User talk:Penbat

This appears on its talk page. Fiddle Faddle 12:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I dont have strong feelings either way.--Penbat (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

That is perfectly fine. I know that you care about the topic whatever its title. Fiddle Faddle 12:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, I added back the images on Setting boundaries. The images help readers to visualize this often misunderstood concept. They comply with the Image use policy and, conversely, the manner and reasons given for their deletion do not. It might help to compare the use of images in this article to those in the Exaggeration article which we both have been actively involved. Graphics are very subjective and tastes differ so this is not as clear cut as a fact citation. I'm amenable to constructively exploring alternative options that will aid the readers either here or on the article's talk page. Wiki-psyc (talk) 12:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Penbat. I'm returning my comment here (where it was originally posted). If you wish to host a discussion on the article talk page, please author one yourself. Please do not make posts on my behalf and with my signature. If you prefer to close the matter and discard my note, that's fine. Many thanks Wiki-psyc (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

why on earth do you think these two do not fit the criteria for psychopathy or anti social personality ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Pizzon Lamb (talk • contribs) 23:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I've protected the Peter Foster page. Looks like Pizzon Lamb started using an IP to do reverts. After some lovely name calling on my talk page and edit history, I've also blocked the IP. I've told them about WP:BLP and the need for refs, but that went over their head. Give a yell if you need any help. Bgwhite (talk) 08:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Cheers--Penbat (talk) 09:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mindfulness, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Authenticity. 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) 09:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like some links and named may need to be checked:

• true self: True self and false self
• True Self: "True Self is the fourth album by the Chicago-based music group Soil."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Penbat,

Thank you for your kind acknowledgement of my Quality improvement efforts at Lie-to-children.

I very much appreciate your removal of the "{{notable}}" tag from the top of the article page.

Perhaps you could provide your comment and opinion at Talk:Lie-to-children#This_article_should_be_deleted_redirected. ?

Thanks again,

— Cirt (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done, I've commented an update in that section, you may as well if you wish, but I think at this point, hopefully, the complaints about notability are more than adequately addressed by the direct improvements to the article, itself, and therefore, resolved. — Cirt (talk) 03:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your addition of my Quality improvement effort to the article Lie.

Unfortunately, incoming links to the article Lie-to-children were removed from this article and many others all over Wikipedia.

Now that I've successfully embarked upon a Quality improvement project for the article Lie-to-children -- do you think this would be a good time to restore those incoming links to this article that were previously recently removed ?

Thank you for your attention to this matter,

— Cirt (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done, I've added back the links. Hopefully, now that the article itself is improved, the links will remain in the future. — Cirt (talk) 03:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Health Select Committee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Julie Cooper. 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) 10:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:Physician, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Scott Alter (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello! I removed Category:Physicians from a number of articles about medical associations and journals with names containing the word Physicians to which you added the category, as it is generally recommended to avoid characterizing by "a subject's name ... or by characteristics of the name" (see WP:SHAREDNAME). In addition, as a part of Category:People by occupation, Category:Physicians is a biographical category tree intended primarily for articles and lists about people, not organizations or other entities, which have their own category systems—e.g., Category:Medical associations and Category:Medical journals. It appears to me that you were attempting to convert Category:Physicians (a set category) to a topic category about the profession as a whole. Such changes potentially can affect hundreds or thousands of subcategorized articles, and so I urge you to propose all such changes at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, where you can obtain feedback from other editors. If there is anything that I can to do assist you, or if you have any questions, please let me know at my talk page. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Haptic communication, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Haptics. 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) 15:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Ecosexuality does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Peaceray (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Birthing chair, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page All fours. 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) 09:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

You have responses.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

And another response.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Penbat, I see you've been making some improvements to the Alexander Technique article and overall I agree with your changes. I noticed your edit summary that says that you can't see how Alexander Technique relates to Rolfing and Systema. Rolfing is a form of Somatic Education (see Somatics) which relies on more hands-on contact for some of the movement education aspects but essentially they seem to be working from a similar set of ideas about how the human body functions best. Alexander Technique was a big influence on Feldenkrais, and Moshe Feldenkrais was a contemporary and friend of Ida Rolf. There's evidence that they cross-pollinated ideas quite a bit. As to Systema, I too noticed that link recently and hadn't ever heard of it so I read the article. It seems to be a martial art that is very Somatics-based. I'm actually going to point it out to the other editors on the Somatics article and see if they want to include it there - my only hesitation is whether it is notable enough to bother; the fact that I never heard of it gives me pause as I'm not unfamiliar with martial arts. Anyway, I'm going to reinstate those links for now and we can continue the conversation if you like. Cheers, --Karinpower (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited So (sentence closer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page So and so. 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) 10:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

How did I miss your message to my talk page?! Of course I am interested in that article. There was a tag at the top about original research. That can't possibly be true, can it? There is so much out there on the abuse of power in relationships that an author of research is very unlikely to have put in material. I'll get to work right away. It will be a way to work out some of my own issues!

Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

OK thanks - the article tries to cover power and control in all abusive contexts but at the same time draw out some common features, for example reinforcement and operant conditioning where the abuser entices the abused with gifts etc if they comply but punishes them if they rebel. Enticing the abused is a big part of "grooming". Child abuse grooming etc is entirely missing from power and control in abusive relationships. I don't think the tags are entirely justified.--Penbat (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Could you please fix the format of the information table from the very top of the article please. In starring the listing is out of order. Also, in the character table list, Mitch l, played by Brett davis is only listed as main in season 4, when he was recurring in season 3. I can't do it l, because I only edit with a phone and need a new computer or computer repairment. Please respond back or just do it, because others ignored my messages and never did Zhyboo (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

What order do you want it in ? --Penbat (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Just leave it like it is, but just make sure in the starring list, theyre names are listed straight and go to the "cast and character section" and add Mitch as recurring in season three on the character table Zhyboo (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Groupthink, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Outgroup. 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) 10:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Psychopathy in the workplace, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. 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) 09:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your edits! I have a question about changing the title of the article from "Post-assault treatment of victims of sexual assault".

Actually, I don't like the old title or the new one. I agree that the old title is long. And I don't like the word "treatment" suggests "medical treatment" and not all of the other things that occur after the assault.

I want the article to provide a list of all things (positive and negative) that a victim of sexual assault would have to deal with AFTER the assault. I like having the "Post-assault' in the title as it notifies the reader that the article is exclusively focused on what occurs after the assault.

Perhaps a better title would be "Scrutiny and mistreatment of sexual assault victims" or "Post-assault mistreatment of sexual assault victims" What do you think? Any suggestions?

Any other comments are appreciated. I plan to make a few more additions to the article (including police interview).

Thanks! User:WSDavitt (talk)

I can see the ambiguity with the word "treatment". I personally dont see that "Post-assault" adds anything useful. Anyway this should be discussed on the talk page. I have reverted for now.--Penbat (talk) 08:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with the Sexual abuse article. Can you help with the problem noted in, Talk:Sexual abuse#Latest additions? Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, the article is a bit on the periphery of my interests.--Penbat (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I am more interested in the generalities of abuse than getting bogged down in specifics.--Penbat (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Sam Vaknin page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Fixed.--Penbat (talk) 08:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Per Refpunc, Any punctuation (see exceptions below) must precede the ref tags. If you look at the examples given, you will see examples that have references in the middle of the text and the end.
The ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies. You have already done this... Refs in the sentence applies to everything before the ref. Refs at the end of the sentence applies to everything since the first refs.
Style guides say refs before punctuation or after, but never intermixed.
Been fixing these for 5 years. Every Wikipedia article follows REFPUNC except 31 articles due to templates issues. Bgwhite (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Teacher does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Trafford09 (talk) 08:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Penbat. Given that you seem to be usually a collaborative person on the WP project, may I ask you your views on Edit Summaries? Thanks, Trafford09 (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tone policing is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tone policing until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Finngall ^talk 15:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Note that I am completing the AfD nomination of behalf of an anon IP editor as a courtesy and do not necessarily share their opinion of the article. I reserve the right to offer opinions of my own at a later date. --Finngall ^talk 15:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Appropriately. Since you had some involvement with the Appropriately redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Appropriateness. Since you had some involvement with the Appropriateness redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey there Penbat, I went ahead and closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isolation Techniques (Individual) just to get it over with. I may not have expressed it well in my close statement, but I think the best thing to do is exactly what you suggested in the discussion - copy and paste your work from User:Penbat/Isolation to facilitate abuse to the article, and then move it. Does that make sense? Thanks for your work on this! --Cerebellum (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much Cerebellum. I was almost losing the will to live.--Penbat (talk) 10:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Haha that AfD went on way too long ;) --Cerebellum (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Penbat,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hi Penbat, thanks for your New Year wishes and I hope you too are having a good one. Your message made me wonder whether there ought not be some mention of the annual firework event in the Stanpit article. Any thoughts?--Ykraps (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

There are reliable sources out there. []--Ykraps (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ykraps, I am sure a mention is justifed and that source is reliable enough. Incidentally I caught some of the reenactment of the Battle of Mudeford a few monhs ago at Mudeford Quay. It wasnt that exciting but local history guru Mike Andrews was there and interjected interesting historical facts. That might have been worth mentioning in Battle of Mudeford but I have not found any reliable source. --Penbat (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I just thought a short sentence or two, but I'm having difficulty deciding where it should go. I wonder if there's enough going on to justify a small culture section?

I didn't see the re-enactment, which is a shame as I would've been interested. Incidentally, do you think the mention of the Ship in Distress as "...actively involved in the Battle of Mudeford", is a mistake? I don't know of any involvement. The S-I-D has connections to both Ma Sillar and John Streeter but this was at a different time. At the time, Hannah Sillar was landlady of the Haven pub (not the one currently there) which was the scene of a shoot-out during the battle. So may be there is some confusion there?--Ykraps (talk) 10:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Presumably you've noticed that Mudeford Sea Scouts HQ is called Orestes after the naval cutter HMS Orestes (1781). Might also be worth mentioning as it's on the recreation ground.--Ykraps (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the Christchurch Heritage Festival is set to become an annual event.[]--Ykraps (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Cheers Ykraps, I dont have the motivation to do more local history work on Wiki at present. I respect your judgement so do whatever you think is best. This was used as the Ship In Distress Wiki source: http://www.smuggling.co.uk/gazetteer_s_13.html --Penbat (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

That's okay, I understand perfectly; I have other interests on Wikipedia too. When I'm at a loose end, I'll take another look. In the meantime here are some pictures []--Ykraps (talk) 10:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I have removed content you added to the above article, as it appears to have been copied from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-010-0450-0, a copyright web page. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, man, if you're following this closely, ping me if some RS discusses it as a significant phrase, rather than as a news cycle event, or as an example of Trump's general problem with facts. I'm always open to evidence, and not averse to chaging an iVote when new sources are found. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

A reference for starting the article is The Neuroscience of Human Relationships: Attachment and the Developing Social Brain. There are other references available. I am not very well versed to create an article myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.241.53.153 (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Penbat, thanks for your message on the NPD article talk page. I absolutely agree with you that the entitlement article needs to better represent other meanings of the word - it is too US-centric at the moment. I made a mistake when reading the entitlement article because at a glance it didn't seem relevant to entitlement in the sense of privilege/special treatment. LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 12:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Psychopathy in the workplace is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychopathy in the workplace until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sagecandor (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into Operant conditioning. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dialectical behavior therapy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Positive. 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) 09:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

See my comments on Talk:Authority bias--WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I've proposed to rename Mind control to Brainwashing. I'm letting you know since you contributed to the article. Redddogg (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Finally live: Dominic Frisby. Fences&Windows 23:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Thx :-) --Penbat (talk) 08:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Any better quality references for Disengaging from an abuser using the no contact rule or grey rock method? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

There are quite a few self-help books on "no contact". "Grey rock" is such a recent concept that it gets mentioned in many websites but not many books as yet. http://www.smh.com.au/comment/how-to-deal-with-a-narcissist-like-donald-trump-20170202-gu3yzq.html mentions grey rock in some detail. Both concepts have a lot of coverage on Google and Youtube. Both concepts deserve to be on Wikipedia because of their notability. Anecdotally these concepts are often found to be useful by people who use them. "Disengaging from an abuser" is an important topic. It is associated with narcissistic abuse in its modern sense which is an evolving field. The fact that academic studies have not covered this area much has caused a vacuum. It would be almost impossible to do hard science in this field anyway. Popular psychology manages to plug gaps in academic research eg attention seeking, emotional baggage, emotional blackmail, guilt trip and personal boundaries.--Penbat (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Undeserving poor, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for Deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discusion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.  — Myk Streja ^(when?) 21:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

When I say "flying monkeys" followed by "abuse by proxy" I feared vandalism. I acted in haste and I apologize; I restored the text.  — Myk Streja ^(when?) 21:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

OK cheers :-) --Penbat (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Too difficult box is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Too difficult box until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Shaded0 (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The article Fit in or fuck off has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

1. WP:SLANG 2. WP:DICTDEF 3. fails WP:NEOLOGISM 4. sourcing fails WP:GNG

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Widefox; talk 12:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for creating Workplace bullying in academia Zigzig20s (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I added a question on the talkpage.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Cheers.--Penbat (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

For sure. I was going to create Academic harassment but found this article instead, so I created a redirect!Zigzig20s (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:Squatting position, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

On 27 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fit in or fuck off, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the phrase "fit in or fuck off" – an organizational paradigm – has conceptually been appropriated to other contexts? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fit in or fuck off. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Fit in or fuck off), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Disengaging from an abuser using the no contact rule or grey rock method is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disengaging from an abuser using the no contact rule or grey rock method until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Huon (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Penbat,

Thank you for the message regarding the Malasana image.

I have found this one on Wikimedia commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:M%C4%81l%C4%81sana_yoga_pose.jpg

Hope this helps!

Milena.

MilenaGlebova1989 (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Penbat and a belated Happy New Year to you. I'm glad to see you're still plugging away here. I came across this photo over at Commons, File:River Stour, Christchurch - geograph.org.uk - 1761325.jpg. It looks like the Avon to me. What do you think?--Ykraps (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Off hand I dont know the answer to your question. Happy New Year to you as well and good work on historic ships. Personally I have done all the "must dos" I can think of. I probably got the most satisfaction from squatting position - we all do some element of squatting every day especially just to lower the body but oddly it has generally been airbrushed out. Most people have no idea of its versatility. I am from now on keeping a relatively low profile on Wikipedia - just keeping an eye on things. Wikipedia is enjoyable but it can also have its stresses. On the local history front I have checked out some obvious historic features of Boscombe: remnants of Victoria Hospital, neighbouring water tower, old coaching inn, derelict Boscombe railway station, the Boscombe Devil. Can you think of other prominemt historical Boscombe features that can still be seen ?--Penbat (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the photograph was taken from Convent Walk, just downstream of the Town Bridge, where the fishing punt is, looking towards the far bank. I didn't say so initially because I wanted see if you thought so too without me leading you. I'll have a look when I'm next in town, to make sure.

There are a few interesting buildings in Boscombe. You might like the old technical college (896 Christchurch Rd, Pokesdown) and nearby, the old match factory in Hannington Place. Unfortunately, the old trolleybus depot, next to The Bell, appears to have been demolished but there is still the old tram, and later, trolleybus depot in Southcotte Road which is still used by the council today. Percy Florence Shelley's house in Shelley Park is still there.[] It was at one time an art college but is now flats, I think. However, there is a pharmacy there (bizarrely) so you can have a peek inside. Not far from there, in College Road, is a school which used to be Lord somebody or other's (name escapes me for the moment) home. If you really want a challenge, you could try finding the site of Southbourne Pier and the houses that were built along the sea front, next to it.[][] I think I know where it was but I'm just guessing. Incidentally, did you know there were plans to re-open Boscombe East station?[]--Ykraps (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Help! Am I going fucking crackers? Please tell me this isn't the Avon [] and this isn't the Stour! []--Ykraps (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Outline of self has been nominated for deletion. Since you had some involvement with its development, you might want to participate in its deletion discussion, if you have not already done so.     — The Transhumanist    04:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

...for that Airsoft edit, but I will have to revert you on the squatting article. There is no reason why this should be an a-typical article, full of useless pictures, trivia, and original research. (Seriously, this? And I can go on with listing unreliable sources.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree with you @Drmies:, you will have to take it to the talk page. I agree with your campaign to delete trivia from articles but you do not understand this is not one of them. In fact it is the complete opposite. Much of it covers every day actions everybody on the planet does every day, nothing like the trivia you are currently deleting. You do not understand the subject. Some of it happens to be culture specific. It is a very atypical article for which WP:IGNORE largely applies. But there are quite a few articles with more images than this. And you are missing the point singling out this which has its own article Russian squat dance and not one of mine. --Penbat (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there is much to understand about the subject. BTW, can you explain what the 2-liter coke bottle full of vodka is for? I certainly do not know that, and the source (haha, "source") doesn't make it very clear. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what you are on about and you obviously have no interest in understanding the subject of squatting. IMO your stance is entirely POV. I cannot think of anything more unrelated than squatting and "can you explain what the 2-liter coke bottle full of vodka is for". @Drmies:--Penbat (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

You flippantly introduced the section title "Squatting while peeing or pooping" into the article which is slang, not mentioned in the body text, and contravenes MOS:HEAD. Even worse "pooping" is US specific slang not normally used outside the US. I have corrected it. If I look hard enough I will probably find other errors. You seem to have a flippant attitude to the whole article.@Drmies:--Penbat (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Your article was ridiculous. "Pooping", a fairly common word, is less out of place than your 50k of verbosity. Actually, I was kind of wondering why there was so much interest in peeing and pooping while squatting; the article seemed a bit bottom heavy, so to speak. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Wait. YOU are asking about the 2-liter bottle of vodka? YOU introduced that with your citation from Urbandictionary: "basiclly all you need is vodka in a 2 liter bottle of coke". Granted, that doesn't mean the bottle is full of vodka. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Penbat,

Please read Wikipedia:Tendentious editing until you understand it, and please avoid that type of behavior. You may also benefit from reading Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. If you continue on the path you've taken recently, things may not end well for you. Thank you for your serious consideration of this matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Open marriage, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Keyboard warrior. Since you had some involvement with the Keyboard warrior redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Penbat! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect SquatForChange. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 5#SquatForChange until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 07:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Template:ICD-10 personality disorders has been nominated for merging with Template:Personality disorder classification. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Xurizuri (talk) 07:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Indifference to others' suffering. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#Indifference to others' suffering until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Lack of guilt in psychopaths. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#Lack of guilt in psychopaths until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Lack of sense of responsibility of psychopaths. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#Lack of sense of responsibility of psychopaths until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Superficial sympathy. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#Superficial sympathy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Flying monkeys (popular psychology) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flying monkeys (popular psychology) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

François Robere (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Films about psychopaths has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Category:Films about psychopaths has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article My way or the highway is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My way or the highway until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Dronebogus (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fit in or fuck off is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fit in or fuck off until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Dronebogus (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Oh Yeah? (album) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oh Yeah? (album) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

VTVL (talk) 03:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Category:Academics and writers on narcissism has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Oh Yeah cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Category:Workplace bullying has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Legal abuse has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 12 § Legal abuse until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Legal abuses has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 12 § Legal abuses until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Sorority squat has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 9 § Sorority squat until a consensus is reached. –Sonicwave ^talk 17:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Monkey squat has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 9 § Monkey squat until a consensus is reached. –Sonicwave ^talk 17:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Template:Abuse/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 07:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Patients First has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 16 § Patients First until a consensus is reached. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Inverted narcissist has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 7 § Inverted narcissist until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 16:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Inverted narcissists has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 7 § Inverted narcissists until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 16:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Unhealthy narcissism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 23 § Unhealthy narcissism until a consensus is reached. BlockArranger (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Academics and writers on bullying has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2026 (UTC)