Maypole

Hello Maypole, and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some recommended guidelines to help you get involved. Please feel free to contact me if you need help with anything. Best of luck and happy editing! RalphLender May 11, 2007(UTC) Getting started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikipedians Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

I hope you find this welcoming. That's my intention. RalphLender^talk 17:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks RalphMaypole 02:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Welcome all comers

Attachment Therapy article

I added back the paragraph only because I do not want to see "edit wars" begun. I think, given the contentiousness of this topic it is best to propose suggestions here on the talk page, see if a consensus exists or can be developed and then make the changes. I support your suggestion, but am not sure others do or what their thinking may be. Is that ok with you? DPeterson^talk 03:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine for now, but remember it seems that you just restored some rather odd unsourced argument. Maypole 05:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I think I agree with your suggestion. But as you can see from reading the talk page, the article generates a high degree of contention and argument. I am just suggesting that the process be slower and involve other editors to build consensus for changes so that the changes can stick and not result in an edit war. regards. DPeterson^talk 15:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Maypole. If you want me to send you copies of Chaffin etc you can enable your e-mail or e-mail me from my user page.Fainites 15:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Fainites. That'd be really helpful. I have an email registered now in my prefs. Maypole 16:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll e-mail you Speltz aswell. I can't e-mail you the whole of Prior and Glaser as it's a book! I can scan the relevant chapter for you. I hope I'm not breaking dozens of copyright laws.Fainites 16:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually i just tried and it says you don't have an e-mail. The easiest thing to do is e-mail me. Just click on 'fainites' and it will take you to my page. E-mail me (toolbox on the left) and then I e-mail you back with the attachments. I've also had a problem with e-mailing them to FatherTree because you don't seem to be able to send attachments on Wiki e-mails, or if you do I haven't worked out how yet.Fainites 16:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Fainites. I got your messages and attachments fine. Maypole 10:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

HeadleyDown is a notorious longterm abuser, now permanently banned. He used to use multiple socks to swamp pages. His forte was not only misquoting sources, but actually inventing some. His obsession was trying to prove NLP was a cult, but he also got a kick out of just jerking everyone around. I came across him on his main stamping ground, the NLP page. I think he's up to 29 socks on NLP alone! I'm not suggesting anyone here is HeadleyDown, I was only making the point that even Headley, when he made one of his frequent ANI notifications used to let those accused know so they could respond. Otherwise the only way you know is by constantly checking everybody elses contribs; a sad thing to do. Here, for your entertainment, is the link.[1] Fainites 12:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fainites. I don't believe anyone would be so omnipresent in the world. I think I'll make sure I don't disagree with any administrator who has a pet sock to ban. Maypole 12:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Maypole. have you seen this? [2] Fainites 15:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is useful. I quizzed Addhoc over the pedophilia allegation. Still not clear on that oneMaypole 12:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well there was an RfC made by DPeterson against VOB just before Shotwells RfC, and VOB then supported Shotwells RfC so I can see why in the first blush Addhoc and WillBeback may have thought there was a connection. What is more difficult to explain is why he still thinks there's a connection now when a bit of searching around shows no connection at all. Whats even more difficult to explain is why RalphLender, SamDavidson, JohnsonRon and MarkWood endorsed it when they know very well there's been a huge row going on on the AT and related pages for ages which has no connection at all with whatever's happening about paedophilia.Fainites 14:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Mmm. Does seem to be a bit wierd. Well here's something I noticed about that headleyDown link you posted above. It appears that the Pignotti/Mercer link you are showing on the AT article is actually written by headleyDown/Mercer. Even wierder! Maypole 20:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You lost me there for a moment, but I see what you mean. Same name? Meatpuppet though not sockpuppet. ie not HD but possibly recruited by HD. HD used to trawl chat pages on various subjects and ask people to come and help him edit on his topics. Is this the same Pignotti who currently edits on Wiki? Fainites 23:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, I thought the red colour meant she was expired. I guess you can't keep a good editor down. Maypole 03:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this HeadleyDown business. Maypole, I just wanted to mention that in the EBP discussion, it's crucial to reject the repeated statement that journal publication= EBP. This is ridiculous-- like saying that if you have a driver's license you must never have had an accident. (What if negative results are published? Does that make them positive?!)Jean Mercer 12:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes Jean. Judging by the state of the NLP article, it looks like a no go area for all but proponents. M Pignotti and probably more than half the others on the list are likely to have nothing to do with the banned sockpuppet. Maypole 06:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Maypole, I had answered your previous question on my talk page-- excuse my clumsy use of this process.Jean Mercer 13:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jean. Maypole 02:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Formal Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Attachment Therapy, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. shotwell 19:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ShotwellMaypole 06:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Attachment Therapy. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC).

Removal of account

This account has been indefinitely blocked. It is a reincarnation of an editor that uses multiple sockpuppets and that has been community-banned and blocked on multiple occasions in the past under different names.

Apologies it took so long to notice. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)