User talk:ProveReader/pbarchive

initial discussion (Dec. 8)

#Civility policy: The "subjective judgement rendered by Hsuing" is personal and splenic. How about a bland statement about administrative judgment generally? I'll put in one attempt. flopzee 23:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

addressed ProveReader 02:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

#History ¶2: (1) What are the sources for the "Hsuing has been criticized by his peers" paragraph? Such criticism might be interesting, but it would have to be documented comments by professionals, plural (cites? links?).

Unsigned comments below? (not mine) ProveReader 00:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's a start for documentation. The second one is a copy of an article that I can't find on Grohol's board currently maybe some one else can.Someone copied it onto Hsuing's board and that is where my link goes. The original link to Grohol is in an earlier post on the same thread.

And it's still just one peer on the record-but a pretty impressive peer I would think. John Grohol was one of the founders of ISMHO and is well known. Unfortunately bob's archives are not quite pristine re criticism of him that appeared on the board itself. It gives I think a little bit of a misleading impression when Hsuing claims to never delete posts but has in fact deleted not only posts but entire boards which were part of Psychobabble.. Good luck young encyclopediasts!!

Assumptions about our ages lack foundation. :-) ProveReader 00:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

http://psychcentral.com/openjournal/story/idx0203012120.htm

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20021106/msgs/32319.html

from link above cited by unsigned comment citing Dr. John Grohol:

Dr. Bob Hsiung is apparently having some "pushback" from forum participants he studied and wrote up in the most recent issue of CyberPsychology & Behavior. The article seems to be largely one of a descriptive nature, detailing his interactions with consumers on the message boards on his Web site. It included many excerpts from posts made to the board over a specific time period. However, apparently Dr. Bob forgot to submit the research to his IRB for review before he did it or had it published. Oops. Nor does it appear he told the consumers that frequent his board that he was conducting this research, or asked their permission, or even just asked what they would think of it.

In the emerging world of studying online behavior, questions of ethics and how to conduct studies of support groups is very much a gray area with no well-defined rules. Psychologists, unlike psychiatrists, are held to a strict set of ethical guidelines that define a researcher's behavior (online and off). Specifically, Dispensing with informed consent (6.12) makes it clear that if you're going to do research without first getting the participants' consent, you consult with other colleagues and your IRB before moving forward. Also 6.09 talks about getting IRB approval, and 6.18 talks about debriefing participants. Maybe Dr. Bob should become a member of the Association of Internet Researchers??!

(2) The article already says the site is not affiliated with U of C; what's the big deal? (3) The site currently requires informed consent. Maybe that should be made explicit in the "Accessibility" paragraph. But I did not know that "he at one time registered the site as an experiment" with U of C. That could be interesting, but what does it mean? Where is the reference? (4) The incident involving the suicide may be worth noting as part of the site's milestones, but in NPOV. The fact that people disagree with a decision does not by itself "create controversy". flopzee 23:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC

Until those sourcing & NPOV problems are addressed, the entire ¶2 has to go to the article's history: it is simply not Wiki. The sourcing issues are clear, but if there are NPOV debates, let's at least discuss them here first. flopzee 23:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

addressed. Documentation of the debate over the research nature of the project is available in the site archives, especially including those from a time period within a few months of when Hsuing published his non-juried paper claiming the site represents the "Best of" two (Both) worlds. Members are documented in those archives questioning the propriety of publishing a research paper using group member's posts in a research document without first seeking approval of an Institutional Review Board. The ensuing discussion and eventual removal of the site from any affiliation with the University is available to anyone who cares to browse hundreds of posts on the admin board. Regardless current postings by Hsuing at the site declaring that the site is not primarily for research, he has since a few months after publishing his "Best of" paper required informed consent of all participants. I don't beleive selecting and posting individual contributions to that extensive debate would provide any better documentation than this explanatory reference now available in the talk page of this article. ProveReader 02:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

#History ¶3: (1) The word "paternalistic" is obviously non-NPOV; the aspect referred to is clear in the words "unusual" and "strictly enforced" and "civility policy". That's accurate & NPOV. Anyone reading that description can easily decide if she considers it "paternalistic", or cares. Flopzee 00:43, 9 December 2005 • I included this content as best I could in what I think is an NPOV re-write. Flopzee

refactored "civility policy" in terms of standard Internet site "terms of service". "Civility Policy" is a site-specific colloquialism, reinforcing the administrators' claim that there is "only one rule", that being to "be civil", regardless his expansive effort to define what he believes is civil behavior. ProveReader 02:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

#History ¶4: (1) After the tone of the preceding grafs it sounds like "sponsoring" & "get-togethers" are bad things. Anyway, Bob didn't really "sponsor" the reunion: the idea was from & organized by Babblers, and everyone paid their own way. (2) The APA conference was already mentioned. AFAIK, this is the only thing Bob "actively solicited" people for. People have offered to do this in the past, and since they're adults, wouldn't it be more NPOV to say that people are accepting his invitation to participate? Whereas "gratefully accepting" would NOT be NPOV, even if true :P Flopzee 00:43, 9 December 2005 • I moved this to the bottom & included the content in an NPOV re-write. Flopzee

Hsuing facilitated the meeting, which can hardly be described as a "reunion" of people who had never previously met. He attended group activities during the get together and made suggestions about planning on his administrative board. I edited to accurately reflect this, and removed the forward looking assertion that it was a "first annual" event. Few first events are reported as annual. ProveReader 02:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The page isn't "mine" & I'm not claiming it, but I didn't expect hostile stuff, certainly not so much, so soon. I would love to have criticisms in the article – if they can be sourced. I'm up for NPOV debates, too, but let's have them here first, not in a reversion war, eh? Flopzee 00:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. I was bold in editing this article, not asking permission here, but attempting to maintain a sympathetic stance while contributing language that allows the reader a more nuetral point of view. I used strict language to refer to contributors as such, instead of using site-specific colloquial reference to "Babblers" which was otherwise used as the primary reference throughout the article to all participants. "Babblers" appears to be a self-referential slang used among a perhaps small but very active group Hsiung refers to in his "Best of" document (which you cited) as "Most Valuable Posters" but probably doesn't accurately reflect the fact reported by Hsuing that most contributors offer one or two posts and never return. I don't see that group of one-timers as having adopted a self-reference as "babblers". ProveReader 02:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh Pseudo do your own research :-) Isn't this a little like Tom Cruise writing the entry for scientology? I believe your POV is hangin out all over the page! But perhaps I am thinking of the wrong Psychobabble. Never mind . Resume the lovefest!

Wiki's official policy page on the neutral point of view calls for "a consistently positive, sympathetic tone" in all articles. –NPOV §7

Pseudiderot my friend there is an error of fact on your page ;-) hsiudn't you read the archives before you write the history? I suggest you look for sources outside the babble site. Your simply repeating what is posted on the site does give the appearance of a vanity posting....Why is everything about der bob? shouldn't this article be about the community rather than just the admin? Do you think you could include the moderators? NOOOOOO Delightful Dinah is NOT the first.... read your archives...Scientology has an ever so much longer article than babble...you must try harder.

It would be interesting to know why the other moderator of several months or years resigned. It might be difficult to assert, however, that posts from that moderator at about the same time the "deputy" administrator left were related to his departure. I did edit to more accurately represent the role of deputy moderators, who universally are self-described mental health consumers, and who appear to make more or as many administrative interventions as does the site onwer. ProveReader 02:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps an excerpt from the thread about the lady who wishes to throw her drawers at her T tee hee to illustrate the babble spirit but really if it is an article about the community wouldnt you include biographies of the moderators can you do articles about about anonymous individuals ? It does seem a bit invasive. Why are we putting psychobabble in a witch encyclopedia anyhow? Is bob a wikkan? Why have we attracted no collaborators where have we gone wrong Does no one understand the importance of our projectI like my edits better than hsuings edits ;-( Do not despair We will yet have an entry longer than the scientologists. Who has a bigger mh forum than hsuing? Do they have an entry in here? Can I add an entry about you if I want or me? Does ebay have an entry? Does ms beazley-she has her own website. I await your guidance! I have left my entry here for you in deference to your protective stance towards editing your page. Feel free to consult me at any time. I live to encourage others. Merry Christmas

Further, I clarified the limited nature of Alexa data, to establish that Alexa data only records sites registered with Alexa by their hosts, to reflect trends evident in the Alexa data, and to offer another source of data that illuminates trends that suggest Dr-Bob.org might not be the second most popular mental health site on the Internet, and that acceptance of the site by participants has not consistently defined an upward curve.

In general, since part of the self-defined purpose of the site administrator is to maintain a sense of efficacy, a neutral point of view needs to be careful to maintain a sympathetic tone while not promoting an unproven notion of efficacy promoted by the administrator, reflected in anecdotal reports of some members, but widely rebutted by an abundance of reports of contributors also available for reading in the ostensibly permanent archive of dr-bob.org.

ProveReader 02:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Article created and promoted by subjects of article

I believe an article about the Psycho-Babble discussion site is totally appropriate for Wiki. Mostly because I've come here several times looking for information about Babble! I'm sure others have as well. Babble is a pretty big Web presence -- it was quoted last month in the New York Times; Google searches for lots of mental health topics return a Babble post in the first 10 or 20 returns. It has thousands of current participants. It's at least as appropriate as GrinnellPlans, which is given as an example in the virtual community page.

I say this because someone on Wiki patrol might summarily mistake it for a vanity article about somebody's homepage. (I am NOT Bob Hsiung, btw... LOL).Flopzee 17:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

While the site has been extensively linked, the assertion that it has "thousands" of "Current" participation is not supported. Ten thousand registered screen names include thousands of contributors who posted once or twice and never again, and a proportion of multiple names by members who change names, or for whatever reason don't use the same name when they return. The number of active current participants is probably no greater than the number of people participating in numerous Internet message boards, and appears to be consistent with the pattern of Wikipedia, where thousands have registered names but a small number make the vast majority of contributions. ProveReader 02:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

removed statement that forum is "moderated". Typically a moderated forum refers to one in which posts do not appear until approved by a moderator. This feature is consistently described as moderation among numerous widely used forum software packages. The site that is the subject of this article is a membership forum regulated by terms of service. ProveReader 04:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone has already edited to remove a link to a blog critical of Hsuing and Psychobabble,etc This wiki entry started after a discussion by Psychobabble posters and bob on his admin page. What is the purpose of an entry if Hsuing and his fans continually reedit to promote his page? (And advertise coming events and appearances) ? It just seems like an advertisement for somebody's website.

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20051013/msgs/584230.html This is a link to the Dec. 1, 2005 posting at bob.org/babble mentioned above. "As a matter of pride, if nothing else, we should have a presence there. ... There are some benefits a Wiki entry could provide that Google and the background pages here can't."

This article was created five days after the above posting appeared, and one day after the site owner (Robert Hsiung M.D.) suggested this article be created in part for use as a hand-out at an American Psychological Association conference in May, 2006.

A bob.org/babble member then on Dec. 6 claims to have started this Wikipedia article. "I started a Wikipedia article about Babble."http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20051205/msgs/586091.html"

The University of Chicago staff psychiatrist then acknowledged that he is the editor registered here as "Hsiung" and encourages his support-group members in their efforts to create this article. http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20051205/msgs/586790.html

Pride, which is a stated motive of the person who claims to have started this article, and vanity are not necessarily synonymous, and it is not beyond comprehension that subjects of an article could write from an encyclopedia-stance about their own activities. But the product of such writing needs to be reviewed carefully to assure stance embodied in prose does not mask advocacy advanced by selective interpretation or restrictive selection of content. recognizing the declared self-interested motivation of the originators of this article, and it's proposed use in presentations to the American Psychiatric Association by a physician who titled his first widely distributed self-description of his research effort in bold promotional terms (Best of Both Worlds) it is clearly worth watching this article to assure it is encyclopedic and not promotional, and that it considers both the harm (as suggested in posts included in the thread linked in this comment) and potential benefits of the site. ProveReader 17:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Though there are more constructive approaches to collaborative editing that reverting contested subsequent edits, I have restored this article to the form it was in before an unregistered Comcast internet user replaced the link cited in the unsigned comment above with a disparaging referrence (diatribe) to an individual who's name appears among those used as dr-bob.org/babble screen names. Since the name could and might be an actual person's name, and since we have no evidence any actual person who uses that name at bob.org/babble is also the author of the critical web log or a participant here, it is potentially libelous to allow a screen name used on a mental-health-care Web site to be inferred as the author of anything outside that Web site.

The other substantive edits by the Comcast user were limited to minor expansion on descriptions of terms of service (such as expanding twice violating to repeatedly violating) and deleting accurate content without explanation, I swept by those edits in restoring the article to its most recent stable revision.

To clarify, I am not opposed to edits by anyone, registered or not, who contributes information either supporting or critical of the efficacy of the site that is subject of this article. However, since maintaining a "supportive" millieu is a part of the bob.org/babble-site purpose, since members of the site tend to be active Internet community participants, since their participation here might reflect their point of view as members of another community and since "supportive" comments about the site don't fully express a nuetral albeit sympathetic point of view we need to watch this article to assure that it accurately informs readers about the nature of the site, including controversies that arise regarding who may participate, including a full understanding of the site's experimental nature and status either inside or outside a recognized research institution, and including summary of discussion widely available in the site admin pages about the propriety of administration of the site. Apparently an advocate of bob-org/babble initiated this article. Hopefully that author recognizes that public understanding of a topic they thought important is best informed by thorough and neutral consideration of the topic. ProveReader 17:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Paragraph relocated for refinement

Maintaining a site whose mission is one of support is especially challenging when the target population is individuals with mental illness identification. The open door registration policy makes the site vulnerable to posters who lurk, stalk and flame members. Also, certain psychiatric diagnoses are less able to successfully participate in a forum of this design. Among contributors that historically have struggled in this milieu include, but are not limited to, those with disorders manifesting obsessive-compulsive, paranoid, manic, borderline personality, and narcissistic features. When participants with these and other clinical pathologies fail to assimilate into the site culture, Hsiung has capitulated that while all are welcome, his site is not for everyone.

While there appears to be something substantive to the above paragraph, relocated here from the article where it was submitted by an unregistered editor using a DLS Internet Services account, it also seems an apologetic defense of the administrator's preferred approach. All message boards that are available to be read without registration are likely the subject of "lurkers". That people lurk at message boards but infrequently post hardly seems a vulnerability. "Stalking" seems a vague but unsubstantiated allegation of criminal activity, while flaming is identified as a problem in many message boards and we have no evidence that it is a greater problem at Dr. Hsiung's board than at any other. The article extensively explores specific types of correspondence Hsiung prohibits; to generalize them as "flaming" is to move from the specific toward more vague characterizations.

The appearance of an "especially challenging" situation might be the result of Hsiung's choice to leave on line problematic posts of a sort that other Web site administrators otherwise choose to remove from their sites or to moderate by pre-approving posts. The article already states that most members are self-identified mental health consumers -- an inventory of DSM-IV diagnoses doesn't contribute to an understanding of why some such people are said to not easily assimilate into a culture created by a particular psychiatrist, while others with similar diagnoses do. We have no evidence that the challenges the administrator faces are the result of diagnosed mentally ill group members rather than of his self-imposed limitations and goals as an administrator. His recurring assertion that all are welcome at his discretion but that the site is not for everyone could be seen as much as a limit he has set as a capitulation to some circumstance beyond his control. To represent it as the latter and not the former is not nuetral in point of view. To otherwise speculate about causes is not encyclopedic, and merely repeats information that is otherwise available to people who choose to participate in Hsiung's site. ProveReader 00:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

PSUEDODIDEROT where are you??????????

More non NPOV comments are being inserted in your article with no documentation. I don't know technically what to do? Please return and defend the neutral point of view and ask the anonymous poster to provide sources re stalkers etc. YOU SAID put it on the discussion page first! Nobody but me is even payin you any mind at all! And I just found out from wikki encyc that Neopia is being run by the scientologists!!!! eeeeeeeeek! I gotta go stop em from seducing my gelert into a cult! 64.12.116.132 15:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I summarily deleted that paragraph, 64.12.*, primarily for reasons you cite. ProveReader 19:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The same paragraph containing allegations of stalking was restored by a user now registered as "SExposingtheJournalisto", and again I removed it. Beyond conceptual deficiencies including unfounded allegations, the paragraph includes sentence structure that is rambling and which simply does not conjugate logically. "Although controversial, there have been ... of whom ... will return ... under names which are against ... and who will use ... etc." Further, the parenthetical use of the letter -- (s) -- to imply either a singular or plural subject implies speculation. The construct "Posters as contained by their posts" is a non-sequitor which antropomorphizes alleged messages to advance an allegation of stalking, a concept that otherwise has a precise legal meaning. "One school of thought" proposes a hypothesis without foundation, though it appears to refer to some opinion held among members of the group that is topic of this article. In light of the fact that group members started this article with clearly identifiable motives of pride and self-promotion, the absense of response on this talk page, and the failure to revise or improve the section in question by whomever restored it to the article, the paragraph seems innappropriate for an encyclopedic summary of the Web project. ProveReader 20:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

destructive edits

I reverted a new series of edits by User:SExposingtheJournalisto which included a dead link, the addition of the string "*Busted*" to another link, removal of several relevant paragraphs and inclusion without discussion on this talk page of a paragraph that advances allegations of stalking. These edits seem to reflect genuing concerns, but in no way appear to be offered in good faith or in a cooperative spirit.

This page is linked from the site that is the topic of the article, and has been documented as having been created to serve the purposes of members of that forum. While constructive edits from members there would contribute to the knowledge base of Wikipedia, and in fact comprise the majority of text in the article as it now stands, allegations about the mental health of contributors to that forum, beyond a summary analysis that forum contributors tend to so identify themselves, are not the least encyclopedic. Such edits are destructive and uncooperative, so I am appealing to a broader group of Wikipedia editors to balance whatever limitations I might have in trying to maintain this as a fair article. ProveReader 21:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I also removed a link I had added, in hopes that concession will promote cooperation. The link was to a blog that represented critical analysis of particular posts at the forum, but which identified individual members of the site. Since I added that link, documentation of another critique about the broader issue of research and informed consent by a professional peer of Robert Hsiung has been added on this page, and that critique might better inform a broad view of professional opinion, pro and con, about this site. ProveReader 21:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

You get at least a b grade for your efforts, well done!

Site Traffic Data

I created and uploaded a chart showing counts of pages served at the site described in this article. I then uploaded an .xls spreadsheet that collates and references data that were used to create the traffic chart. On Dec. 17, two days after information was added to this article describing trends in site traffic, Robert Hsiung for the first time in several months presented recent months' traffic data in a chart at his site, which tracked traffic during 2005 only. Hsiung had previously compressed Urchin data from his site, so that only a few weeks of the most recent data was available online at any time. A preserved file of Urchin data from Oct. 05 is also referenced in this article.

The old numbers are for all of dr-bob.org, the new ones for just Psycho-Babble. And, as mentioned below, the algorithms are different. The two sets of numbers shouldn't be combined, plus I think this article is supposed to be about just Psycho-Babble. Hsiung 04:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Because this article as first written by a member of the Psycho-Babble support group initially included references to site-traffic data, because Hsiung encourged creation of this article at his Web site and because Hsiung in his "Best of Both Worlds" paper cited traffic data as a potential indicator of the medical efficacy of his site, analysis of site traffic data has become a relevant element of an encyclopedic review of the site. In the Dec. 17 data Hsiung added to his site, he introduced a new traffic parameter (unique visitors) not available in four previous years of data, and which includes data for visits to a virtual pamphlet collection for students Hsiung provides outside the Psycho-Babble name space.

A measure of "visits" cannot be considered a precise comparison when measured using different counting algorithms at different times, but a comparison of trends in number of visits (compressed in Urchin data) along with visits as recorded in data from previous years posted at the dr-bob.org site reveals consistency with trends evident in page-view counts in the data Hsiung has made public. Page-view data from January 2005 is missing five days of page counts because it is unavailable from Hsiung's site or other sources, but the 1,485,105 total page views in 26 days of January, 2005 compared to 2,967,776 in December, 2004, each collected under the algorithm used for the previous 48 months, is consistent with a trend toward significantly less traffic evident in data for the 10 months that follow and with trends evident in recent Alexa data. Available Alexa data is limited to the 24 most recent months.

Within the scope of available data, page views are the most consistent reliable statistical set for the site over a period of five years, and hence I have created and contributed to this article a visual chart of the data that most accurately depicts long-term trends in activity. ProveReader 07:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

forum member

(unsigned comment by User:SExposingtheJournalisto Its interesting to see Used2be using her skills as 'Provereader', she manages to still come up with new aliases, probably from experience as an ex reporter.

Prove reader, if you want to write an article that is all your own work, do so and post and link. In the mean time have repsect for others that add to this page and do not be under the impression you have sole control of the article. I understand you're already blocked from Dr-Bob.org. History may repeat itself on this site for you.

Above unsigned comments by User:SExposingtheJournalisto Reply: Speculation about identity of contributors is unfounded, except insomuch as contributors to the forum about which this article is written claim to have started and edited this article. Speculation about the large number of disenfranchised former members of bob.org is otherwise irrelevant to the content of this article. It would be helpful to focus contributions here on encyclopedic representations and to avoid acting out here personal dissatisfactions that might have have arisen from participation in that doctor's Web site. ProveReader 23:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Summary of critisims

We already had some summary of criticism, but there are recurring efforts to expand on those statements.

I therefore refactored Observation of "Psycho-Babble" from when the website was created, reveals over time there have been people who wish to contribute by trying to discredit Hsiung and the forum. by User:SExposingtheJournalisto to more neutrally and sympathetically read: Since early in the forum's history, members and sometimes Hsiung's professional peers have advanced criticisms of his administration. Some forum members have at times represented criticisms as attempts to discredit Hsiung or his efforts. Recurring topics of criticism include his definition of what is civil and the potentially conflicting purposes of the site when it serves both as a support group and a subject of the administrator's research.

Note that User:SExposingtheJournalisto has blanked most of the page at least once, deleted major sections more than once and has yet to participate in talk-page discussion, but maybe with persistence and tolerance, SExpos will develop an appreciation of the value of cooperative editing. In reviewing extensive discussion of this otherwise new article, note that most of the content is consistent with what was originally created by members of the forum about which it is written. ProveReader 23:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you feel you have to edit all of my writing? If you want the article to read, as you put it "neutrally and sympathetically" then I suggest you will need to edit 90% of your own work. I'll help you as it seems you are not quite understanding how to do that.

Unsigned comment above from User:SExposingtheJournalisto

reply: It matters not who conributed content, but rather the stance, voice, clarity and accuracy of the content. History pages show that I have extensively refined my contributions, and preserved contributions of writers who identify themselves as members of the topic of this article. ProveReader 23:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

On this talk page

It is extremely helpful if all of us will sign and indent our comments. To sign your comments, type four tildes (~). To indent them, begin each paragraph with one or more colons (:). See, wasn't that easy? And it isn't too late! Can you take a moment to edit this talk page again and sign and indent your previous comments. Thank you. -- Perfecto  00:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Like this? I guess so.  :-) Hsiung 01:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hsuing is rewriting the article without discussion

Can wiki protect this article please or ban Hsuing if he continues this behaviour? He is deleting and rewriting without explanation or discussion. 64.12.116.132 19:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Sorry about that. I do think it's better to discus edits.

• Introduction:
  • Deleted "and the personal lives of people addressing mental health concerns" because that's not the site's predominant concern.
  • Changed "Its pages bear the description" to "Its mission is" to be more concise.
  • Changed "although Hsiung has not affiliated the site with the university since 2004" to "although the site is not affiliated with the university" because there wasn't an affiliation in 2004. Is there something you have in mind?
  • Deleted the chart because the two sets of numbers shouldn't be combined, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Psycho-Babble_%28virtual_community%29#Site_Traffic_Data
  • Moved "In March 1995, he established an Internet site ("Psychopharmacology Tips") where he posted psychopharmacology information, including tips from well-known specialists. Over the next few years, he developed the Psycho-Babble forums in conjunction with that site." here because it's more introductory than about administration. Also named that site to be more precise.
• Usage:
  • Deleted the Alexa and site visit information because they're for all of dr-bob.org, not just PB, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Psycho-Babble_%28virtual_community%29#Site_Traffic_Data
  • Substituted information for just PB. Also specified the earlier web log analysis software and when it was used to be more complete.
• Contributors:
  • Separated Contributors and Content because they're separate topics.
  • Deleted "with the exception of a related Yahoo.com site called "Psycho-Babble Open"" because it's also open for reading.
  • Added "Since February 2001, contributors have also been required to give explicit informed consent" to be more complete.
  • Moved information about getting together here because it's more about contributors than administration.
• Content:
  • Reworded "Hsiung expanded" and "Hsiung has since restricted" to focus more on the boards and less on me and to make it more parallel.
• Administration:
  • Made "Terms of service" a subsection since it's part of administration.
  • Also added "Publications and presentations" and "Criticisms" subsections because there was a fair amount of information about each. Moved that information there.
  • Deleted how deputies assist me and how I leave posts because that's covered under "Terms of service".
  • Reworded the reversibility sentence to be more concise.
  • Reworded the fees and advertising sentence to make it more parallel and to consolidate the affiliate program information. Also deleted "currently" because it's unnecessary.
  • Also deleted "to raise money" because it's unnecessary. Added what would be controlled to be more specific.
  • Added how long I've paid for the server and when the donations were made to be more specific.
• Terms of service:
  • Reworded "Hsuing represents Psycho-Babble as a supportive milieu guarded by a policy requiring civil writing." to be more concise.
  • Added information about supportiveness and civility from the FAQ to be more complete.
  • Reworded "repeated questioning of other contributors, repeated administrative questions about posts that are not deemed offensive by the administrator" to be more precise.
  • Added "using multiple screen names" to be more complete.
  • Reworded the PBC and block information to be more concise and precise. Receiving a warning is significant.
  • Meant to move the information about the selection of the deputies to the beginning of the "Administration" section, oops...
    • Took care of that. Hsiung 03:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Added "messages that are posted while blocked" to be more complete.
  • Reworded "Hsiung describes after-the-fact public sanctions of contributors who post contrary to his guidelines and his strategy of leaving their posts along with his sanctions to be read in the archives as a form of moderated message board administration." and moved it here to be more concise and to contrast that with deleting other information.
  • Reworded "are restricted to an administrative discussion area of the site" to be more parallel with the descriptions of the other boards.
• Publications and presentations:
  • Listed those related to PB 1st, chronologically, and the book last.
  • Added the date of the CP&B article and what exactly I thought was the best of both worlds, and why, to be more informative.
  • Reworded the information about the AMN article because the focus was on moderating in particular, not participating in general.
  • Moved and added information about the APA workshop to consolidate it and to be more complete.
  • Added "information" and the date to the information about the book to be more complete.

I deleted the book because it has nothing to do with the subject of the article. I think it might be a good idea if you make a separate entry about yourself and link it to this article if you wish to focus on yourself in roles other than owner and administrator of Psychobabble. I think you are sufficiently identified as an employee of UofC and author of the articles which do focus on Psychobabble. 205.188.116.9 21:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Criticisms:
  • Specified one peer because that was the number that was discussed here, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Psycho-Babble_%28virtual_community%29#initial_discussion_.28Dec._8.29
  • Deleted "Some forum members have at times represented criticisms as attempts to discredit Hsiung or his efforts." because I think how members have represented others is beyond the scope of this article.
  • Reworded "his definition of what is civil" since it's not my definition, but my application of my definition that's usually the issue.
  • Deleted "Hsiung has since relocated the site on non-University servers" because that happened earlier, see the beginning of the "Administration" section.
  • Reworded "posted a message that the site is not affiliated with the University" because it wasn't a post.
  • Moved the case study information here because it's related to research and criticisms. Consolidated information about papers and the book.

OK, I think that's it, did I miss anything? Hsiung 00:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Replies to vanity edits

re: vanity editing

Referring to them as vanity edits makes me feel accused of being vain, could you not do that? Thanks. Hsiung 02:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Vanity editing as referenced here is a constructed principle of the Wikipedia community that refers to the act of editing in one's own interest information that directly pertains to oneself or to one's organizations.

Vanity information is considered to be any information that was placed in any Wikipedia article that might create an apparent conflict of interest, meaning any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author...

While an article about a little-known company, say, should not automatically be taken as a vanity article, it is preferable for the initial author not to be an owner or employee of or an investor in the company; likewise, an article about a little-known musician or band should preferably not be by the musician, a member, or a manager, roadie, groupie, etc.

Removing from an encylopedic opus statistics that indicate declining notoriety creates an appearance of conflicting interests. The description of vanity editing relates to an activity you engaged in, not of you as a person, as you seem to allege. I hope you are more than capable of allowing others to criticize your professional activities, and that you trust those criticisms to target your activities and not your character. You are a psychiatrist with abundant resources available to manage your feelings of self-esteem. Please consider your own liability for your feelings about yourself as I analyze content you submitted. ProveReader 03:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove any statistics like that. Editing against someone else's interest isn't neutral, either. My new nickname: Dr. Bob 06:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes you did. You removed this statement:"The site was among the 15,000 most-visited sites among those reported in Alexa data in early 2004, and in December, 2005 ranked near the 90,000th most-visited site." You more recently have conceded to allow the information to remain. You have also persistently deleted a reference to a statement on your site that it is not owned or operated by the Unversity, you have altered references to the chronology of when research was conducted vis-a-vis the IRB review to remove references that relate published research to pre-review operation of the site.[1]. If your interests are to enhance your professional notoriety by way of altering this article, editing against your interests can most certainly be neutral ProveReader 20:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

re:usage and charting

• Restored chart. Hsiung offers no evidence that pages served as measured by Webalizer differ widely from page views as reported by Urchin. Since Hsiung introduced in a 2000 document the premise that site traffic is an anecdotal measure of support-group efficacy, independent analysis of site traffic is relevant to encyclopedic representation of the site. Site traffic has trended downward at an average rate of 2 percent a month during 2005, according to Urchin data Hsiung has released, consistent with the downard trend depicted in the chart. Only a strict comparison of Webalizer and Urchin algorithms would suffice to challenge a linear comparison of page views/pages served, even though that data may have been contaminated in a small degree by Hsiung's inconsistent methodologies during the duration of his project.

While Hsiung's 2000 self-written review of his site included among the roles of a self-help group leader the job of creating a sense of efficacy, creating such perceptions is not part of the role of an encyclopedic writer. His interest in representing his site as efficacious should be considered when reviewing his site-traffic representations outside his domains.ProveReader

• • Deleted chart again. Not having evidence that one thing differs widely from another doesn't justify treating them as identical. If you want to include charts, how about including separate ones based on the separate sets of data, labeling them accurately, and moving them to "Usage"? Hsiung 02:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • the chart Hsiung deleted was already located in the "Usage" section. It might be moved down one line in the section, and perhaps be replaced with a chart detailing the data Hsiung also deleted suggesing his site moved from the 15,000th to the 90,000th in rank. I will review the content of the chart, and examine the close relationships of webalyzer data and urchin data. For now, I will settle for removing claims that data from one year indicates a "peak" in traffic when the same data considered in the context of all available data suggests no peak in the past year comprises a peak among all five years.ProveReader 03:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Reverted "Usage". Again, I didn't delete the Alexa data. It's clear that "peak" refers to the peak in that data, not the 5-year peak. It's also clear that 1,381,970 < 4,343,551. Dr. Bob 06:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
      • You did in fact delete data from Alexa -- here: [2]. And regardless your authoritative declaration, most readers are not data analysts, and a statement in a sentence that says anything peaked, with nothing in that sentence to explain that the peak is refering to only 20 percent of the time period in question is not "clear" to the average reader. It tends to obfuscate data that can be readily presented more clearly.ProveReader 20:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed Hsiung's statement that "page views peaked" in March 2005. As suggested above, and clarified elsewhere, "Page views" and "Pages served" are widely considered synonymous in Web traffic monitoring, regardless the diverse nomenclature used in various traffic-monitoring softwares. Hsiung acknowledges no measure of page views over a five-year period, yet submitted the claim that page-views peaked in the very context in which he challenged independent analysis of site traffic in the five-year period. ProveReader

Revised and restored references to Alexa and site visit information. Contrary to Hsiung's claim, Alexa data for dr-bob.org and for dr-bob.org/babble is not differentiated. We have no evidence that the ranking of second-most popular is an artifact of anything other than how Hsiung entered links in his Alexa registration. All site info supporting the "second most popular" ranking points to traffic data for dr-bob.org. Hsiung selects from a single data set only the data favorable to his view of his project and claims other data from the same set is not specific to the site in question. Perhaps Dr. Hsiung can clarify the good faith to be found in his claim that data supporting the reference to his site as the second-most popular mental health site on the web is not the exact same data that says the site declined from 15,000th most visited to 90,000th most visited site between Jan. 04 and Dec. 05.

The screen shot as of this date (Dec. 20, 2005) affixed to the "second most popular" Alexa citation is the front page to bob.org. The following links trace consecutive Alexa pages from one on which the "second most popular" assertion rests directly to the data he claims is generalized for all of bob.org:

"second most popular" -- "site info" -- "traffic details" for "this site" -- "Rank" -- "Rank 2years"

• • OK, retained the dr-bob.org statistics, but separated them and the PB statistics. I don't think assumptions should be made about how Alexa ranks sites. I don't know why the screen shots are the same, but the descriptions are differentiated and the "traffic details" are clearly for dr-bob.org.Converted daily averages to monthly totals to be consistent. Deleted details about Alexa because they're more appropriate for the Alexa article. Hsiung 02:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Restored daily averages because that is a data unit Hsiung represents in charts at his site. Also restored daily averages from Urchin data Oct. 05. Daily averages spelled out as four or five digit numbers more easily allow readers to more easily compare data.

Also, no assumptions are made about how Alexa compares data. What is offered are statements that Alexa compares data, and references are offered to the data that Alexa compares. The statement the Alexa ranks "pscyho-babble", (depicted as the front page of dr-bob.org) as the second most popular mental health site is from the same data set that represents dr-bob.org as declining from 15,000th to 90,000th. Second, 15,000th and 90,000th -- if you want one you open the door to all of them, and should not ask readers (or other editors) to defer to your assumptions about "how Alexa ranks sites." ProveReader 03:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

We don't need to assume; we can read how Alexa ranks sites. The following offers persuasive evidence that the statistics Hsiung claims are specific to "Psycho-Babble" and by which Alexis ranks Hsiung's sites as second most popular are identical to those detailed in Alexas Traffic Details:

About the Alexa Traffic Rankings
"What are sites and Web hosts?
Traffic is computed for sites, which are typically defined at the domain level. For example, the Web hosts www.msn.com, carpoint.msn.com and slate.msn.com are all treated as part of the same site, because they all reside on the same domain, msn.com. An exception is personal home pages, which are treated separately if they can be automatically identified as such from the URLs in question. Also, sites which are found to be serving the "same" content are generally counted together as the same site." [3]

I maintain my assertion that Hsiung has attempted to obfuscate Alexa data, claiming data favorable to his notoriety is specific to the portion of his site described in this article, but that data suggesting declining notoriety is generalized for his domain. Alexa offers ample evidence, as cited above, that aggregated traffic throughout his domain pushed his sites to the second-most-popular ranking among mental health sites, and that is exactly the data that suggests declining rank for his sites.

If Hsiung intends to make any further efforts to distance the "second most popular" ranking from the 15,000th-to-90,000th slide in ranking, such as removing them from the same paragraph as sequential statements, he needs to provide evidence contrary to Alexa's declared methodology for defining sites as traffic counted at the domain level. ProveReader 00:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • Reverted "Usage". Monthly totals are also on the site and are consistent with the Webalizer PB data, and 6- and 7-digit numbers are easily enough compared. Dr. Bob 06:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Easily enough for whom? Reverting reflects an unenergetic effort toward collaboration.

Shorter numbers are not only more easily comparted, but monthly averages are also more accurate because monthly totals are not consistent. "Thirty days as September, April, May and November, all the rest have 31." Hence, monthly data totals are not a consistent comparison, whereas total/#of days is. I trust an M.D. with training in statistical comparison is qualified to appreciate this distinction.

I have revised the section to delete all reference to "peaked", hopefully eliminating any further effort on Hsiung's part to assert that data from 2005 alone can be cited as a "peak" in usage data. I also consolidated references to Alexa data, maintaining clairity that the 15,000th-90,000th change in ranking is related to the sites as a whole, but preserving Hsiung's unsubstantiated claim that his sites' ranking as the "second most popular mental health site" was not boosted by the small fraction of non-Pscyho-Babble traffic he claims pertain to that ranking but otherwise asserts as included in data which Alexa cites as data for "this site". "second most popular" -- "site info" -- "traffic details" for "this site" -- "Rank" -- "Rank 2years"

To avoid obfuscation that arises when readers are asked to formulate groups of dissimilar size, but to preserve accurate representation of diverse data sources, I grouped the data in paragraphs representing their closest rational proximities i.e. "pages served" with "page views" and "visits with session". ProveReader 20:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• changed "in it's forums (or "boards") to the more concise and just as accurate "at Psycho-Babble".ProveReader 20:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

re:affiliation with University, IRB review

• Revised and restored deleted sentence that referenced former affiliation with University. Hsiung said he revised because there wasn't an affiliation in 2004. At the time the site project was submitted to the University of Chicago Institutional Review Board, the review relationship comprised an affiliation. If Hsiung cares to elaborate on the limited nature of the affiliation, and why it is less now than it was at the time is was reviewed by the IRB and served from University of Chicago servers, perhaps he can enter comments here and trust a less involved writer to summarize those comments in the article.
• Restored reference to "lives of people addressing problems" as predominant concern of the site. Only eight pages of 17 can be constured to deal predominately with mental health problems. The other pages -- faith, politics, social, writing, books, newbies, parents, etc. predominately address the lives of the people concerned and do not center on the presenting health problem either in declared focus or in typical content.
  • OK, retained that, but made it a separate sentence. Those issues are discussed, but they're not the site's predominant concern. Hsiung 02:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Sites don't have concerns. People have concerns, which they represent in writing on Internet sites. Hsiung's concerns apparently differ from those who participate at his site. ProveReader 03:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• (should have done this one but didn't find a place): Restore reference to yahoo.com "Psycho-babble Open" not being open to reading, because the membership structure is different than at psychobabble. At psychobabble, anyone can read whether they are registered or not. At Psycho-babble open, reading is restricted to registered members, and the site serves primarily as a chat site exclusively for registered members.
• Revised Hsiung's revision that said "one professional peer" has criticized him to say "at least one". At least one other professional peer -- if pharmacists are to be considered peers of psychiatrists -- has criticized him on the pages of the forum. Hsiung's postings elsewhere on the Internet offer evidence of controversy among him and his peers about the relative efficacy of patient's access to online health information, though that discussion is less specific to his site. The assertion of "at least one" accommodates the psychiatrist's acknowledgement of one professional critic while not foreclosing that at least one other identified critic might be considered his peer.
• Moved the statement that the site is not affiliated with the University from the bottom of the article to the top, where the University if first mentioned as Hsiung's employer. Whether or not a project sometimes represented as research is affiliated with a research institution is germane to an introduction of the project, at least in as much as the project administrator is employed in a similar capacity at the University, in that his collective opus of Web sites serves university students and in so far as he lists his contact information as a University e-mail address.
  • OK, consolidated the chronology there and added specific dates. Hsiung 02:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • And I restored the chronology relating to the Insitutional Review Board, ex post facto the research, and restored reference to a statement on the site that it is not affiliated with the University -- especially because statements in the article as edited by Hsiung suggest an ongoing relationship as evidenced by having been reviewed by the University IRB.ProveReader 03:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Reverted. Moved criticisms to "Criticisms". Changed "reviewed" to "approved" to be more complete. Dr. Bob 06:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
        • A declaration of your actions is not an explanation. Please explain your edits when collaborating on a controversial topic, especially one in which your interests in your own notoriety could appear to be in conflict with dispassionate exposition. In explaining your edits, please respond to explanations others have offered on this page related to the same subject matter. ProveReader 22:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Here's where it is now -- I deleted the first "not owned by the University" after noticing it is duplicated. I maintained the complete chronology in the introduction that referenced the pre-IRB-review publication, and included reference to the source (Hsiung) of claims that it was used for research (as yet unpublished?) in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. Let's remember, we have a published research paper from 2000 detailing methods and materials in which Hsiung relied solely content from his site to support his hypothesis. This is a necessary element of the chronology, and an introduction to the site needs to introduce the dual purposes it has served at various times. ProveReader 22:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

re:site rules

• Changed reference to citations of "alternate ways of expressing feelings" to more accurately reference "acceptable types of content on the site." Within the context of his self-help group, the psychiatrist may authoritatively refer to opinions, factual representations and self-disclosures as expressions of feeling. From an encyclopedic perspective, however, those forms of communication cannot be accurately categorized as expressions of feelings, and alternative forms of communication allowed on the site are just that -- communication forms acceptable at the physicians site, and not necessarily "expressions of feelings." It is simply his personal judgement that the expressed thoughts in question (those expressions prohibited at his site) arise from feelings and not from perceptions or from rational analysis. It is important not to extend the language of psychobabble into encyclopedic representations.ProveReader!
  • OK, changed "feelings" to "oneself". Hsiung 02:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • To presume that written statements online are expressions of "oneself" still tends to be a mischaracterization of one's views, perspectives, reactions and perceptions. Casually, these written statements by forum members might appear to be self-expressions, but for a psychiatrist to tell us that our written expressions are expressions of our self broaches an attribution error. We are far more than our perceptions in any particular context. Exploration of the concept of oneself is more appropriate for an article specific to that topic. This is an article about an Internet forum and its content. Though the medical theory behind another site might be that to define acceptable forms of content is to define acceptable ways of expressing oneself, the terms of service at bob.org in fact limit acceptable forms of content at a specific site -- no more and no less. To call the prefered content at that site anything else here ventures into heuristic psychology that is not appropriate for encyclopedic representation. ProveReader 05:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Quoted from the exact language: "If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ". It's "yourself" (one word), not "your self" (two words). Dr. Bob 06:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Clarified that posts cited by Hsiung et al as inviolation of site guidelines are only those identified as in violation, as opposed to a presumption refuted even in site documents that all potentially problematic posts are the subject of administrative attention. Also refactored reference to the much contested "civility policy" to describe it as a guideline, without the repeated affirmation of Hsiung's favored but widely contested characterization.ProveReader
  • Reverted "whom administrators determine have violated" and "are identified as in violation" to be more concise and because it's already been explained that violations are determined by the administrators. Specified "civility guidelines" because it's only violations of those guidelines that lead to PBCs. Quoted what I stated to be more complete. Hsiung 02:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • only insofar as Hsiung claims there is only one rule, and makes all other rules a subset of "Civility". Posting sources for unlicensed drugs, for example are subject to administrative intervention. I'll review this in more detail later. "Civility" as represetned at dr-bob.org is a parochial construct, and is not sufficiently explanatory for encyclopedic representation. ProveReader 03:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Retained "site", but reverted "civility". Where have I claimed that there's only one rule? Civility is just one section of the FAQ. Dr. Bob 06:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
        • You made that claim in your 2000 submission to CyberPsychology and Behavior:

Readers are introduced to the group at the Psycho-Babble home page. The orientation is brief, but covers the goals of the group (...), its values (...), its limitations (...), its one rule (please be civil)...[4].

In consideration of your scant recall of your own writing, I am updating the link to the CyberPsych article to point to the free version of the article available for download and reading at your Web site. ProveReader 22:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Set long quotation of Hsiung's original writing from his own FAQ off as a blockquote with quotation marks. Paraphrased his statements about what "may not be considered civil" because "may not be" infers a denial of permission to so consider something. Further clarified his representation of his rule forbidding unsustained complaints against other members as something that "may not be considered supportive" because as of this date, no search for the string "please be supportive" returns any reference to messages by Hsiung at his board. On its face, the situation he describes is simply prohibited, and an accurate encyclopedic explanation would explain it as such. He here attempted to generalize and explain his purpose for a rule, rather than writing specifically and explaining the effect of his rules (as found in his archives under his screen name). The rule he attempted to explain expressly forbids complaining three times about another members writing when the complaints are not sustained.ProveReader
  • Making it a blockquote was a good idea. Reworded the sentence before. And the discussion of repeated questions. I think the issue here is how the rules apply. The next paragraph addresses the effect of applying them. Hsiung 02:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Clarified the terms of service section to seperately identify Hsiung and deputy administrators. Because he has delineated in his published writings the roles of a medically trained group leader and the mutually supporting roles of group members, encyclopedic references need to be clear to the extent that those roles have since merged.ProveReader
  • Reverted that because having deputy administrators is already covered at the beginning of "Administration". Hsiung 02:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I'll be back to restore that because it relates to different matters. please consider responding to: he has delineated in his published writings the roles of a medically trained group leader and the mutually supporting roles of group members, encyclopedic references need to be clear to the extent that those roles have since merged.. You defined two worlds in a professional publication -- let us please consider how those worlds have since merged, and without your intervention.ProveReader 03:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Reverted. It's clear from "Hsiung remains the sole administrator of Psycho-Babble, but three deputy administrators he selected from among frequent forum participants now assist him." that those roles have merged. Dr. Bob 06:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Restored. Deputies are not sheriffs and deputy administrators are not administrators. Hsiung maintains he is the sole administrator yet argues that "other administrators" is appropriate reference to deputies in encyclopedic representation ProveReader 20:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Revised Hsiung's statement that "according to the FAQ, being supportive means..." While his posted replies to frequently asked questions include a question "What exactly do you mean by 'civil'" there is no representation there that supportive means "respecting the views of others and being sensitive to their feelings." In the only appearance of the word "supportive" in his hand in his FAQ, he states that "I try to keep the atmosphere supportive". Otherwise the term is used three times in citations of members posts, twice as an adjective and once as a noun, but nowhere is the term defined in his FAQ. Perhaps the doctor should first publish his therapeutic definitions at his forum, then consider offering them here as potential encyclopedic representations if others have not sufficiently described the forum he administers. ProveReader
• Attempting to remove extensive parenthetical train-of-thought type statements written by Hsiung. Encyclopedic prose can be constructed without setting content apart in parenthesis.
  • Reconstructed as requested. Hsiung 02:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Relocated reference to locale of administrative discussion to content section alongside other references to content of various boards.Hsiung

re:publications

• Under publications revised Hsiung's statement that his CyberPscyhology article about his site addressed sites such as his as the best of both worlds because the article included references to no sites other than his. Though he infered by conjecture that others could adopt his model, he described his site and no other as the best of two worlds he attempts to define here and in the article.
  • Reverted, but addressed the use of PB as the example in another sentence. Hsiung 02:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Reserve comment until further reviewProveReader 03:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Added among publications a specific reference to John Grohol's Web publication about Hsiung's site, ethics and Hsiung's research purposes.
  • Moved to "Criticisms" and revised to be more specific (and accurate ) (sorry about the parentheses). Deleted "at least one professional peer" because its unnecessary with this addition. Hsiung 02:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Referenced Hsiung's ongoing professional presentations about his forums in the context in which he claims he conducts no research at the site. It is important to remember Hsiung has stated on his own forum that this Wikipedia article is a potential handout for use at professional presentations about his on-line mental-health-care activities. Attempts here to limit encyclopedic representations of the relationship between practice and research should be treated with caution and with an eye toward avoiding self-interested authority.
  • Deleted the informed consent information because it's already in "Contributors". Reworded these criticisms to be more concise. Included the above regarding the Wikipedia article. Hsiung 02:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • including factual information to support appreciation of differing views does not adequately explain differing views. The supporting information sometimes needs to be reworded and expanded in the context of differing views. Please don't obfuscate criticisms that have targeted you for not first seeking informed consent before engaging human subjects in your unsupervised research. Matter reserved for futher edits after additional reading. ProveReader 03:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Moved criticisms to "Criticisms". Reworded to be more concise. Please don't accuse me of obfuscation. Dr. Bob 06:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

re:article structure

• Didn't' grasp how "content" is not related to "contributors" in the context of Hsiung's attribution of "publications" as a subsection of "administration" so I placed "contributors" as a subheading of "content". In purely physical terms, the tangible item described herein as a forum is content -- specifically it is rendered symbols on an electronic network -- whereas the notion of a virtual community is a construct shared among members of networked affiliations. While members of psychobabble elected to describe themselves as a virtual community, the tangible item is first and foremost a collection of content, to which contributors contribute.

It's not necessarily easy to voluntarily edit the self-describing efforts of an employed psychiatrist advancing his preferred professional ideals. Please recognize the good faith of independent authority as you review these edits. ProveReader 07:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

replies to claims of when research was conducted

• Hsiung wrote that he used the site for research from 2001 to 2003 and again in 2004. We have no evidence of published results of any research from those periods. However, the only documentation we have related to research is prior to December 2000. If posts from the site appeared under Hsiung's name in a peer-reviewed paper he published, it is fair to consider the activity that led up to publishing that paper research. I added text to reflect those facts related to his most controversial research. ProveReader 06:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Reverted. Moved criticisms to "Criticisms". Reworded to be more concise. Dr. Bob 06:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • "Reverted" is not an explanation. The information the author of the site (Robert Hsiung M.D.) that is the subject of this article deleted about himself documents in his own words that the Institutional Review Board of the University of Chicago declared his efforts to be research. Robert Hsiung removed attribution of his own claims of when research was conducted, stating as encyclopedic fact his own version, which contradict his statements elsewhere "They have in fact deemed this research -- the "generalizable knowledge" is how online communities work and affect the mental health of their members -- and have approved it. -Hsiung Oct. 25, 2001. That research continued after approval does not comprise evidence that activities prior to approval were research. I am restoring the reference to the more corporate body's opinion of when research was conducted, and restoring attribution that clarifies it is Hsiung's claim -- unsubtantiated by any published research paper -- that he only conducted research after publishing a research paper. If Hsiung will present here documents verifying his assertion of when research was approved, it would be fair to remove attribution of his claim of when the research was approved. Otherwise, controversy arises and attribution of a sole source who has an interest how his activities are represented is essential for understanding what is being represented and by whom.

Hsiung attempts to include in the article references to when he conducted ostensiblty approved research, but is persistently deleting references to unnapproved research. This is an innappropriate effort to doctor information that does not enhance his notoriety. I have not reverted his reversion, but instead have modified the language to improve it and to restore factual information otherwise removed by a person whose preferences might not be served by public knowledge of those facts. I have included citation of Hsiung's own statements verifying information deleted from this article [5]. He should explain why this information is not correct before deleting the good faith contributions of other editors.

Also, the introduction can and should include introductory references to controversy detailed lower in the article, just as it contains introduction to other subtopics expanded elsewhere. Also, the statement that the site is not owned or operated by the University is an important introductory clarification. the statement needs to be included in close proximity to the first reference to the University of Chicago, to avoid having this article become a vehicle to promote affiliations that do not exist. Hsiung's effort to remove it from the introduction, and from the article entirely, are unexplained and easily interpreted as serving his own interests in his own notoriety. Consideration of an editors potentially conflicting interest in their own notoriety is not a bad-faith accusation -- it is a necessary element of open source editing.

And I have also included documentation of sources as links in close proximity to controversial statements as is a standard practice in other controversial areas of this open-source encyclopedia. ProveReader 20:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Edits that weren't explained

Reverted. Dr. Bob 06:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

site launch date

http://www.whois.net/whois.cgi2?d=dr-bob.org
Domain Name.......... dr-bob.org
Creation Date........ 1998-08-04

In view of the above information, I removed as innaccurate Hsiung's statement in the second paragraph that said he launched dr-bob.org in December 2000 after moving the site off of University servers. Archive.org also documents dr-bob.org's existence more than 18 months before the date Hsuing claims herethat he launched dr-bob.org.

Sorry, I guess I'd launched the domain earlier. Thanks for correcting that. Dr. Bob 03:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hsiung's December 2000 publication in Cyberpsychology and Behavior also refers extensively to posts from dr-bob.org aka Psycho-Babble on University servers, prior to any University IRB review and prior to his claimed launch date of December 2000. Could you, Hsiung, please explain your revision of this easily verifiable history?

ProveReader 04:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

216.145.240.8 edits

It seems the direction of edits related to Dr. John Grohol have been to establish that he is a doctor of pychology and not a medical doctor of pscyhiatry. In response to edits most recently from 216.145.240.8, I made no revision to most of the edits except those related to Grohol. "Psy.D" seems to be a title acceptable to all, but attribution of an academy granting educational credentials is not a usual style of personal identification, so I removed the reference to Nova Southeastern U. I replaced the reference to "PsychCentral" because that is where Grohol published the criticisms mentioned herein. ProveReader 01:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved Psych Central to "Sources". Reverted some other changes that weren't explained. Dr. Bob 06:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

replaced reference to "PychCentral" in proximity to the publicaton to which it refers. Where controversy exists, it is best to have sources closely associated with the content they represent and not to burden readers with the need to seek source information in footnotes. If Hsiung cares to include links to PychCentral in the footnotes, that would improve the article, but deleting the source from the context of the subject matter it represents does not serve teh interests of the general reader.ProveReader 21:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Stylistic edits

Hsiung offers "...encourages members to respect the views and to be sensitive to the feelings of others". This unbalanced construction is found elsewhere in Hsiung's writing and perhaps arises from a minimalist new-city style familiar to Chicago publishing houses. However, numerous writing guides suggest that readers not be asked to retain in mind a group of phrases as they parse for the object of those phrases. A more balanced construction, without reverting to my previous contribution is: "...encourages members to respect diverse viewpoints and to be sensitive to the feelings of others".

Also in this section, I repaired a non-sequitor in an unrelated series that contributed to a run-on sentence: "respect views ... and be sensitive ... and asks...". I terminated the sentence after the first series and started a new sentence "The FAQ reads:"

And in this section, I removed the redundant phrase "they respond to" which repeated information from the previous paragraph while it diverged from the topic of the sentence that explained that other posts are left in the archive. I structured the prose to refer to "Hsuing and the deputy administrators" which is necessary for consistency with the statement that "Hsiung remains the sole administrator." "Sole administrator" does not justify with subsequent plural references to administrators, but repeated references to "Hsiung and the deputy administrators" tends to become wordy. And I included the phrase "that are deemed to" in reference to site guidelines, restoring an edit Hsiung removed without responding here to references to his own statements that not all posts that are potentially in violation always recieve administrative attention.

Further, I note that Hsiung associates the source of his own published statements with his quotation, while arguing that published statements by his critics need not be associated with their source in the context of the criticism, but rather in the footnote. Consistency is one goal of editing. Please work toward that goal. ProveReader 21:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Also in the terms of service section, I have clarified the passive assertion "is considered" to specify what is the source of the consideration, otherwise declared as a universal consideration when offered without reference to the source. ProveReader 21:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

In publications and presentations, I clarified that Hsiung's forums were his sole example cited in a published research paper, and refered to the research nature of the paper by bringing forward headings from that paper typical of research publication i.e. "materials" "methods" "results".

Also in that section, I changed article "the" to "a" when no noun had previously been specified to support the use of a direct article. ProveReader 23:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

talk page organization

Archiving this page while discusson is still active seemed premature, so I have added some subheadings, and tried to improve indentation to facilitate more effective review of the flow of discourse. ProveReader 21:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

link to critical Web site

I was ambivilant about including a link to a site critical of the site mentioned in this article, and earlier removed my own contribution

"My own contribution." We have a Testimony, Thank you. Corrected though, as I removed the article, which you wrote and added to the site. You then linked it again (for sole control purposes) I then deleted it again. Your emotional attachment, then made you link it again. Again, thank you for your admission of ownership. Hopefully some writers will now be able to see that this article is not being wrote subjectively due to your emional attachment with the owner and posters.SExposingtheJournalisto 16:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

in hopes of usuaging an editor writing fondly of Hsiung's site. However, having observed Hsiung's edits on this page, especially regarding:
1. his posting of an erroneous date on which he launched the dr-bob domains that claimed it was launched after removing it from University servers where he conducted unapproved research,[6]
2. his querry asking for a citation of when he said he had only one rule when he could be expected to know what he wrote in CyberPsychology and Behavior [7]
3. his denial that he had deleted references to Alexa data from this article [8]
4. his continued assertion other editor's comprehension of Alexa's ranking system is based on "assumptions" and not on Alexa's published explanation, while he asserts his assumptions about Alexa data are valid even when his claims don't comport with published Alexa methodology (ibid),
5. his complaint that it is an innappropriate infringement on his feelings to criticize as vanity edits his revisions and reverting to favor his interests [9]...
I therefor think it is appropriate to include a link to this site: http://dr--bob.blogspot.com/, for the enlightenment of readers and to promote better understanding by other editors attempting to grasp why so much controversy has arisen in relation to his administration of a Web site for research and quasi-clinical purposes. ProveReader 08:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not want my blog linked to this website. SExposingtheJournalisto 01:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)SExposingtheJournalisto

If you choose to participate in editing here, please do so in good faith. That means don't falsely claim ownership of Web projects with which you are not involved. Your history of editing on this article[10] is not consistent with the views of a person who would maintain a Web publication critical of dr-bob.org. ProveReader 03:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I choose to participate here, in good faith. Please do not accuse me of otherwise not doing so. Your accusation that I am falsely claiming ownership of my own blog, is not in good faith of partcipation of this website. My history of participation here is not at all relevant with what I write at other websites. I'm sorry that you appear to be offened, however please respect the views of others. In this case, the fact that you're invading my article when I have expressed I do not wish to have it affiliated at this website. I will once again remove my blog SExposingtheJournalisto 22:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop writing lies to support your malicious edits. You absolutely do not own the blog in question. I have corresponded with the editor of the blog you claim to own and that person replied emphatically that you are in no way affiliated with that blog. As proof of your dishonesty, that person stated that they would enter a post on their blog disavowing your obvious attempt to decieve readers of Wikipedia. ProveReader 23:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Intentionally contributing false information to Wikipedia comprimises the integrity of the encyclopedia. Proof that SExposingtheJournalisto willfully contributed false information to this article can be reviewed here. ProveReader 00:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Ha Ha Ha or LOL as they say. You took the bait well. You now have my permission to include *your* blog. I knew it was yours all along and the evidence is clearly there and what you think of dr-bob.org is clearly stated in your blog. This therefore gives an un-accurate description of your writing, of this article, because of your hatred for Dr Bob and his site in the first place. The evidence, the wording used, (just as you accused me of not writing it, remember?) matches very accurately with that of the blog. Its so obvious its unbelievable. You was the person who linked the bloged way back when this article began too. Your obession with the civiliy rules, and how you have been treated previously on Dr-Bob site as a member who has been repeatly banned, also clouds your judement. Good luck to you and I hope your illness is somewhat soothed by expressing your emotions linking your blog to a wikipedia aticle which you have hatred for and the owner in question.

Some people eh? You might be better writing articles about being a reporter and the benefits of - at least then you might have a postitive and contructive time doing it and feel better about yourself

link to off-topic blog

A Mental Health Review has been added for subjective reasons of accuracy. SExposingtheJournalisto 16:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• A Mental Health Review of Psycho-Babble Forum log's
  • • I've relocated this link to the talk page for the following reasons.

a. The single entry in the blog is not a "review of Psycho-Babble Forum log's" (sic) as it claims. It is a commentary on the Wikipedia editing process related to this article.

False claimSExposingtheJournalisto 19:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

True claim. The first post on the blog you claim is about Pycho-Babble reads: "When reviewing the Wikipedia article about psycho-babble (Dr-Bob.org) it is always important when reading any article about a given subject to consider the source of the information eg. has the article been written solely by one person, is it by a group? With the psycho-babble article we find that indeed the majority of the article has indeed been written by one person." ProveReader 20:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

b. The blog SExposingtheJournalisto submitted was created Jan. 14 using without explanation of the duplicityinvolved in spoofing a screen name (mine) solely to advance ideals ...ProveReader

Your blog was created when this article also came into place. Dates are not relevant as to when the Blog was created, unless we can conclude that your blog was made to counter the efforts here. I do not see your screen name in the blog.SExposingtheJournalisto 19:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That is not correct. The blog about Psycho-Babble was created in November, 2005. This article was created in December. The blog was available on the Internet when this article was created and thus represented a primary source for information shared among Psycho-Babble forum members critical of the forum. ProveReader 20:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

SExposingtheJournalisto is unable or unwilling to represent in fair dialogue here.

Can you give a definition of fair and civil. Thanks.SExposingtheJournalisto 19:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Definitions of civil are beyond the scope of responding to the concept of fairness I discuss here. Fair includes not claiming to own something you don't own, not making allegations about others and not deleting the accurate text submitted by others. You have, in your history here, contravened each of these guidelines for fairness. ProveReader 20:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

c. The blog in the link advances a grammatically flawed anti-Semetic allegory that has nothing to do with the content of an article about Psycho-Babble. ("How accurate could a ProofReader write an account of Nazi Germany, if they was a Jew who was involved in the content of the war.")

Is this what you call "fair dialogue? This is quite an accusation, which has no evidence whatsoever and has not been printed. Please do not bring your views to this dissussion about how you feel torward Jews and Nazi's. Thanks. Unless you're stating that Americans and Iraqis can compared to Nazi's and Jews, I cannot see what you are saying.SExposingtheJournalisto 19:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It was not printed, it was published in a transient electronic format, which was then altered after I responded here. You are again patently lying about what was on the blog, and then covering your lies by accusing others of lying. Your history of deleting content and of falsely claiming to own somebody else's blog suggests my assertion has merit. ProveReader 21:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

If you have altered the content of the blog you created and which I quoted accurately, again you are using unfair tactics and dishonesty. You might find honesty more effective in the long run. It will be better for you to establish your own integrity rather than attempting to repeatedly undermine the integrity of others. ProveReader 20:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

d. Creation of the blog and addition of the link to the article is a continued effort by theJournalisto

Who is "theJournalisto" SExposingtheJournalisto 19:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

to avoid the intellectual process of participation in the collaborative Wikipedia process which involves preserving content submitted in good faith by others, discussion on talk pages of controversial edits and contributing content that is related primarily to the topic of an article.

In view of SExposingtheJournalisto previous blanking of this article and their false claims on this page that SExposingtheJournalisto owns a blog which they do not, I ask that they please respond here before continuing malicious edits.

Ownership is not relevant to this article. Facts are. The one about blanking an article was addressed last year.SExposingtheJournalisto 19:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Ownership is relevant when the fact is that your falsely clamied ownership of a blog that you do not own, in an effort to avoid collaborative processes. And how was your deletion of meaningful content, and of talk page content, addressed in the 40-days or so since this article has been created? Perhaps by a perception on your part that others had conceded something in response to your innappropriate deletions? [11][12] [13][14][15][16][17]

Further, in response to Sexpose's claim

Who is "sexpose"? I do not see s/he had added to this article and through a search I find no such member. SExposingtheJournalisto 19:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

on their blog that this article was written primarily by myself, please be aware that the article was created by active members of the forum about which it is written,

Please state which active members so we can continue fair dialog.SExposingtheJournalisto 19:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The role of Hsiung and other Psycho-Babble forum members in first discussing the creation of this article, then acknowledging there their involvement here is well documented earlier on this talk page ProveReader 21:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

after discussion on that forum suggested the article be created. In addition to edits by forum members who created most of the content herein, the forum owner has been an active participant in editing the article. These edits suggest a need for review by someone who doesn't have a vested interest in the forum.

My point exactly, your intersts are as clear as your critique. SExposingtheJournalisto 19:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The forum owner's edits included an incorrect date for when the dr-bob.org domain was launched, ProveReader

Is that your reason to add your blog? How is your blog relevant to disussion on here with you and Hsiung?SExposingtheJournalisto 19:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. As I explained previously on this page, when the Pscyho-Babble owners edits appeared to deviate from factual representations of his own activities, I decided to offer additional context. ProveReader

post-dating by two years the creation of the domain and tainting an accurate account of his research activities vis-a-vis review by the University of Chicago Institutional review board. Other editors have contributed content both critical and sympathetic to Hsiung's forums. My edits have preserved accurate content submitted by all good-faith editors. The fact that I know how to contact people who have not made their e-mail addressed available to SExposingtheJournalisto in no way suggests that I have hijacked

The fact that I know how to contact people who have not made their e-mail addressed available to.. ProveReader

Your fact is not relevant to a blog which has one user name. If you know how to obtain email address, that has nothing to do with a blog unless you can state publiclly those email address so we can gain fair dialog for the points you are trying to make. Otherwise what goes on in email discussions is a privite matter and not relevant here, unless the people are involved, but I only see the name "Proodreader" and a blog owned by one person. SExposingtheJournalisto 20:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant in response to your complaint that you were unable to contact the blog owner. People might have reasons for not sharing with you their e-mail addresses. ProveReader 21:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I have never said you Hijacked any article. SExposingtheJournalisto19:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I said I didn't. I assert that my edits have been cooperative and collaborative. ProveReader 21:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

this article to represent only my views. To the contrary, I have assured that this article includes all reasoned views of the forum, including representations of the chronic controversy about its administration that can be read in forum archives and elsewhere on the Web. In short, if Sexpose... ProveReader

Again, who is "sexpose"? I'll await their answer.SExposingtheJournalisto 19:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

cares to participate in this editing this article, I ask that they please respect the work of others by participating in rational discourse on this talk page, and not by damaging the content of the article by blanking, falsifying or discussing in the context of the article matters that properly are considered on this talk page.ProveReader 18:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Sexpose, can you please write here exactly what it is, within the context of Wikipedia policies, you would like changed in this article? ProveReader 19:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes we're interested in hearing from you "sexpose" SExposingtheJournalisto 19:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I have added the blog again which was falsly removed as its contains are more or less the same as the other blog. I can only suggest that we have both blogs on here, or none at all. SExposingtheJournalisto 19:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You have not responded to the substance of the criticism that the blog link I relocated to this page, at least as of this moment, contains exclusively information about the content of the Wikipedia article. The other blog, which you falsely claimed to own, contains 28 posts about Psycho-Babble and one about this article, that one primarily being proof of your false claim to own that blog. ProveReader

I removed the blog that seems to bother you so much was removed previously, but I replaced it, as explained above, to provide context in response to what seemed to be innaccurate content submitted here by Robert Hsiung MD. In my analysis, conceding to bullying and deceit is not the best approach to collaborative editing because it encourages more of the same. Though you offer no substantive reason why the blog critical of Psycho-Babble should not be listed on this page, I will again remove it along with your reference to a blog created today about this editorial process which you wrongly represented as being about the forums that are the topic of this article. I don't, however, promise to avoid citing at a later date any source of information relevant to this article, including the blog you are attempting to force out of the article. ProveReader 20:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Your blog doesn't bother me, in fact I couldn't care a less. Obviously though, you felt the review bothers you. I may choose to add the blog I found today, at a later date, which states an angle somewhat similar to yours, but stating a purpose which might be uncomfortable for you to read, which I imigine was your response and reasoning for removing both, when you had the option to have the 2 on show. The only person who "forced" both blogs out of this article is yourself - I allowed both on view (whilst wanting both on view) - you removed them.SExposingtheJournalisto 20:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Your perceptions of my comfort level are just that: your perceptions, or as you say, products of your imagination. They not based in my statements of my intent which I declare here and which you would to well do consider.

As I stated earlier, I am ambivilant about inclusion of the first blog, but I offered it as context after the psychiatrist made several incorrect edits here as cited in the related link. And unless you or whoever maintains the blog created today again alters the contet, it was at the time this discussion began about this article and not about the forum that is the topic of this article. You asked that I remove both if I intended to remove one, the one you contributed was off topic, and I conceded what I needed to conceded to nix off-topic content from the article. ProveReader 21:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Both blogs are relevant to each other and discuss "cut and pasted" messages talking about what is "civil", the psychobabble community and this article. If you feel the one I contributed is off-topic, then we can conclude your one, is too. Thanks for your perception. SExposingtheJournalisto 21:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

you have not responded specifically to my concern that, at the time you posted reference to the blog created on this same day, it included only one post about the nature of this article and not about Pscyho-Babble. You or your affiliate have since modified the blog in question so that it is more broad in scope. Still, two thirds of the content on the one you reference is specific to the composition of this article and not to the subject of this article, whereas only one of thirty posts on one I submitted is at all related to this article, and then only in response to your deliberate mispresentation in this article claiming ownership of a blog you do not own. You have yet to acknowledge that you committed any error by falsely claiming ownership of someone else's publication, or in deleting content from this article. ProveReader 00:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this worth discussing? The blog you posted, is a "cut and pasted" version of events and messages of the Psycho-Babble forum, and then a commentry about the rules. This article address's the rules. It also mentions about the voulume of members. There are then links to the forums so people can see the messages for themselves. You felt (because of a disucssion you had with Dr Bob on this page) the need to post the link to your blog. I then posted a blog which is about this article, the rules and the psychobabble coumminity which is a growing blog. Size doesnt matter as to what it address is the same. The blog you posted is all about the rules and how they are addressed.SExposingtheJournalisto 13:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see any error I have made, and also the errors you have made, have been addressed.SExposingtheJournalisto 13:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Would you like both blogs linked?SExposingtheJournalisto 13:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Or are you voting for deletion of this page - the majority which is 114 edits of your writing.SExposingtheJournalisto 13:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

On talk page management

To users who choose to interpolate their comments inside existing comments, please at least have the courtesy to readers of preserving the original signature by cutting and pasting the name at the end of the comment broken by a new interpolated comment. Thanks ProveReader 21:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)