User talk:Tarlby: Difference between revisions

Line 80: Line 80:

:Basically made it so I will NEVER update Wikipedia again. AND … I will not donate to Wikipedia again either. [[Special:Contributions/~2025-35457-51|~2025-35457-51]] ([[User talk:~2025-35457-51|talk]]) 02:07, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

:Basically made it so I will NEVER update Wikipedia again. AND … I will not donate to Wikipedia again either. [[Special:Contributions/~2025-35457-51|~2025-35457-51]] ([[User talk:~2025-35457-51|talk]]) 02:07, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

:Well, you never cited your information so how could I know? [[User:Tarlby|<span style=”background-color:black;color:cyan;font-family:Comic Sans MS;”>”Tarlby”</span>]] ^{([[User talk:Tarlby|”t”]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Tarlby|”c”]])} 02:09, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

This user is aware of the designation of the following as contentious topics: the Arab–Israeli conflict the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups abortion complementary and alternative medicine post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles climate change COVID-19, broadly construed gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them pseudoscience and fringe science governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues He should not be given alerts for those areas.

The Scrimbo Archives

(This message was sent to User talk:TheWikiToby and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

This note is intended as my response to the reviewers’ comments on the draft article Mind Stimulation Therapy, providing clarification on its clinical origins, development, and evaluation.
would like to clarify that the MST model was developed based on our professional training, insights, and systematic observation within active clinical practice—upon receiving positive feedback from colleagues, administrators, client-care staff, and clients themselves. Its evolution was guided by continual field application and reflective analysis rather than by a single research grant or laboratory study. The model’s initial acceptance arose from its intuitive and practical appeal in helping clients engage cognitively and emotionally, rather than from formal experimental validation at the outset. Over the years, we have used client satisfaction reports, qualitative feedback, and content analysis of participant responses as part of our evaluation process in both individual and group MST (and MICST) sessions with diverse clinical populations. These findings were summarized in our publications and presented at professional conferences, where the reception from practitioners and interdisciplinary audiences was highly positive. While such qualitative measures may not meet the formal standards of randomized controlled trials, they are consistent with established models of evidence in applied fields—including business and clinical psychology—where practice-based evidence has long served as a meaningful indicator of real-world impact. Martin Seligman, among others, has argued that such data deserve inclusion in psychology’s published literature as valid contributions to theory-building and service innovation. The developmental pathway of MST follows a long tradition in psychology, philosophy, and science, where major theoretical frameworks were first constructed through close observation, intuition, and case-based reasoning before later empirical validation. Early contributions by Freud, Piaget, and Goldberg, for example, began as interpretive frameworks that were refined and tested over time. Likewise, in the physical sciences, figures such as Einstein and other theoretical physicists advanced hypotheses based on mathematical reasoning that were only later confirmed by experimental results. I understand and respect the contemporary emphasis on controlled studies with large sample sizes and standardized methodologies. However, it is important to acknowledge that early-stage clinical innovations often arise from acute observation and practice-based reflection—insights gained through ongoing interaction with clients in real-world settings. Such models can subsequently inspire formal research, replication, and refinement. My intention in contributing this entry was to provide a descriptive and historical account of how MST evolved—from practice-based origins to conceptual framework—so that other researchers and clinicians may evaluate, replicate, or expand upon its applications. Clinical observation and speculative reasoning, when systematically documented and thoughtfully presented, remain vital sources of progress in both science and psychology. I also hope that Wikipedia and other scholarly platforms continue to recognize and provide space for creative clinical practitioners who, while lacking access to large-scale funded research, contribute meaningful innovations validated by client involvement, professional collaboration, and conceptual coherence that makes intuitive sense to reviewers and readers alike. MohiTaslim (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @MohiTaslim. The problem is much simpler than you make it out; all sources provided by you are primary sources which do not contribute to notability. If you can find multiple sources unrelated to yourself then the draft may be accepted. There is no systematic bias in action that I assume you’ve pointed out in this gigantic wall of text. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 23:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My collaborator, Professor Boisvert will research through his educational affiliation for citation references for all of our published articles related to Mind Stimulation (MICST) model published since 1884. Just checking our earlies publication through Google Scholar I found that our earlies article on the model, Ahmed M & Goldman, J published in Community Mental Health shows 15 citations. Our 15 plus publications through 2020, all of which I may not have include will show many more that I plan to add as External References. I also plan to highlight that our seminal book Mind Stimulation Therapy: Cognitive Intervention for Persons with Schizophrenia, Routledge, 2013, is forwarded by Ronald Abramson, MD., and the two endorsement reviews on back cover are by two other psychiatrists, showing cross disciplinary support for the model. Will work on updating the write up! MohiTaslim (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(This message was sent to User talk:TheWikiToby and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

what does this mean? Something was improperly labeled under the Aeigis Missile Defense page and you undid my edit correcting it. Coldsteelwarmhearts (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Department of Defense is officially named the Department of Defense. The “Department of War” is a secondary name as congressional approval is required to change the name of a federal department. See Executive Order 14347. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 18:56, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sign on the building hosting the department, as well as all nomenclature within the building, has been changed to the Department of War, as it had been until the mid 20th century. This is a defacto / dejure issue, and should be treated as such. According to Wikipedias accepting rules on naming conventions, the common name, superceding the dejure name should be used, with the dejure name indicated afterwards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions/Proposal/Draft#:~:text=Naming%20conventions%20are%20Wikipedia’s%20policies,Wikipedia:Neutral%20point%20of%20view. Coldsteelwarmhearts (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well as far as I know, the Department of Defense article says “Department of Defense”. If the common name had switched, it would’ve been updated by now months after the executive order. Doesn’t look like that has happened. Plus, naming conventions actually rely upon secondary reliable sources per WP:COMMONNAME, not necessarily what the subject calls itself. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 19:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the article has Department of War in the first sentence, and the seal of the Department says Department of War, as is dually noted on their government website. The article on Wikipedia has been locked however to avoid changes. Coldsteelwarmhearts (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has “Department of Defense” as its title. It’s also not locked. You just require over 500 edits. See WP:ECP. You haven’t responded to what I’ve said about WP:COMMONNAME. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 19:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You removed my edit. It was a WRONG MOVE. https://www.koin.com/local/am-extra-says-farewell-to-jeff-gianola/
https://www.koin.com/news/im-so-honored-koin-6s-jeff-gianola-gets-pizza-named-in-his-honor-ahead-of-retirement/
https://www.koin.com/news/portland/jeff-gianolas-journal-co-anchor-elizabeth-dinh/
https://www.koin.com/news/portland/jeff-gianolas-journal-street-kid-40-years-later/

ALL found on KOIN.com and watched on the news MY LOCAL news. ~2025-35457-51 (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basically made it so I will NEVER update Wikipedia again. AND … I will not donate to Wikipedia again either. ~2025-35457-51 (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you never cited your information so how could I know? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 02:09, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]