User talk:BlockArranger

This is BlockArranger's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

AfC notification: Draft:Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality disorders has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality disorders. Thanks! Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked on improving the citations, and published an update to the article. In case the citations still have to be worked upon, please specify how, in case it is not absolutely obvious. Your comment was helpful, though, and I do also personally agree in retrospect regarding the need for improvement of citations. I am fairly new to editing and building upon Wikipedia, so any advice and help is appreciated, especially if it is conducive to making my contributions valuable to Wikipedia, and in this case to the article being suitable for approval. Vasaras kruīzi Tallink (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi BlockArranger. Thank you for your work on Alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for your careful crafting of this well-written article. You've spend some time working on it in draft, then moved it the main space at the right time. The only things that other editors and I have done since then is to add categories (helpful for finding articles), and moving the title to be consistent with MOS:AT. It's good to see that this alternative model has also had specific discussion in peer-reviewed sources, demonstrating its independent notability.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Klbrain:

Thank you for notifying me and for the feedback! BlockArranger (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Vaknin

Thanks for the long overdue edits on Sam Vaknin. You have made a great, thoughtful, and thorough job.

Vaknin came up with additional concepts such as "sadistic supply" and "projective splitting", among many others. He also originated the new proposed diagnoses of "covert borderline" and "covert psychopath". Zorandimitrovskiskopje (talk) 07:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zorandimitrovskiskopje Covert Borderline is actually briefly mentioned in the article, I I am not mistaken, but yes, the text about his theories could be expanded. BlockArranger (talk) 11:10, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the citations: http://www.mediafire.com/file/3agfcor0gzgz04p/vakninisrael.zip Many media interviews here (most in Hebrew) about his time in Geneva, Paris, and New-York. I will do some digging. I distinctly remember an English-language article about his time in Geneva. I also remember a YT vid he made about he rejected his initial diagnosis in the 1980s.Zorandimitrovskiskopje (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zorandimitrovskiskopje Sure, it's good if you can find stuff there, but I sounds like it's still his own claims reported by several people and organizations. It would be good if we could get our hands on independent coverage of him. BlockArranger (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Found an English language article in a Geneva newspaper about his presence and activities there, so this is beyond doubt. Also, clips from many Israeli newspapers who interviewed him in all these locations (I am told by my translator friend). Actually, Vaknin made all these available on his CV in a zip file. Also found a video interview where he confirmed that he rejected his diagnosis.Zorandimitrovskiskopje (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to know that I really appreciate your edits on Vaknin.(talk) 13:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zorandimitrovskiskopje I am happy that my contributions are valued! BlockArranger (talk) 11:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Primary Sources tag on the Sam Vaknin article, can we work on this together? There are hundreds of secondary sources about Vaknin, but I am not sure where to insert them in the article. Can I send you 5-10 secondary sources each time and you will decide what to do with them (there are about 400 that I found)? I can also send you all the links at once. If you agree to work together on this project (secondary sources for Sam Vaknin article), where should I send you the links? Here, in the Talk page? I appreciate what you are doing, good job. Zorandimitrovskiskopje (talk) 10:54, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 400 seems a bit much, but I can surely attempt to help you if you give me a few; I can explain how I turn such a source into a citation. However, I am sure that you can also learn how to make a citation by reading Help:Referencing for beginners, Wikipedia:Citing sources and Help:Introduction to referencing (VE)/1 (in order to get a brief overview of the VisualEditor). Usually, it is easy to use ISBN or Digital object identifier (DOI) in order to create a citation automatically, but if you do not have those, or an URL, it is not all too difficult to fill in the name of the author, the publisher, language, pages, source title and so on. Sources available online are good for easy WP:VERIFIABILITY, but WP:OFFLINE sources are fine too! If something is available online, be sure to use an archiving service such as the Wayback Machine in order to make sure the source remains intact and accessible for the foreseeable future. You may also want to insert specific quotes in your citations, especially if the sources are offline. This is easily done by filling in the Quote field in the citation editor in VisualEditor. Just make sure it is brief enough not to be plagiarism. BlockArranger (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for being unclear. My problem is that I am not sure which secondary sources to include and where in the article to include them. I would like you to be "in charge" of this. This is why I suggested to forward to you 5-10 secondary sources each time and you, when you find the time, make the decision to insert them in the article or not and also where in the article they should be. Is this method of working acceptable to you? Thank you for your kind response. Zorandimitrovskiskopje (talk) 10:03, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like: I would do the research, find secondary sources - and you will do the selection and placement of the secondary sources in the article. Zorandimitrovskiskopje (talk) 10:04, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can surely attempt to help you if you give me a sample, but as the proverb goes: wikt:give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Thus, I intend to attempt to guide you in regards to how to select sources based on the sample I receive. For example, I could try to clarify how you can determine which sources are adequate and where they should go. For placement, I suggest that you should read MOS:CITEPUNCT and WP:CONSECUTIVECITE. For secondary sources, please attempt to make sure that each such source is WP:RELIABLE, which means that, for example, it ought to be published in a reputable source (like a famous journal or newspaper) instead of for example in a predatory journal. BlockArranger (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's go fishing! Let's start with two examples: Search | Psychology Today What would you do with these articles in Psychology Today, all of them citing Vaknin's work?

Another example: Unadulterated Arrogance: Autopsy of the Narcissistic Parental Alienator: The American Journal of Family Therapy: Vol 34 , No 5 - Get Access Vaknin's work is cited in this article, but the full text is behind a firewall. Zorandimitrovskiskopje (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While Psychology Today is pop psychology, it is probably fair game when it comes to discussing Vaknin's viewpoints. For example, this article could work for backing up the claim that, for example, "Vaknin points out that narcissists' intractions with others make it likely for those others to mistreat said narcissists", perhaps with some structural improvements. This other article can be user for additional verification regarding Vaknin's theory on primary and secondary narcissistic supply. Trial and error is your friend in learning the ropes; I suggest you attempt, for example, to insert one of these or another source for which the URL will likely be sufficient for automatic generation of a citation (I suggest adding an archived version). If something would go wrong, you or anyone else can always go ahead and revert. When it comes to the article behind a paywall, you can still cite it (again, automatically using its DOI). I suggest adding a specific quote within the citation if you want to verify something specific. I checked it out but did not have time to read it; perhaps I will in the future, but what I did not is that it again works for describing Vaknin's work on narcissism. BlockArranger (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I will get to work. Zorandimitrovskiskopje (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "citations needed" for his private life: there is an archive of press clippings (95% of them in Hebrew). His birthplace, his parentage, his family are documented in interviews and articles, at least in 30 of them (according to my Jewish community friend who is a court translator from Hebrew). His parents and siblings are also interviewed and often the location of the interviews is identified as his birth city (Kiryat Yam). According to these press items, his father was born in Morocco and his mother in Turkey and both emigrated to Israel in the 1950s. Moroccan and Turkish Jews are Sephardi. Here is the link to all the press cuttings: http://www.mediafire.com/file/3agfcor0gzgz04p/vakninisrael.zip Please let me know how you wish to proceed and if there is anything I can do to help.Zorandimitrovskiskopje (talk) 09:57, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I rearranged the sections under "Views on Narcissism", expanded some of the texts and added sources. Please give me some time to expand each of the sections and add primary as well as secondary sources. I will let you know when I am done and then we could review the final result together and improve on it. But this is a work in progress, so requires some patience and collaboration. Zorandimitrovskiskopje (talk) 10:09, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just found this amazing resource: Vaknin's handwritten autobiography where he states that he was born in Kiryat-Yam, his parents are Sephardis, he has 4 siblings, etc. Sam Vaknin's Autobiography (1961-1996) - Handwritten Manuscript | PDF Zorandimitrovskiskopje (talk) 10:13, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources are better, but it's better than nothing to have an autobiographical statement per WP:PRIMARYCARE: "The person's autobiography, own website, or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary‡ source for information about what the person says about themself. Such primary sources can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person and for clearly attributed controversial statements." I think the autobiography should more obviously and verifiably have been written by Vaknin himself. It's also important to make sure it conforms with WP:PUBLISHED. This also goes for newspaper clippings, but that should work out as long as you have the necessary information in order to manually create a newspaper citation with all required fields using the graphical citation tool available in visual editing mode. I sometimes tend to agree that the deadline is "WP:NOW" regarding facts especially, but regarding the introductory paragraphs to sections, it's not a big issue if it takes time, as WP:EDIA is a WP:WORKINPROGRESS; thus, take your time and remember that Wikipedia is WP:NOT WP:COMPULSORY. BlockArranger (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your patience and help. You are a great mentor. Regarding the autobiography: 1. Vaknin links to it from his CV (https://www.narcissistic-abuse.com.cv.html), so I guess it is really his, he has written it; 2. My friend, the court translator, says that is contains citations to all the personal data that you have flagged: place of birth, relocation to Macedonia, etc. I am going to go ahead and add it as primary resource. Zorandimitrovskiskopje (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Including quotes within the citations could furthermore be useful. BlockArranger (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the newspaper cuttings, they are very old and there are no digitized copies online. I will scan any articles and interviews I can find in our national library archives and add them as a primary source. I need some time to do that. Zorandimitrovskiskopje (talk) 10:39, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not necessarily have to be available online (but see: WP:OFFLINE). BlockArranger (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding secondary sources to the article. But I don't know how to include page numbers to the DOI references. I use Citer and it does not generate page numbers in the resulting Named Reference. Would appreciate any help. Zorandimitrovskiskopje (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the history and noted that you seem to indeed not be using VisualEditor when working on the article, as indicated by the absence of such tags alongside your edits. I am unsure of what specific citation(s) you are talking about, but I checked in the VisualEditor and thus confirmed that you should indeed be able to merely click the citation, then click edit, and finally find "page" or "pages" in the interface. If they are not visible immediately, you may have to enable them in the list of parameters which should appear on the left-hand side. I do not know if there is a possibility that you may have generated any of the citations in a manner which is not understood by the citation editor in VisualEditor. I use that, and as such I am not knowledgeable on Citer. As of now, the article seems to contain several substandard citations (not necessarily the sources themselves, but the actual citations as entities in the article), which should be added to the backlog for improvement of the article. If you find it difficult to fix it using Citer, perhaps it would be easiest to just replace them with citations made in VisualEdtior, which should take care of almost everything automatically. BlockArranger (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not using VisualEditor because I cannot access it for some strange reason. In "Edit Source", I do not get a VisualEditor button at all!

Can you help me just to add page numbers to these 2 DOI citations? The two references exist in the article, I just need to add the page numbers.

Passalacqua, L., & Puricelli, M. (2021). Alice Miller on family, power, and truth. In D. Morgan (Ed.), A Deeper Cut: Further Explorations of the Unconscious in Social and Political Life (pp. 111–138). Karnac Books. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.23338182.13

Blackman, L. (2023). EMOTIONS AND AFFECTS OF CONVOLUTION. In G. J. Seigworth & C. Pedwell (Eds.), The Affect Theory Reader 2: Worldings, Tensions, Futures (pp. 326–346). Duke University Press. Zorandimitrovskiskopje (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have now attempted to insert the page ranges per your request. I have not accessed the materials you cite, and thus I have no specific knowledge about this, but is there any specific reason why the citations do not contain all the information displayed in your above request; would you need help with inserting that too, it it is supposed to be there? Anyway, it seems strange that you do not have VisualEditor, but admittedly I only have experience of editing Wikipedia through my own personal configuration and I do not really have Wikipedian friends IRL. However, I checked Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing, and there I found an option to enable it, so I would suggest you go ahead and try that. It seems to be the solution you are looking for per Help:Preferences#Editing. BlockArranger (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for any help you can render in making the citations more robust. I apologize for all this messy business. I am just trying to make the article better with secondary sources as per your guidance. Visual Editor has always been enabled in my preferences - yet, I have never been able to access it! I never get a Visual Editor button or link! I tried to include a Filemail link to a screenshot of "Edit Source" when I log in but filemail is blocked. Zorandimitrovskiskopje (talk) 09:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see! Then I do not know what is preventing you from utilizing VisualEditor. I would suggest you head to Wikipedia:Help desk and try to obtain assistance there. Merely skimming through Help:VisualEditor I don't see an obvious solution, so directly requesting human assistance would probably be your best bet. I have never tried the help desk, but I would guess that they are helpful and quite quick to respond. BlockArranger (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Hope you are having a peaceful Sunday. Regarding the failed verification tag, please reconsider. The sentence in the article says: "He has suggested that narcissistic abuse is all-pervasive and has long-term, post-traumatic emotional, cognitive, social, and other effects." The text in the citation says in reference to Vaknin's work: "Narcissists are fully aware how their comments and behaviours will attack their partner’s sense of self and the humiliation which will be experienced.” In other words, the text in the citation describes narcissistic abuse as "attack on the partner's sense of self ... humiliation" which is more or less what the sentence in the article says (we can't hope for an exact match). I can modify the sentence in the article to more closely to conform to this text in the citation: "Vaknin (2003, page 21) states: “The narcissist does not suffer from a faulty sense of causation and is able to accurately predict the outcomes of his actions…but he doesn’t care.” Would that be OK? Zorandimitrovskiskopje (talk) 11:23, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be better. While I understand that it may be difficult to source the claims from good secondary sources, it is important to stick to them. Otherwise, use a primary source, which – while not ideal – is at least a first step. In Wikipedia, a citation should support the material without requiring the reader to read between the lines or extrapolate. Regarding your use of primary sources, I would recommend that you use text sources rather than videos, and that you include quotes in some citations in order to make the verification easier. YouTube just so happens to not be an optimal medium to cite. Anyway, have a peaceful Sunday too! BlockArranger (talk) 11:40, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is an aggressive vandal masquerading as an "editor", slp1. She just vandalized the Sam Vaknin article, removing all the work done by you, me, and a dozen other contributors over the past few years. She has done it before on this article and on dozens of other articles. A wrecking ball. Just have a look at the huge number of complaints on her Talkpage. People like her are the reason Wikipedia has a horrible name among new editors. I am out of here for good. What a disagreeable experience. Zorandimitrovskiskopje (talk) 07:23, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I get your frustration, and some of the stuff should actually be reinstated, as it is in itself probably within reason to use a primary source for something not all too contentious such as Vaknin's specific birthplace. I suggest that you continue the discussion over at Talk:Sam Vaknin, and I suggest you attempt to not call a spade a spade (WP:NOSPADE) and always WP:AGF. One reason why new editors often dislike their experience on Wikipedia is that they do not understand the conventions on this platform, leading to them WP:EDITWARRING, assuming bad faith, calling people vandals, and so on. The user does indeed have a point, in that she opposes overuse of primary sources, which is conventional for Wikipedia. Now that she has joined in, you will need to discuss with her on the Talk page, and I might also join in.

You can for example make the case for some primary sources, such as regarding his birthplace, while perhaps you can compromise on something else. Regardless of what you think however, it will be necessary for you to not to start an edit war (see WP:DISRUPTIVE) and as with all editors toward one another, you should assume that she did what she did in an attempt to improve the encyclopedia, for as long as it is within reason to make that assumption; this is the case here, as indeed primary sources and interpretations of them made by Wikipedians are conducive to lower quality.

I suggest you take your time familiarizing yourself once more with WP:GUIDELINES and -- especially in order to become more familiar with Wikipedian culture -- WP:ESSAYDIR. Based on these, you will be able to act in a way most optimally conducive to succeeding at least with some of your goals. You can refer to them such as WP:THIS, but make sure to avoid WP:LAWYERING. Also, attempt to find out whether or not you have common ground, such as perhaps in including some content supported in secondary sources. The user you are referring to doesn't WP:OWN the article either, and she may also not be disruptive in the WP sense. Finally, I want to extend some sympathies, as I am well-aware that we are not yet succeeding in giving newcomers a sufficient, comprehensive introduction to Wikipedia; for example, as I am doing now, Wikipedians often teach each other through a telephone game. BlockArranger (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am learning the ropes before I make any edit. I have been observing Vaknin for many years in my country. Congrats on finally confronting his meat puppets cult. I have two questions, not to challenge but to learn from you, so please be kind:

First question: On October 15, user Slp1 deleted from the article this link https://ciaps.org/blog/faculty/sam-vaknin-phd/ Why? It is a faculty page of a university, not something published by Vaknin. Btw, the article has a mistake: CIAPS is Commonwealth Institute for Advanced Professional Studies. It is based in Cambridge, UK, not in Nigeria (where it has an outreach campus).

Second question: why not nominate the article for deletion:notability? Vaknin is just a small time influencer. Even in the narcissism sphere, there are people like Richard Grannon who are far more impactful and have a far bigger following and have no Wikipedia article! Vaknin's claims to fame and other accomplishments are 100% delusional self-promotion (or outright lies). Good luck finding any citations or evidence to any of his fantasies. Wikipedia should not have this article because it misleads people into believing that this con artist and convicted felon should be taken seriously. It is a disservice to the community. Just my 2 MKD. Plus Vaknin has been attacking Wikipedia since 2006, targeting Jimbo himself and getting banned indefinitely (as user samvak). ~2025-31654-77 (talk) 09:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to these same questions at Talk:Sam Vaknin; because I have it in my WP:WATCHLIST, I automatically see what anyone posts there. If you need to say something to a specific contributor on an article's talk page, you can WP:PING such as @Example. Personal Talk pages are used when you want to address someone directly, which you may have wanted to do here; however, I think it is best to only post something once, perhaps with a link to that discussion posted at other Talk pages if relevant. Just as a friendly reminder! BlockArranger (talk) 11:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't know you had it on your watch list. Never meant to spam you. ~2025-31654-77 (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I try to take care not to WP:BITE newcomers. Learning common practices takes time, and it is expected. BlockArranger (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Vaknin Talk Page Semi-protected

I saw that you are active on the Sam Vaknin article. I have secondary sources to add to the article but when I try to add them on the Talk page, I cannot because it is semi-protected. Where can I post the secondary sources? Thank you for your help.(talk) 08:57, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it is semi-protected it is so for a reason. I WP:WELCOME you to join Wikipedia, and start an editing journey to obtain the rights needed for WP:SEMIPROTECTED users. You will be able to obtain the necessary privileges by becoming WP:AUTOCONFIRMED, which would probably not be all too difficult if you attempt to follow all WP:GUIDELINES in making other edits that do not require privileges. If you are unsure of what edits to make, I suggest you try out WP:GUILD or WP:CBM, as there are many articles in need of attention. See also WP:BL. I hope you get started well on your editing journey in the manner intended, and that you will be motivated to stay and contribute also to articles other than Sam Vaknin. BlockArranger (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

North Korean Defection Methods

Would just like to clarify a few things here. I did not have a lot of reliable sources to go by, but I had just enough to weasel out an somewhat good AFC. If you see claims or sentences and don't see a citation, don't assume its because I didn't place on there. Its likely because the entire paragraph, and potentially even section uses 1 single citation from a reliable source that you can find somewhere down the line. This is essentially my explanation for every "citation needed", "by whom", "who", "which" template that you placed on the article. I do not write unless I have a citation to back it up. Nonetheless I will still explain a few sections that you tagged with templates, as for the "Which" template, its any south east Asian border which is clarified later in the sentence. Friendly country (clarification needed template which you placed there) is already explained earlier in the article to be either Mongolia or the South East Asian countries. The By Whom template you placed in the brokers section is explained in the citation "https://www.bushcenter.org/freedom-collection/kim-seong-min-how-defectors-escape" or in the draft, Citation 8. Thank you. DotesConks (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, I am trying to point out things you could clarify in your article. Sorry if you see it as rude, but you should cite more and write some things more clearly if you want the article to surely pass inspection. Also, I did not manage to find any claim of homosexuality being rare in Asia in the source provided immediately after that statement. I am not disputing factuality of most things, though. But please check if the math prodigy actually was selected for the "Olympics" several times, as the math olympiad is in fact not at all the same thing as the Olympic Games. BlockArranger (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BlockArranger I don't think its rude, I think its helpful to my draft. I'm just clarifying how I write drafts and how that may be different from most people which leads to people thinking I do not have a lot of citations when I infact do. DotesConks (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi BlockArranger. Thank you for your work on Attenuated psychosis syndrome. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for creating this short, focussed page on a proposed syndrome. There is enough coverage in reliable sources to have the topic covered here.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 11:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Forum Européen de l'Orientation Académique (June 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sophisticatedevening was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Forum Européen de l'Orientation Académique and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 18:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BlockArranger! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 18:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SDNONE

Before you change anymore SD "none" to "something", check out WP:SDNONE. Masterhatch (talk) 01:53, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing BPD to GA

Hello! I see that you are quite active in the personality disorders scene, with an emphasis on the borderline variant. I have been wanting to bring the article on BPD to good article status for quite some time, but it's quite a long article, so, naturally, I was wondering if you wanted to collaborate with me on this project! Let me know what you think. Many thanks, The Blue Rider 02:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Blue Rider In general, I would absolutely be inclined to further improve the article. I would perhaps disagree with the notion that BPD has been my main thing; I have most notably worked on covering dimensional models and incorporated them in to categorical PD articles. Nevertheless, BPD is the best PD article as of now, and thus I also think we have good opportunities to further improve it. In case you have any specific suggestions, let me know. Perhaps discussing on the BPD talk page could be extra beneficial as then we might get others to join. BlockArranger (talk) 10:32, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your username there quick often, but I'm glad someone is so keen on working in PD articles! I will leave some comments on BPD's talk page as suggested! Thanks, The Blue Rider 15:20, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copying licensed material requires attribution

Hi. I see in a recent addition to ICD-11 classification of personality disorders you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. I've added the attribution template for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to follow guidelines by including templates at the top of the References section. In case that is in fact not enough, as was how I understood it at the time of adding those templates, could you please link more specific guidelines, as I do believe that I attempted to read the guidelines throughly. As I intend to attempt to add even more free content moving forward, it would be important for me to get this straight. BlockArranger (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa Sorry if it seems like I am spamming, but I came to think that if I do not explicitly tag you, you might not see my reply; and if you were to only have my Talk page in your probably very big watchlist, it might not be visible among all other recent occurrences. BlockArranger (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The templates in the references section are one way to do it. Sorry for the unneeded message, I did not notice that you had done that. Another way you can do it is to add an attribution template as part of your citation. See for example my edit. We have numerous such templates for CC-by licenses; see Template:Creative Commons text attribution notice.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping me acquire more knowledge on the matter! Well then, it seems like I will be heading back to work on the article. BlockArranger (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Refining a new page on treatment for PD

Hello again, I'll take advantage of your offer right away. I'm trying to build a new page, albeit a short one. It's about Good Psychiatric Management (GPM), one of the best-known protocols for BPD. I saw a page about Gunderson, who developed it, but not about GPM. Any suggestions on how to improve it to get it published? Sorry for the very general question, but as I said, I'm new to Wikipedia. Thanks! Terminy (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most importantly, you should make sure that the topic is WP:NOTABLE and that the information you add to it is WP:VERIFIABLE. Then, I suggest you take a look at WP:MOS, and more specifically, MOS:BOLDLEAD in MOS:LEAD; I suggest you attempt to make the necessary edits by yourself, in order for you to properly learn the WP:ROPES. Another task to perform is to take a look at MOS:LAYOUT, more specifically MOS:OVERSECTION, as your section heading is a heading 3 instead of a heading 2. In case you do need assistance in corrections, I can absolutely help. If you have more information at hand or available, I would suggest you attempt to add even more, in order to make the article even more informative.

By the way, if your are confused by shortcuts such as WP:THIS, take a look by clicking on WP:THIS link for further information on this practice among many WP:EDIANS including me. They work great for linking to what has already been explained by others as long as one does not do WP:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! :) BlockArranger (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! I'll get to work on it! Terminy (talk) 04:40, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Histrionic. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:54, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Personality organization

Hello, BlockArranger. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Personality organization, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Responsibility.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll meet somebody who cares about me as I care about them

Have a good day Gary Lima (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good day to you too!

In case you contacted me for a more specific reason, feel free to reply to this message or even use a @ to WP:PING me. BlockArranger (talk) 01:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi BlockArranger! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

-- 17:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Great article at classification of personality disorders :) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that you appreciated it! BlockArranger (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

High school alumni

Please do not remove high school alumni simply because they do not have a source for their attendance in the high school article. There is a long-standing consensus at the schools project that notable alumni may be listed in school alumni lists as long as their attendance is sourced in their article. You removed 11 alumni from Dublin Coffman High School. I believe all of them but one had their attendance sourced in their articles, although in some cases it was not obvious that claim was sourced. I have copied over the sources in the less obvious cases, and I easily found a source for the one unsourced alumnus.

Please check the articles for sourcing next time. Meters (talk) 10:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Meters Okay, that's new information to me. Could you elaborate on where I can locate this consensus? For example, I don't think WP:ALUMNI states that citations are not necessary. Furthermore, Template:Alumni seems to actively request that Wikipedians go the bold route by removing the alumni that lack citations. If what you are saying is true, it is indeed rather interesting to say the least that Wikipedians would have come together to make the decision not to be strict about WP:V.

While I understand that perhaps some of the sources in any destination article could perhaps verify content that editors have not made obvious is verified by said source through clear citations, I do not think that we should perpetually let Wikipedia articles stay amateurish (not hating on amateurs here; I am one myself in this regard; but I am talking about some aspects of Wikipedia really living up to bad stereotypes) by being lax about what sources verify what content (is it really that difficult to insert inline citations?) or having articles rely on other articles for verification.

You may indeed believe that it is acceptable, but I really think all articles should be independent of each other; while WP:SUMMARY and wikilinks are inherent in the way Wikipedia works, both of these are to my knowledge always implemented with an independent infrastructure for verifiability in each distinct article when it comes to articles of high quality. As is perhaps obvious, we seem to have very different views on how Wikipedia should evolve, and I may have a bias as I have worked mainly on content where everything is to be meticulously verified in academic works; however, I believe in WP:GF that Wikipedia is improved by the removal of substandard content, so that we leave room for quality growth in its place. BlockArranger (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Etiquette in North America, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Royalty.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trouted

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: Removing instructions for solution to the Slitherlink wikipedia page ~2025-34287-78 (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-34287-78 Please read what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Wikipedia is an WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA; not an instruction manual. BlockArranger (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]