User talk:Smlombardi/Archive 4
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Thales
Thanks for alerting me. I'm away from home for the next three months and have limited out of hours internet access. I hope the discussion is stimulating. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Humanism (learning theory)
Hello Stmullin. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Humanism (learning theory)".
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Humanism (learning theory)}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 10:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Humanism (philosophy of education), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elenchus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Constructivism (philosophy of education)
Repeated here for convenience: Hi Donner . . . I'm doing meat ball surgery on the Constructivism (philosophy of education)article and you reverted my edits before I had moved all of the text . . . please be patient, the information will return in a better organized format. Stmullin (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Shirley Mullinax Lombardi.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Shirley Mullinax Lombardi.jpg, which you've attributed to https://plus.google.com/104112448684310027413/posts. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I changed the photo on the Google profile so there should no longer be a conflict.Stmullin (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
The question is about the copyright permission, until and unless you get permission from copyright holder you cannot upload file. Your copyright licensing tag is valid as Diannaa told you before but the file lacks evidence and there is no proof that the author has agreed to release the file under the given license. If you feel any difficulty, do post your message on my talk page.Nechlison (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nechlinson . . . the photo is of me and was loaded correctly and tagged for free use correctly. The issue does not concern copyright, it concerns people being irritated with me and acting vengefully toward me. My only reason for being on Wikipedia is to share knowledge . . . there is no personal glory here . . . the photo was for teahouse . . . Stmullin (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Fifth pillar
'Wikipedia does not have firm rules: Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. Their principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception. Be bold but not reckless in updating articles, and do not agonize about making mistakes. Every past version of a page is saved, so any mistakes can be easily corrected.'
Stmullin (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Please delete all information you have for stmullin . . . I no longer want any connection with this chaos.Stmullin (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- You could request a WP:VANISH but as you are currently indefinitely blocked, it is likely to be refused. This would also leave behind any remaining contributions you have made to Wikipedia, and your user talk pages, so I'm not sure you would get much by going through that. You could also ask for deletion of your user page and user talk page, but again since there is an active block on your account, it is likely to be refused. However, if you wish to apply for the vanish, the instructions on how to do so are in the link in my first sentence. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
March 2014
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The Bushranger One ping only 22:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Smlombardi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
There are close paraphrases in at least 2 articles that were taken from my dissertation and I need to correct those articles. I define close paraphrase differently from some administrators, I am the copyright holder of the information in question, but to avoid further confusion I will paraphrase my own work rather than risk another confrontation. Also, the list previously questioned was indented using * rather than blockquote so the quote attribute was not obvious . . . a list can not be paraphrased and retain its meaning.Stmullin (talk) 13:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your legal threats below make unblocking impossible until the legal threats are explicitly withdrawn. That one really is a rule. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Smlombardi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The Berne Convention allows authors to give permission for their work to be shared . . . the confusion here stems from individual definitions of copyright, plagiarism, and original research. I understand the views of the individuals who have challenged me though there are reliable sources that would refute their definitions. I can avoid irritating people by observing their most peculiar definitions of these words even if I fundamentally disagree with the way they defined the terms as well as the administrative procedures that were followed. I have the right to disagree and I disagree but am willing to edit according to the preferences stated.
Decline reason:
Your messages posted to the bottom of this page appear to indicate that you have retracted your unblock request. If that is not what you intended, then I suggest that you post a new unblock request at the bottom of the page (posting this request out of chronological order caused me to have to spend a significant amount of time sorting out what referred back to what). If you do that, I suggest making it clearer what the unblock request is about. (Remember that the request will be assessed by an uninvolved administrator who most probably will have no prior knowledge of your case.) You seem to be saying that you will edit in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies on copyright, even though you disagree with them. I suggest you may also like to specifically state that you understand and will follow Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest, since if your principal purpose here is to get coverage on Wikipedia of your own work, you will probably not be unblocked, whether you quote your work verbatim or not. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Have you read any of our policies regarding copyright (WP:Copyrights, WP:Non-free content, WP:NFCC, WP:Donating copyrighted materials)? I'm asking because you seem not to have read them, given you keep insisting we must allow you to use your previously-published work wholesale. We have a tighter definition on fair-use than the law does largely because we far and away prefer freely-licensed content. And, again, any text you save here is automatically and irrevocably licensed under CC-By-SA 3.0 and the GFDL, and thus we cannot accept previously-published text without a formal copyright release for legal reasons. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 18:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- You do realise that by posting your own work here, you're irrevocably releasing it under CC-By-SA 3.0 and the GFDL? It's for this reason why we cannot accept text that's already been fully-copyrighted (per the Berne Convention, all published works are automatically fully copyrighted unless otherwise specified). —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. . . . also, less than 10%, for educational purposes, cited correctly, were all observed. The problem came when using * to indent rather than blockquote and not paraphrasing my own work. Less than 1% of my Literature review and a few comments from my textbook were referenced without paraphrase because I could not think of a better way to say what I had already said and that needed to be said . . . it was my publication. Most academicians (myself included) want their work to be shared to increase knowledge. I have filed in numerous copyright forms and so has Stewart Hase . . . the forms seem to disappear. Is it that some volunteer disagrees with our work?Stmullin (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- The problem arose because you felt free to copy other people's copyright work into Wikipedia, and continues because you seem unable to acknowledge or even to recognise that fact. You copied material from here into Super-team, you copied material from here into Humanism (philosophy of education), you copied material from LinkedIn into Stewart Hase (still needs to be removed). Apropos of which, what is your connection with Stewart Hase and how do you know what forms he has filled in? Has it occurred to you that associating his name with plagiarism here may not exactly be enhancing his otherwise substantial reputation? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
If you want to import media (including text) that you have found elsewhere, and it does not meet the non-free content policy and guideline, you can only do so if it is public domain or available under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license. If you import media under a compatible license which requires attribution, you must, in a reasonable fashion, 'credit the author'(s). You must also in most cases verify that the material is compatibly licensed or public domain. If the original source of publication contains a copyright disclaimer or other indication that the material is free for use, a link to it on the media description page or the article's talk page may satisfy this requirement. If you obtain special permission to use a copyrighted work from the copyright holder under compatible terms, you must make a note of that fact (along with the relevant names and dates) and verify this through one of several processes. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for the procedure for asking a copyright holder to grant a usable license for their work and for the processes for verifying that license has been granted.
The original authors were correctly cited . . . that was the only Wikipedia requirement for those documents. If administration wanted further documentation there is a 7 day window to obtain the necessary forms. It is the 'author'[not you] that decides how much can or can not be copied because of artistic merit . . . the content is not licensed. Stmullin (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
This Month in Education: April 2014
Anna Koval (WMF) (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
my dissertation
Would it be more helpful for me to revoke copyright privileges to my dissertation then you could pull all of the articles without having to paraphrase?Stmullin (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Revoking the permissions is not quite right. You would either have to release them as public domain, or a compatible creative commons license. However, once the copyright problem is solved, you writing an article, based primarily on your own dissertation, is probably still not going to be compliant with wikipedia policies, as dissertations in general are not really WP:RELIABLESOURCES and are WP:SELFPUBLISHEDSOURCES. Since it would be your own dissertation, there are possibly further WP:COI conflicts etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- I get the impression Stmullin isn't citing his dissertation, but is using part of it in the article. Kinda like copying your high school essay into an article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- The literature review of the dissertation, by definition, is a summary of the work of other, not a summary of my work . . . only the summary of the dissertation is my original work and it concerns preschool which is never quoted in any Wikipedia article. APA format
There is no stipulation about length, sequencing, number of identical words . . . only a 'suggestion' to provide a page number with the citation. Reference Sixth Edition Publication Manual of the American Psychology Association p. 171.Stmullin (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)6.04 When paraphrasing or referring to an idea contained in another work, you are encouraged to provide a page number, especially when it would help the interested reader.
- The literature review of the dissertation, by definition, is a summary of the work of other, not a summary of my work . . . only the summary of the dissertation is my original work and it concerns preschool which is never quoted in any Wikipedia article. APA format
- A dissertation is not a self published source, a literature review is not original research, a dissertation is subject to strict publication rules and is a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.250.52.187 (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have no reason to act spitefully . . . a copy right violation involves a take down order . . . but liable, slander, character assassination, and invasion of privacy are criminal charges that can be leveled against individuals who are abusive. Stmullin (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC) I have no intention of pursuing legal action. My only point here is that the cure was worse than the disease. 174.99.59.109 (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, permission for the Stewart Hase image was granted on 3 different occasions, one of which Dianaa initiated, from Dr. Hase . . . he is not implicated in any way since their is no one making any claim for another's work . . . me included . . . no ownership claims were ever made and no author ever filed a complaint . . . so why are you so angry? Stmullin (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Mr. Stradivarius, would you please help resolve this?Stmullin (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
You disagree with wikipedia policy about how attribution, copyright, etc work. That's fine, you are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to edit wikipedia under your own rules. you are currently blocked, and will remain so, unless you convince an admin that you understand and are willing to abide by Wikipedia's rules, including our interpretation of copyright and plagiarism, even where those may be more restrictive than what the law requires, or what APA or some other style guide recommends. The fact that nobody has yet complained is not satisfactory for wikipedia. It must clearly and unequivocally be in compliance. If you are the owner of the copyright of the work, then release it into the public domain and it MAY (but not must) be used. However, beyond the legal issues, copying your personal dissertation wholesale into an article is not going to be policy complaint, and will probably be deleted as WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH or being too reliant on one source. Your assertion that your dissertation is not self published, and should qualify as a reliable source, is again an area where your understanding (and perhaps all of academeia's) differs from wikipedia. As this is wikipedia, wikipedia gets to decide what is kosher. Finally and most seriously, making WP:LEGALTHREATS as you have done repeatedly is by itself grounds for an indefinite block. Repudiate your threats, or your pleas will go nowhere with anyone. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I do not disagree with Wikipedia . . . I disagree with you and some of your colleagues who have added your own special twist to the truth. No legal threats were used . . . legal terms that accurately described the way I was treated by some editors applied to only the individual IP address(es) which is not Wikipedia. This collective mentality is a very strange culture. Truth is not subject to democratic process.Stmullin (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Legal threats against the other editors of wikipedia are treated as legal threats against wikipedia (because for he most part they ARE the same). There is no "wikipedia" there is the Foundation but they are not making or enforcing these rules. The collective of editors has made these rules, and they enforce them too. When you threaten the editors, you do directly threaten wikipedia. Truth is not subject to democracy, but to assume you bear the WP:TRUTH and everyone else is wrong... Maybe you are right, but it won't get your work into wikipedia. I am NOT lumping you in with the following statement, just merely showing you why the policies exist - Every crackpot thinks they are right and everyone else is wrong. How are we to determine what is acceptable and what is not? By reliance on multiple independent reliable sources. Even when this (temporarily) excludes good content, it is intentional. Wikipedia:FLAT Eventually the reliable sources will catch up to the WP:TRUTH - but in the meantime, Wikipedia reflects the current knowledge - it is not the place that changes what the current knowledge is. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't reproduce 'verbatim text' from other sources. Rather, it summarizes content that some editor(s) believes belongs in the Wikipedia in the form of an encyclopedic summary that is verifiable from reliable sources. This process involves editors who are not making claims that they have found truth, but that they have found someone else who is making claims that they have found truth. Since there may be more than one set of facts or explanations for the facts in the article, there's a guideline for that where multiple points of view (the Wikipedia's term for versions of truth) are included.Wikipedia editors are not indifferent to truth, but as a collaborative project, its editors are not making judgments as to what is true and what is false, but what can be verified in a reliable source and otherwise belongs in Wikipedia.
I believe this is what you were trying to say . . . and it did not appear in any of the templates or warnings. The terms Copyright and Plagiarism were also legal terms that were not appropriately used in this case. 'Verbatim text' is the issue . . . if we were quoting the Star Spangled Banner you would allow verbatim text that was properly cited because it is an artistic expression . . . just not if the text relates only to content.Stmullin (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, that's not true. We would allow quoting the Star-Spangled Banner directly because it is old enough to have fallen into the public domain, as with anything that was created and published before 1923 in the United States. That's what allows us to quote it; the fact that it's an artistic expression has nothing to do with it. Artistic expressions are still copyrighted, and thus are still subject to our rules on copyrights. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Here is the paraphrase for the Behaviorism article [1] . . . According to Behaviorist B. F. Skinner, organisms learn by making changes in their environments, immediate reinforcement strengthens behavior, and “A significant change in behavior is often obvious as the result of a single reinforcement.”[25] In 1954, Skinner’s use of mechanical devices to strengthen behavior foreshadows the use of computers in today’s classrooms..[24]Maintaining behavior strength requires gradual contingency changes, skillful use of schedules, and positive reinforcement. Cooperation is preferable to competition, since competition has adverse consequences for all participants but one and cooperation provides positive reinforcement for many. Also, cooperation is more readily set up than competition. Rather than relying on adverse events such as the teacher’s displeasure, ridicule of classmates, low grades, poor showing in competition, talks from the principal, or the birch rod from caregivers; immediate positive consequences were used during the progressive education reform movement to modify or strengthen desired behavior.[26] Anxieties, boredom, and aggression rather than reinforced learning occur when instructors use adverse events rather than positive reinforcement. Contingencies required for successful behavior in mathematics during the first four years of school is estimated to be 25,000 contingencies. A single teacher would need to devote all of his or her time to only one child if positive reinforcement were provided for all of these contingencies [27] A learner may progress at his or her own rate by using reinforcement software and/or devices designed to provide immediate feedback to a student for an appropriate time each day. After 50 years, Skinner’s argument that, “A country which annually produces millions of refrigerators, dish-washers, automatic washing-machines, automatic clothes-driers, and automatic garbage disposers can certainly afford the equipment necessary to educate its citizens to high standards of competence in the most effective way”[28]may still be drawn on to support the use of laptops as educational tools in today’s classrooms.[24]
I would edit this but I'm blocked. Stmullin (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Nomination of Stewart Hase for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stewart Hase 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/Stewart Hase 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. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- I believe that special interest groups have infested Wikipedia and I question the reliability of all information available on Wikipedia stemming from the exclusion of such notable educators as Stewart Hase and Malcolm Knowles. It is a sad day when a small group of Wikipedians turn their back on the fifth pillar and impose censorship on the very people who opened the doors to adult education. Stmullin (talk) 02:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
DGG, I just read your user page and hope that I am communicating with the person that is characterized on that page. I edit Wikipedia while having coffee in the morning, it is a hobby, not a plot. I sincerely believe that my work on Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Humanism, and Constructivism improved the understanding of those concepts as well as setting up a DMZ zone between behaviorists and constructivists. Those articles were not NPOV. I regret that my writing style offended other editors . . . but my intent is to portray the work of secondary references in a way that is true to the original author. Over paraphrasing necessarily results in synthesis of the idea which may or may not hold true to the original authors intent. My own copyrighted works are succinct and when used with my permission should cause no harm. I have made every effort to correctly cite material so that the original version, without synthesis, is available to an interested reader. Stmullin (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
If Hase "opened the doors to adult education" there are surely many 3rd party references to him that would show WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. Such a figure would have major biographical articles written about him in the New York Times, Time magazine, and multiple academic journals. If there are such references, provide them in the AFD, and the article will be kept. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I've been asked by Stmullin to look into the situation here. I'm surprised that so many people have doubted Hase's notability; to me, he seems to easily pass WP:PROF #1. If you look at the specific criteria notes it says that "criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea ... in their academic discipline." The concept of heutagogy seems to fit this criterion per e.g. these books: [1][2][3]. Because of this, I don't think the notability tag is necessary; I'll go and remove it now. If anyone is still concerned that Hase does not pass WP:PROF then I think the proper action would be to discuss this at AfD rather than restoring the tag. That way we can sort out the notability issue once and for all. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
from talk page of Stewart Hase bio.
Copyright is not Censorship
From: support@academia.edu [2] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 2:21 PM Subject: Re: Feedback - Other APR 01, 2014 | 06:21PM UTC Mandy Chan replied:
A citation of the work should be adequate.
Best wishes,
Mandy Academia.edu ________________________________________ MAR 31, 2014 | 06:44PM UTC Original message Academia.edu wrote:
Suggestion: I would like to use excerpts from this article, correctly cited, in a Wikipedia article. Is a citation adequate for this or do I need to fill in a form for written permission?
URL: http://www.academia.edu/1957998/Social_Reconstruction Academia.edu, 251 Kearny St., Suite 520, San Francisco, CA, 94108
- WP:Tired – What one might do when one is simply tired of it all.Stmullin (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:TiredStmullin (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- An editor has made changes to this page which altered posts by other editors, thereby misrepresenting what those other editors had said. I have reverted the changes, and any repetition of the same thing may lead to editing of this page being disabled. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hide-and-seek/201205/the-10-personality-disorders
10. Obsessive-compulsive (anankastic) personality disorder Obsessive-compulsive or anankastic personality disorder (not to be confused with obsessive-compulsive disorder or OCD) is characterized by excessive preoccupation with details, rules, lists, order, organisation, or schedules; perfectionism so extreme that it prevents a task from being completed; and devotion to work and productivity at the expense of leisure and relationships. A person with anankastic personality disorder is typically doubting and cautious, rigid and controlling, humorless, and miserly. His or her underlying high level of anxiety arises from a perceived lack of control over a universe that escapes his or her understanding. As a natural consequence, he or she has little tolerance for grey areas and tends to simplify the universe by seeing actions and beliefs as either absolutely right or absolutely wrong. His or her relationships with friends, colleagues, and family tend to be strained by the unreasonable and inflexible demands that he or she makes upon them.
Copyright Basics
Gaijin42 you have again grossly misinterpreted the rule to support your own very narrow viewpoint. Stmullin (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I also believe that my edits have been sabatoged to create an illusion of intentional wrong doing . . . only 2 of the original errors were mine and I corrected those errors.Stmullin (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Accessed 22 April 2014 from http://www.uspto.gov/ip/global/copyrights/basics.jsp
Office of Policy and International Affairs: Copyright Basics
A Copyright is a form of protection provided to the authors of “original works of authorship” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works, both published and unpublished. The 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to reproduce the copyrighted work, to prepare derivative works, to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work, to perform the copyrighted work publicly, or to display the copyrighted work publicly.
The copyright protects the form of expression rather than the subject matter of the writing. For example, a description of a machine could be copyrighted, but this would only prevent others from copying the description; it would not prevent others from writing a description of their own or from making and using the machine. Copyrights are registered by the Library of Congress.There are times when you may desire a combination of copyright, patent and trademark protection for your work. You should consult an attorney to determine what forms of intellectual property protection are best suited to your needs.
Only the author determines what may be copied. Those assuming to act on the author's behalf are by definition plagiarizing as well as censoring the material. Similar words, style, or sentence structure are not regulated . . . only a correct citation is required and quotation marks or indentation to indicate the extent of verbatim text.
When you synthesize the the definition of copyright beyond what is accepted then you need to expect that editors will be stunned if not angry at being insulted by your interpretation. Stmullin (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Smlombardi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The copyright permissions were submitted and I can make revisions without damage to the work of others . . . my edits were good faith and continue to be good faith. Stmullin (talk) 01:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your unblock request, along with all of your commentary above, indicates you do not understand why you were blocked, or that if unblocked you will edit in compliance with Wikipedia's copyright policy - indeed, your comments indicate the exact opposite. Good faith, or lack thereof, doesn't matter - copyright violation can be, and is, committed with entirely pure intentions. In addition, this comment is highly concerning; your edits cannot be "sabotaged", as there would be diffs. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Accessed 4/25/2014 http://www.nssa.us/journals/2007-28-1/2007-28-1-04.htm . . . adults using Wikipedia are practicing Heutagogy.Stmullin (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)