Talk:Abraham Maslow

This whole section was added without much discussion by a no longer active user User:BalearicSlinger in Oct '24. I don't know how much of this is true or false, but the particular claim that "Maslow expressed particular disdain for the nation of India, believing that the entire nation should be euthanized." is utterly absurd, considering his previous noted collaboration with Indian scientist U.A. Asrani, and it contains no working citation. Other users have deleted some or all of this badly written and badly sourced section only to have it reverted. In my opinion, going through the text deleting only the most absurd claims gives undue credibility to the rest of it. I am deleting this entire section. Feel free to add back any newly-written well-sourced claims that Maslow was a eugenicist, but if you simply revert to the version of user:BalaericSlinger, then we are going to have an edit war. ~2025-41603-58 (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Somebody certainly needs to go through all the cites to ensure 1) they are reliable and 2) agree with what is being claimed. For example: the first source listed is WP:MEDIUM and the article has since been deleted by the author.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Pinging others involved, Discospinster, Win8x – LuniZunie_(talk) 16:44, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree that some of the sources in that section are very iffy, however there are sources that are fine and deleting the entire section is what I flagged here. – LuniZunie_(talk) 16:46, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, there really aren't more than three sources. Philosophy for Life is a blog and Ecstatic Integration is a substack, both run by Jules Evans.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

My apologies, I did not see that both were run by Jules Evans. In that case, I do have to agree with the TA. – LuniZunie_(talk) 17:02, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Right, I agree with the others. I went and checked the sources out. Deletion without edit summaries (or saying "anti-semitic slander") is poor from the TA. We don't need to have an edit war, it seems like. At the end, it's my mistake. My apologies. win8x (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes I agree with this. The edit was fine, but the edit summary was very suspicious. – LuniZunie_(talk) 17:06, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

It seems possible it was antisemitic slander or a play on what the holocaust actually attempted. It would seem Maslow's research was actually euthenics opposing eugenics as what was more groundbreaking, clearly in its lasting legacy of having established different hallmarks for development rather than genetics. While understanding genes was advancing, I see no evidence especially for a direct program as was stated in the section, being advanced by Maslow's work. If in fact he was interested in euthenics not eugenics that would be very significant misinformation that should be published correctly as it's relevant for a similar section's development. ~2025-42270-37 (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

At some junction with Skinner and Huxley, eupsychia as what I suppose was Maslow's term assuming a nice psychological outcome for many flowing from his work's dissemination, was another sort of utopian example. A eupsychia section is certainly possible as it seems a major part of what Maslow presented, basically being an outcome he felt was realistic, naturally. The removed section seemed focused there but hyperbolically or something irrational as maybe personal to that editor. ~2025-42672-45 (talk) 12:18, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Just how bad that section was might take a while to appreciate, beyond the obvious. Pure fabrications associating Maslow with Thorndike having links, creating images of a Nietzsche driven presenter, a notorious psychedelic evangelist - removed from any psychology department's possible contribution - with links, attributed as what's Maslow's work on psychedelics, some sort of Darwinism, and the sadistic qualities of a sort of retribution mindset. As is being found out, maybe being a complete example of the worst sort of successful editing of Wikipedia that we've seen so far - that was able to sit in place for over a year. This is somewhat only personally thought of for the consensus drive in place, for putting it back in the article still maybe, but having been around some, a Maslow presentation was none of that/not known for any of that/attracted enthusiasm and support for creating that scene to be making (by mistake). If Wikipedia allows that to be published again etc. It was amazing an editor finally got it done should be what is being looked into as the Malow article is even supposed to be an example of having a better control applied to it, asserted as an ability possible, to the public's wondering validity concerns or at to remove from place at times unfit editors but still possible for an invitation of that editor to even contribute more now, clinically requested behavior - by joining discussion over their thought merits of what they did to us fellow editors - or maybe yet - for eupsychia vs. eugenicist farther observations? ~2025-42914-55 (talk) 19:42, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

The latest failure against the control of this article is found in what appears a resistance to the potentials of becoming, as was successfully asserted (I guess) as too negative or obscure for this article's flow if found under the worth of "simply by being" and it works for them as what's here - to have resolved this pending edit's logic found for no inclusion allowed by them? ~2025-43451-33 (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Please simplify. Can't understand what you wrote. TrueMoriarty (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Showing up confused and irrational isn't something new to me. I'm not sure that supports their logic of the dispute usually, as what I state is assumed understandable and rational from start to finish to be found in the dispute's facts, and I just leave it open for farther observation of its work rather than formally work Wikipedia's channels of dispute resolution, as what I enjoy most for the public's developing understanding of Wikipedia's model of volunteerism for the job. Like with the "Maslow and Eugenics" section problem, some party we've not met yet can show up with an idea that seems to work at a serious warring threat/situation in need of an equally serious Wikipedia rational action, in that example, and eventually overcame the resistance at finally removing an horrific case for slandering Maslow/dissemination of misinformation that was acceptedly edited in as stated as being done by that editor "matter-of-fact as possible", maybe, but depending on things here, like if needed for any sort of a consensus developed quickly for or against a reinsertion (not this case where I stated no plan of warring in my state for things and still stated as what I enjoy most in these situation at just continuing on like I have been doing etc.), but a cohort of that state is being equally stated now - as just being a confused bunch that thinks that's all their defense needed while actually having just been declared/assumed a confused bunch to have to be editing along with at times is the determination (by the invited public) for the Wikipedia projects worked for success ultimately, as what's assumed for with most in good faith - so no logic can be found around to support anything against them to them anyway, so not really being done like this still for them/the case anymore anyway but is actually at being for who can understand it all along, naturally, and is the defense being missed out on, and is what's happening here, too, surprisingly ineffective as it is. Personally, I like the article here now as a pretty good read, so to just continue, at what so far seems to be one for and one against what I also see as an improvement to the article, being discussed for its still possible inclusion but in need of a consensus now on the main talk page for the Maslow article (as requested at this stage of its development, too), do you ever read this article or are you one of those Wikipedia volunteers that isn't even sure what article it is that is being worked on at first arriving around about, in this example, for this work at editing the Maslow article that's being suggested as what can be its potential improvement, through a better flow having been actualized somehow, by having "here" instead of "happy" as a simple humanistic principle there, mostly being abstracted it seems from something from Maslow's official statement for its website, I think, for that part found in the "Maslow's contributions" section of this Wikipedia article on Maslow, that you're now contributing to here with this move to block what potentially is its improvement and is at what is trying to be understood democratically by sticking us with doing this, but developed enough for only needing a third now, if this hasn't worked to dissuade your resistance to its becoming, and is now no longer being disputed by you - as not being here like that but is really what's your thought of to be, a too "negative and obscure information at the introduction", perception of the situation - and just go ahead insert it as far as you're concerned anymore, as that can be found to happen eventually at times. but not for me yet, so I'd enjoy getting out of one that way, too. ~2025-43713-13 (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

It is too much work to change the default edit summary. Also, 'here' does not make sense in that paragraph instead of 'happy'. I am sure you want to edit constructively, but your edits and there explanations seems dubious and obscure to me. TrueMoriarty (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Also, please write a little less for your next messages. No offense. TrueMoriarty (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

You changed it nicely, in this dispute, so to discover the resistance in timely way, as seems the standard for Wikipedia in cases that aren't just simple vandalism - that you had been in violation of. ~2025-43713-13 (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

To wrap it up, do you agree for 'happy' instead of 'here'? TrueMoriarty (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to war about it and enjoy seeking a consensus still that could override you out of the problem, as is standard Wikipedia procedure at least, this early on in it, having at least been requested for it taking place, as I think it's winnable at least, too. Have you read the whole article, considering that you found it too much work to express more than what's default to start this pending edits rejection of yours? Had you ever heard of Maslow or any elements of his work? Surely you can understand some of this questioning to actually respond directly at being questioned. ~2025-43713-13 (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I admit that I have very little knowledge about Maslow. But the question here is whether it should be happy or here. This is a very minor thing to dispute about but if you think it is necessary, then I can bring in some other editors to assist us in judging the correct decision. TrueMoriarty (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

You must at least read the article having a sense to be able to discern the "should" or "oughtness" of any principle of humanistic psychology, as something you can defend, not to become concerned about what you think you are able to do after just having arrived here. ~2025-43713-13 (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I read the article right now thoroughly and I agree preserving the status quo and putting happy instead of here TrueMoriarty (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

That's good you can claim that, but little comfort for that you can understand it. ~2025-43713-13 (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I presume that you agree with me that happy should be instead of here. This conversation gives me a headache. Luckily, even if you disagree with me, you can't oppose me because you are not eligible to edit this page. Also, please do not challenge my intellect, do you have a post doc degree? No offense. Bye bye. TrueMoriarty (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

And there you have it, confused and irrational? Next, instead of the edit being still pending here, and if the cohorts can't arrive, it'll just stop in place here on the talk page rather than improve the article or have it as still pending on the article's page having not been solved enough in the first place but still easily removed from pending status for the public to easily consider also, and being satisfied by them with what was accomplished by them of at least winning an edit war that never happened by proceeding supposedly to consensus making - and if an editor can't figure it out as at least enough for contributing a what was that all about sort of resistance to start the actual editing of the article past that editor's contribution. ~2025-43713-13 (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

ok TrueMoriarty (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Actually, to my satisfaction, having finally won one of these (after quite the battle, however) and being left to edit at will nearly in line with what I'd purported for an article, along with having too long and obscure writings on its main talk page, I've made it to wondering what you want to do still about this article's potential improvement. Since we've found no other editor interest, again if you might not care anymore, just for fun maybe, let's see how the article ages with "here" instead of "happy" at least, as a new approach at this case? I did encourage a sense of having some fun with this there, as maybe what helped things along, although it was/is a much more fun centered topic in a lot of ways as opposed to Maslow post/during eugenicist's engineering concerns. Without that section, it became a much more fun article, not to go back to addressing the invited public mainly. Maybe more specific, an actually interested reading public, as fun is a very important part of humanistic psychology, but of course here is of prepotent order? ~2026-54210-0 (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

If you want improvement for Ibrahim Maslow then leave a message in WP:Teahouse. TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 15:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

At this talk page here now however, in humanistic psychology its being purported as what's heavily weighted as what's this the psychological state of any matter at hand so much as it to maybe be determined equal or maybe even to the actual matter, in a far out sense they can tend to do, also. if we were to improve the article along these lines in progress, rather. ~2026-54210-0 (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Say, postulated from the field of general semantics, that "knowing," a psychological state, while impossible at the enormity of the task of all existence, is nonetheless found as being actual matter where it is possible, still, thus becoming something among us experienced and having effect here once actualized and is just as equivalent to having made it here somehow as anything else found here, albeit only for what is knowable or now known? Without any knowledge in existence, chaos would be all that's here for humans' personally and potential, as we know it now, would be present only as what's here now so far but not for them to ever actualize anything from knowledge's matter since it never existed for them for some reason or mental disorders, in that sort of a dystopian flow. Still, as a sort of fun approach to some merits of education or the accurate dissemination of information by placing "here" instead of "happy" associated with Maslow's work on the benefits and empirical investigation of understandings or having mental health in existence. Clearly it's here and possible to observe and speculate on its development while being postulated as mutually exclusive to the unusual "presence" of mental disorders' flow as known enough about to declare only one rather than the other produces the logical sought after predicted results here thus vs. not here, proven scientifically in many examples, also. ~2026-54210-0 (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Please do me a favour and copy paste what you wrote just now in my talk page. The replies are getting unreadably narrow in the screen.

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 16:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

We can start a new topic name for this work on the article's improvement taking place on the main talk page, as requested for solving why the blocked edit into the article, as maybe humorously we're making too much of an inverted pyramid for what's next in this, but maybe make it another "ok" as your contribution to the article/fun still, proving it's still running as it is at some sort of your claimed to be peak capacity for us all to observe during this situation? ~2026-54210-0 (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

write what you wrote just now in the below topic.

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 05:07, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Here TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 05:07, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

The history of the first acceptance is gone somehow but is important information? ~2026-54210-0 (talk) 13:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

You'll have to conclude it's required in presentation form, also. You'll have to infer the vision of peace becoming is humanistic psychology's potential conclusions for humans. Actualization is included in mental health's development. ~2026-54210-0 (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Good on you for going to the talk page, more than most new editors can do, to be honest. Anyway, a pending change being accepted basically only means it wasn't vandalism, so I can still obviously undo it if I disagree. And I do - you say "you'll have to conclude" and "you'll have to infer", but we are explicitly not allowed to infer things unless a source expressly says something. See the relevant policy at WP:SYNTH. I don't have access to reference 19, but I do have reference 20 before me, and I can't quote too much here for copyright reasons, but "[...T]he advent of World War II permanently changed his intellectual focus. [...] But the horrors of mass warfare gave him a sense of urgency. He later wrote, 'One day just after Pearl Harbor, [...] I had a vision of a peace table, with people sitting around it and talking about human nature and hatred and war and peace and brotherhood [...]. It was at that moment that I realized that the rest of my life must be devoted to discovering a psychology for the peace table' This epiphany led to Maslow’s groundbreaking studies of self-actualizing people [...]". It very much seems to me that this directly supported the version of the article that was before your edits, so why change it to something that we "have to infer"? JustARandomSquid (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

It was actually accepted and allowed in the article and that history of events for some reason doesn't show anymore? I thought about it and realized rejecting a pending edit is a little different than a revert, too, I guess. Having a second acceptance by a different editor may imply something for your case's situation, however, in that many elements remain the same still becoming 3 against the validity of your suggestions being made in the messages of the reverts, and whatever the conflicts with some terms used in this discussion so far add up to as the supposed validity of your findings stated as being in accordance with Wikipedia rules for abstractions of references. If you do revert again, I'm interested in what will happen to the history of the second acceptance, as at least it will have been present for a space of time in that instance and a successful edit, clearly. I support that edit still, as being enough in line with the previous stable version as to not produce implications for a reader's takeaway from that part as being any less clear on what it expresses, and maybe becoming more coherent with the developing flow of the article even to its clarity at final presentation's evaluation. The major case recently here of what was in the article for over a year using an abstraction having pure fabrication that was pointed out as not in the reference would seem a better for you to have taken action on Wikipedia rule, if you were around here then, and as something I can understand as needed to be concerned about, as that was a very bad example to discover. ~2026-54210-0 (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, your English is extremely difficult to understand. But, it seems to me that by Having a second acceptance by a different editor may imply something for your case's situation, however, in that many elements remain the same still becoming 3 against the validity of your suggestions being made in the messages of the reverts you mean that its 3 vs. 1. So, just for clarity, I'm going to ping @TrueMoriarty and @Enbi to clarify whether they meant their acceptance to constitute approval of your revision. JustARandomSquid (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

That seems like a lack of personal understanding as a defense, and while unverifiable on its own I suppose you can assert a complete lack of understanding of the situation at hand as the defense while looking for support of a cohort and continue on its inferred downward spiral, as surely understanding the acceptance of a pending edit into the article is a verifiable event here. ~2026-54210-0 (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I approved the revision only because it was not obviously rule-breaking. As JustARandomSquid said earlier in the discussion, the purpose of Pending changes review is to stop vandalism, blatant copyvio and complete hoaxes being published on the encyclopedia, not to scrutinise edits. enbi [they/them] • [talk] 18:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

As I thought about it I considered the idea but also thought the revert/rejection that started this was actual usual editing procedure just being in a specialized situation, as that editor was behaving so. The other editor that hasn't weighed in yet is one I've delt with and wondered about where that came from but considered it could be an edit that was thought an improvement, also. I'll go to 2 against one now, as it seems something understandable to that editor as that one editor there might surprise us with some normal editing procedure yet as thought to be what they were doing all along. ~2026-54210-0 (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Again, as this is also something being studied here, whatever the editors here can claim they are performing is under severe scrutiny for the reading public, as sitting in this article for over a year was an irrationally defended major violation of that very important Wikipedia rule covering its case, also, that had become a wonder to observe right through its final resolution. ~2026-54210-0 (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

One thing I still don't entirely understand is what your reason for the edit is. You said "Coherent Flow" in the edit summary, but it doesn't really read that much better to me, and it has the added issue of changing verified information to something that has to be inferred (your words). JustARandomSquid (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Again, personal experiences can be very different than the norm found in an environment especially when among a very different bunch of "experts," as you seem to have inferred/stated for me at how well I developed this disputed edit here to having made it this far nicely, given being new to this (your words), but also if you think about it's just a standard experienced system user too, at some point. What you can conclude next for what's going on here, if you actually lose at working it to not becoming and it became (stable), also, I'll just wait and see rather than infer success, as I rarely win these, but you could just claim you no longer care at some point and we can all move on with the article as stable now (for us at least, as far as we're concerned with that part's recent developments), though? Like I was informing that other editor, letting it age in the article is a good start at having some fun with it. I'll weigh in with that this version of the article had me personally thinking that while Freud was clearly persuasive and had/has to be paid attention to, his case presentations were not in the class of what Maslow found to be going on. ~2026-54210-0 (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

The thing is, your current version of the article is misleading. It claims a source supports something it doesn't. That's why I even care in the first place — if it was just wording, it wouldn't really be a problem. JustARandomSquid (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I know you think the words added form different substance, too. It's been addressed on both sides enough to have you on your own in this, at least, as it's all in the facts by now, except that one that was removed from the history, for this case, I guess that's still in question of if you maybe are right after all, in this for your side? You'll need to accept it at some point (or maybe for your fun, just start the warring up) if it stays in the article like this that maybe you're not going to be able to improve the article here by whatever it is you think will be its better, as is the main stated mission in these type discussions encouraged to take place on this (or any) main talk page's contribution to the Wikipedia experience, as I've got you at a loss even though you don't know it. ~2026-54210-0 (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Because we're at a standstill here, I've listed this at WP:3O to get input from someone else. JustARandomSquid (talk) 07:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

It's too bad you can't understand what's going on for this example of having improved this Maslow article, improving for a while now, too, and its main talk page, generating some positive action here - with the coherent flow of this version clear to any of those interested you find to participate cold at it now (and any public readership around since the finally accepted removal needed of what was a real violation of what you've become fixated irrationally on here in what's mainly, for you only, another type of abstract issue - that you seem much less in need of support in taking time to try and understand what's the connection between the abstract and its reference and the total article, however, to me) for those that are considered rational and are of the kind willing to at least read an article once along with the conflicts presented around in the facts that can be found. While for yourself not seeming to exhibit a more coherent personality syndrome for Maslow's circumstances in having displayed this complete lack of assimilation into any of this and seem to at least initially have been at transferring of a past simple case, maybe your resistance while fixated isn't as much of denial/repression, yet, as it will become eventually but good for you/us all at not regressing, being a sort of joke you won't totally get maybe, as talk pages can be fun, too? Like I've noted earlier, I like to study and present this to the reading public interested in the article/Wikipedia and just skip the other suggested channels, for myself, as at that point I'm satisfied with having gotten that far. ~2026-54210-0 (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

• Good Morning, I'm here from WP:3O. I've taken some time to peruse through the dispute above and I think there are two topics to address.

1)The precedent set by an edit being accepted. I tend to agree with Enbi and Justarandomsquid that we should not put any stock in an edit being accepted in this case. If this were an article under some discretionary sanctions and/or this were a topic on the talkpage sure. But, as Enbi noted, these reviews were just to prevent spam/vandalism.

2) The content of the edits themselves. Looking through them, there are some that I think are fine (the change to "military service" for example), but most of them make the article less readable and I don't think provide any significant meaning and, in one instance, seem to conflate two topics. I believe that we should revert the article back and, if there are specific edits that the IP would like to make, that he put them here for discussion.

Squatch347 (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. I'm going to presumptively restore the previous version under WP:ONUS for now. JustARandomSquid (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

It's been a topic on the main talk page that you've now entered into, too. While making it a majority (I guess) the confused editor that thinks an improvement to the article is now about to happen under their work just was finally granted that by you take on the article. That was quick given no prior understanding of the situation, if you care to actually engage rather than just dictate? ~2026-54210-0 (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't actually understand what you mean here. What "situation" are you refering to here? I always try to judge individual edits on their own merits — was that the wrong thing to do here? JustARandomSquid (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I'd like that new participant to display some experiences they've had with this article and the talk page enough to at least reconsider if a discussion was going on prior to their arrival, as a start at what I consider the situation that they are perceiving, as it seems to be stated they've started the topic's discussion for us here, that of course is irrational but seems to have been stated as being important to them to have found going on at their arrival, at least, as it could indicate zero review from the start of this topic they've joined into (not to mention a full main talk page understanding having taken place). Again, like before, Wikipedia to the public is being observed. If this is the rationale for improving the article that wins out, some could consider it just as confused and irrationally supported as ever for the Maslow article's development into a lesser version, that that kind of flow is in control of actualizing? ~2026-54210-0 (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

If you're accusing them of providing a third opinion without having read through the discussion first, that's... not very nice, and you would probably want evidence beyond "they disagreed with me" before making an accusation like that. JustARandomSquid (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Let them enter the discussion then and prove they found a discussion after all, as it was immediately addressed once asserted as being a failure of an edit by you in the usual manner of editing an article. As it seems confusion about normal editing procedure is in place to stay, at least there's the small "victory" of having the second acceptance of the disputed edit still being found in the history. If it's just a quick read of the article for the first time, jumping in as supporting the work you just did as a claimed to be improvement as it still isn't makes you seem only to have found what you were looking for in a cohort arriving, but still not much more to the rest of us that have been around for more than an hour? Take it as all the validation you need if you want to, but at hearing about how naive that new participant really is from themself could find you regressing now rapidly, to the rest of us around that enjoy this. ~2026-54210-0 (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

at least there's the small "victory" of having the second acceptance of the disputed edit still being found in the history. Just to remind you again that an edit being accepted only means it wasn't vandalism, spam, libel, or a copyright violation. Nothing to be proud of.

If it's just a quick read of the article for the first time... I still don't see why you're saying this dispute is so deep. If someone from outside the conversation reads the article and the talk page discussion and doesn't side with you, that either means you're wrong, or that you haven't explained yourself well enough. Maybe if you presented your case better people (me included) might be more inclined to support you.

...but still not much more to the rest of us that have been around for more than an hour? Not strictly speaking relevant, but who's "the rest of us"? JustARandomSquid (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Maybe humorously, again, I'll give Maslow the try this time at analyzing, stating maybe your focus is too inwardly limited, as Wikipedia has some potential exposure to it to consider, surely? Like the more transpersonal, but not really able to cross reference off their personal where applicable, as they do. As Maslow maybe attempted to present at getting beyond your personal to see something other than what you're doing nearly as understandably, and just having to write them off as having missed the boat on what's here. ~2026-54210-0 (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Of course your cohort is around, but Wikipedia once announced something about AI to have in our considerations and I thought if AI was involved in this I'd like to have it extra special as what I might throw into that, too. ~2026-54210-0 (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Found in later psychology departments and being interdisciplinary, a recognition gets applied to all participants at having been together like that, that an unknown flow has potentially produced this situation and has taken hold (actualized), that in the field Maslow gets credit for presenting more detailed, as in his time he even became the president for the APA. Cohorts are something, of course. In total for the complete scene, as more talk page "fun" (as a potential excuse to delete the contents of a talk page though, even, if continued without any merits able to be located, for the type liable to such acts when presumedly cast into their own personal lost state for the matter at having read it enough for themself and now for all, too, asserted as being found in some Wikipedia dictate over the situation), if, however, the "inmates" found around were elevated to the positions of authority (as could be more commonly attempted by them than thought even after knowing how they are in general), as a well-known about different type of experiment on guard/inmate cognitive drift in a random design once attempted on the normal gets presented in the field, it again has me thinking Wikipedia's project for study is relevant to expert's in the field, too, but attempting to present it also just under naturalistic observation can't be too "obvious," at least? ~2026-54210-0 (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

That being more for this article, but under naturalistic observation, in the article I stated was fun centered, I was going about with some "clinical" presentation of purported to be BLP self-actualizing, transpersonal subjects. ~2026-54210-0 (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to be transparent that I'm having a hard time following you on a lot of this. It might be helpful to post a specific change you think is warranted and a one or two sentence explanation. Broader discussions seem to be wandering into WP:NOTAFORUM Squatch347 (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Well they did propose a change, but didn't really get any consensus for it. But being more concise would definitely help. JustARandomSquid (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

If you go to the top of its topic for the discussion you entered into, the first two posts are directed at the events that took place, rather timely, too. As I was lucky to have caught the pending edit having been accepted the first time right after the "war" was first nearing in that - I edited with reasons stated, it became pending, it got rejected/reverted with reasons stated, that I next reverted back to mine again with reasons stated (all verifiable). Then the edit was accepted. That bit of history in this case next disappeared from the recorded history, next I checked, evidence only being recorded as reverted back again and with an even more elaborately stated reason list. I reverted a second time too, suggesting no more reverts take it to talk, in stated reasons. The edit was then accepted again and found in the article again for a second time (this time for much longer, however). To there, that editor had not accepted it twice by what seems to be called "reverted" in the history, whether in pending status or after being accepted and officially being a successful edit. I took it to the talk page, the improved article on its way to becoming stable maybe, seemingly orderly enough, that even has made it this far in what's called my work at improving the article. I do suggest an understanding of all this talk page, also, and of course the article itself to understand what improvements can look like if you find one taking place. Again, Wikipedia operates to facilitate information easily, so understanding the facts is at least verifiable in one sense but not in that all can be "agreed." What you find in the two openers is of course, firstly, directed at understanding the gap in the history of events supposedly being well kept by Wikipedia and next, what's my serial reply to the statements made in the second reverted case's argument. Argument has been pretty steady anywhere you look? You seem to have started/continued yours, by admittedly now, having shown up (at least), with what was naturally expected to be what's very few ideas for what arguments of mine might have had merit, at like being wondered about how it could be possible - in your initial questioning/invitation, not really having much if any of mine sinking in yet for you was/is predicted. So basically what I'm stating now for you in this with me, is at best to simplify it, just judge the first two posts in this topic's first part, maybe, but still just to show you are actually at least that far along in it this time, not so much that you are keeping up already like of a different cohort that can do that. ~2026-54210-0 (talk) 03:47, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Good Morning IP.

I read back through all of the active talk discussions as you suggested. I think the common theme here, and I mean this constructively, sorry please don't take offense, is that other editors struggle to understand what you are saying. This is consistent across at least five different editors, including myself.

Your text walls seem to be a bit incoherent and the grammar issues make it difficult to follow any line of reasoning.

If I could suggest, I would try to simplify your responses. Post: 1) the quote of the text you don't agree with in the article. 2) A quote of the text you suggest and 3) at maximum, two sentence justification that is as straight to the point as you can possibly make it.

If, rather, your concern is about the overall structure or sourcing in the article, I think we need a much cleaner and clearer argument or description of your concern. The above took me 15 minutes to parse through and all I can gather from it is that you feel we aren't addressing your point, but it isn't clear what your point is at all.

Hope this helps,

Squatch347 (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Helps make the assumed interested reading public that are a cohort of it laugh, maybe. Confused and irrational is what we'd agreed to was predicted, and one by one they show up like that as the final defense needed, not gaslighting in any sense because as a cohort they really try to mean it/mean it that we can't understand the case against them as stated so poorly, they being the inmates having taken control as later elaborated, too? ~2026-54210-0 (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Hmm ok well I'm not sure what you mean by 'cohort' in that context so I'll drop it, WP:NOTAFORUM.

If you have edits, please gain consensus here for them first. I'll offer this template to make those easier to display:

You cand show specific word changes like this, you can indicate deleted and inserted material.

By using these tags

You can indicate <del>deleted</del> and <ins>inserted</ins> material.

More wiki text examples here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikitext#Talk_and_project_pages

Squatch347 (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I go about trying to improve the article and the whole context of having this along with it. I can tell some well designed approaches are in use some as you two show how it's done, but I still don't think it's how I go about it my way, as that's more the total context stuff around this topic you maybe felt like joining into to explain how to better connect can be done, but you should be able to at least keep up so well, albeit only somehow for yourself, with those not interested and thinking their way is good enough. ~2026-54210-0 (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

To join in, like I'm saying you should try anyway, some of what went on was about science can be respected as knowing what's here and thus what's not here in many examples/experiments. I'd say along those lines still, a confused and irrational state to take on what's here, in some cases, is a pure disaster in the making for the experimenter, naturalistically speaking? Applied to you, what if a cohort can somehow find merit to the situation that flowed out to this? Related to improving the article very well, study of whatever that means in this context (to a lot of them), try to be aware of the situation of Wikipedia in all this, and get to the bottom of things (which can be good fun, too). ~2026-54210-0 (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Somewhat humorously to myself, I went about naturalistically engaging in changing the editing focus of an article to being that now exempt from what I found was an impenetrable resistance to editing an article without a source, surprisingly to many finding it is allowed, however, and included in that as one technique is just working on/off the reference already in place. Arbitration can get called for still, however, but it seems Wikipedia dictates extreme caution in any case where actual knowledge of the topic can be called into use as what's needed for remedy. I'd claim the arbitration was a hoax, in that case, naturally, asking too much more than a simple ruling of a rule's violation, as Wikipedia also supports hence. Naturally, having no idea doesn't look good in that situation. I also went into verifiability, as it's important to edit into an article, but I found/presented, when blocking an edit the case for how tight control has to be isn't so tough, as an editor can declare a personal perception successfully rather easily. ~2026-54210-0 (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

As can happen, presenting credentials among us here can be called into it, and as I'm transferring a BLP article's work in my experiences too, it can be more relevant to me, as what lasted in this article if say presented by Wikipedia as even having been scrutinized extra special had taken place (somehow, however) for a major BLP article in progress, as it would be immediately removed if having made it that far, and would be considered like the editor thought that made that major improvement here that it was absurd work of a fictitious abstract to begin with, that I later attempted a cohort of in that I think it's a winnable case against Wikipedia that could set precedence, especially as in such disorderly working has yet been addressed sufficiently as to hinder such poor editing procedures. Not as a rhetorical prelude to again trying that edit, but if abandoned completely by the two in major resistance, seemingly lacking in much substance/credibility as to be liable of something, I'm still up for another try at it as it seems winnable still on its merits able to be confirmed yet in the facts and these proceedings, as to actually having been understandably presented all along, which is of course what would have needed to have happened to stop it from becoming also, after all? ~2026-54210-0 (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

the prose of this article could use some work. it reads awkwardly. repetitive use of "he" as sentence starters 33prefeudalmath (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Two irrationally reasoned editorial moves before vandalism as the third gets declared, in this example? Apparently, all automatically accepted by Wikipedia's system. ~2026-16041-06 (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

You'd think here would be a place to keep going, to that editor that sent this here claiming vandalism that now needs to be discussed beyond accepting the simple assumption they just don't see it? I think it's there etc. ~2026-16041-06 (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2026 (UTC)