He discussed this with me appropriately, above.User talk:Star767#Removal of Reference resources I asked about that practice at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Reference resources and the community opinion seemed to be on my side. I haven't pursued it further for the time being. I also stopped removing philosophy categories from psychology articles in cases where the psychology article did not mention the reason for the article's being in the philosophy category, although Wikipedia:Categorization states:

"Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories."

I think the discussion on the talk pages should continue regarding wikipedia practices. In any case I have stopped for now and will pursue policy/guideline clarification in the future.

So now you are threatening me with ANI again? On behalf of Penbat? Am I doing anything to you? Please explain your involvement now. Penbat needs to explain to me why he is templating articles, (e.g. with {{Psychological manipulation}}, {{Narcissism}}) including psychology articles with misleading information. Is he clear that mental disorders are not primarily psychological manipulation, that narcissism and Narcissistic personality disorders are not primary causes of manipulative behavior, abusive behavior, psychological abuse or bullying, that popular psychology books are not reliable sources for psychological concepts, that psychopathy is not the same as narcissism, and that psychology articles should follow WP:MEDRS? In Psychological manipulation, sources are misused and psychological manipulation is presented in a purely negative light, when psychological manipulation is characteristic of human behavior. The article Psychological abuse is more accurate. The templates on psychological manipulation and narcissism placed on hundreds of articles give readers faulty information. As I tried to explain to Penbat, a man giving a woman flowers, a woman cooking a man dinner are both psychologically manipulative. Narcissistic personalities (a very small percentage of the population) are not particularly aggressive or criminal.

I have edited wikipedia on and off since 2004. I haven't edited consistently and have gone for long periods without editing, so each time I start editing I use an IP, and usually finally get a name. Does that make me a sockpuppet? Star767 15:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then tell us what those names were please ----Snowded ^TALK 15:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would if I could. If I could have remembered a name I would've used it. Star767 15:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that too many times for editors with a past they want to hide. ----Snowded ^TALK 15:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is to inform you that there is a discussion concerning your work at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Star767_-_sockpuppetry.2C_divisive_and_destructive_wholesale_editing. --Penbat (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Mattisse. Any appeals of this block should be addressed to the Arbitration Committee. NW (Talk) 01:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]