User talk:Sorrow of Sophie

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome!

Hello, Sorrow of Sophie, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• And feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. FunksBrother (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lolita fashion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gothic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Sorrow of Sophie, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Lolita fashion have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Lolita fashion - too many redirects

See here. There are too many redirects. Some variants of Lolita there were described in article before 2017. But article lost meritorical value (see statistics at years count). In ENwiki there aren't articles like to d:Q27920 or sweet lolita. Regards. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorrow of Sophie, regardless of the merits of the redirects or otherwise, you can't use WP:PROD to delete redirects -- please use WP:RFD instead. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 00:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Dawid2009 Thank you for your message, I think you have your answer, if you really want to cleanup/remove the redirects, I suggest to request it by yourself. People gave me tips to look at WP:RFD, WP:CHEAP and don't forget to look at WP:COSTLY. I trust you that you can make your own judgment. I have done my best to improve to redirect description by adding R tags for clarity why these are redirect to the Lolita fashion Wikipedia page, in addition I have correct the redirect to just the Wikipedia page instead of non existent section of the page at the Lolita Wikipedia page. Yours Sincerely, Sorrow of Sophie (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Sorrow of Sophie. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Sorrow of Sophie,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 16:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Sorrow of Sophie,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Sorrow of Sophie,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 20:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

January 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sorrow of Sophie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I didn't know it was not allowed to have an alternative account for longer rational discussion. I admit I took too much time in the discussion to talk about ethics to find deliberative truth by using an alternative account. Sorry for that and I can understand this can be perceived as disruptive and can be seen as an illegitimate reason (in proportion) to use an alternative account and also without alternative account notification. Thanks to the policy I know this now. I shouldn't use multiple account in this manner. I admit it was mine failure and I didn't knew about this policy. My intention with the alternative account was to make bold edits (subparagraph criticism, controversy, living people) and to discuss these bold edits with only a blank profile, so that people don't get overwhelmed by mine background but look at the arguments. But as I said I didn't know that I had to according the policy to use the 'alternative account notification' and in this case request for RFC/Ask community opinion for my intention. Further, thanks you for reminding me of this policy in this talk page. I read the entire policy, communities essays and Sockpuppet. Therefore I kindly request to unblock this account in good faith, because my intention was to improve Wikipedia not to cause any unintentional harm. On formal basis, I request the unblock on this ground that the block is no longer necessary because I understand why I am blocked for, I will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions instead, not wasting people's time with ethical argument 'disruptive'. To elaborate more on the last part. I will before going in detail with someone ask an RFC if it is about a guideline and in discussion I will ask if it would be in manner if I gave an ethical argument. All by all it will be mine first priority to ask community opinion/RFC if using an alternative account with this intention and manner is just (if I may or do I then already waste too much time of the community time with RFC/Community opinion and fall in the overconfidence bias?). Sorrow of Sophie (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC), Add intention to explain the why--Sorrow of Sophie (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- Deepfriedokra 06:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Reply to previous decline

• Thank you for your message Deepfriedokra. I understand wherefore I was blocked. I was blocked, because I used an alternative account with an illegitimate reason and this attracts scrutiny. It would only be legitimate if I had notified to a checkuser or members of the arbitration committee about my alternative account, but I didn't therefore I had violated the policy of Wikipedia. I promise I will not violate the policy for creating illegitimate alternative accounts again in the future. Instead I will help out Wikipedia and will take a look at the Community portal and try to Fix wikilinks, Check and add references and Fix original research issues. I did already did some edits offline by copying the online text to a text editor, but because I cannot edit the pages I will hold them offline until I can edit again. Sorrow of Sophie (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• I don't see that you have made any productive contributions to this project since creating your account well over three years ago. Thousands of edits to your userspace and about 200 to article space, and those edits have been SPA-like and mostly a waste of time. In addition, your sock account's comments were, not surprisingly, also a waste of the community's time. Editors are here to improve the project, not indulge in long-winded debates about ethics on the Internet.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I hear you Bbb23. But I guarantee you even if the article based are SPA-like they were all done with the intention of creating a neutral perspective based on reliable sources. I respect highly the NPOV and verifiability criteria, because an encyclopedia should contain different viewpoints and not one-sided viewpoint. For the user space my goal was to share lists of topics of Wikpedia sorted under categories. Also I created a library of a list of books and literature authors with consideration of NPOV. These lists were all done so that people could broader their perspective of the world if they like and encourage them to read more articles from this encyclopedia. Also to you I promise I won't indulge in long-winded debates about ethics on in the internet, because it wastes valuable time of mine co-Wikipedians. Sorrow of Sophie (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

27 January 2020 Unblock Request 2.0 Second Reflection (Draft) Thank you for your time. It is a delight to give mine reasoning. My answer is based on what I wrote in the previous unblock request but in more amazing and courteous ways (compare it with web 1.0 vs web 2.0):

• The block I have is not necessary anymore because I won't damage or disrupt Wikipedia ever again. I will adhere to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and I will try to prevent any more damage or disruption against the foundation of Wikipedia. I am blocked, because I didn't deliberative with the community how to use an alternative account. If someone wants to use such account for such purpose, just ask and follow the Policies and guidelines and the underlying procedures, I fully agree.
• As I early said I will not continue to cause damage or disruption, because it was never my intention and I am in debt to the editors, founder and operational people. Thanks to these people a lot of people have the opportunities to learn more about the world. Wikipedia had as goal to create a neutral encyclopedia, even if not all articles are neutral. We as community try our best to make it as neutral as possible and work friendly as possible. Of course people differ in opinions, courtesy and ways, but reflect, be civil against each other, criticise with virtue briefly and everything is fine. A block is not meant to punish people but to stop people from disrupting the ecosystem of Wikipedia.
• I promise om the Wikipedia Oath I will make useful contributions instead and contribute to Wikipedia itself, it is my pleasure to this. I will improve Wikipedia on all layers and levels where opportunities emerge. As you may notice I read a lot about Wikipedia and Wikimedia (Meta). I am not called for nothing Sorrow of Sophie. Firstly you have the content based things seen in Community portal, also you have the collaborate part WikiProject and lastly we have our WikiFauna. I am going to contribute first before going to other levels to Fix spelling and grammar, Fix wikilinks. Update with new information, Check and add references, Fix original research issues to the other categories I might also do too. If I am going to deal with things in realm of subparagraph criticism, controversy, living people, policy or anything close related to Wikipedia I will consider the philosophy of Wikipedia with his Five pillars, interests and benefits for Wikipedia as whole. Second you have monitoring: the edits by auto-patrol; protecting the privacy of people by overseers; reduce disruption, vandalism and conflict resolutions partially done by admins and Checkusers. also do not forget the people who are doing the technical stuff and bots and the administration works bureaucrats and stewards (and Wikimedia (Meta) for improving the whole infrastructure). Third if I am going to make any edits which can be a little bit controversial I will ask briefly if it is worth the interest depending on the context and time and will evaluate my own judgement about what is necessary. A sharp Wikipedian judgement will be created, because that is wonderful for the people, processes and ecosystem. After all I was and still am inspired by all Wikipedia Principles. So when I am unblocked I will enjoy the ride to do amazing things for Wikipedia by an Wikipedian.

Wonderstruck --Sorrow of Sophie (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC), Luminated --Sorrow of Sophie (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

May 2021

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sorrow of Sophie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Dear Administrator, It was 1.5 years ago since I violated the Wikipedia policy for sockpuppeting by using alternative account named MasterJin-Chan. For a long time I have reflected about what has happened. Today, I came to a very complete understanding of why all these things happen the way it happened and it broadened my perspective on life. Firstly it broadened my understanding of what Wikipedia is, how Wikipedia is organized and why Wikipedia is this way. My approach was to use an alternative account named MasterJin-Chan to play a devil advocate. But unintentionally it violated the Wikipedia Policy, a very tragic case. What I should do is just use the main account to play a devil advocate if that can add value. But unfortunately with all factors around the topic of the devil advocate I unintentionally caused more trouble than goodness. From the admin perspective I understand now that people use sockpuppeting to avoid scrutiny and accountability and I read some sockpuppeting cases which were really severe. Examples whereby the account creates a false account for another account or abuse of power. I understand now that I was blocked because I violated the policy not because I expressed my opinion. The means were wrong. Next I have matured and I realize I have to apologize for mine mistakes. Firstly, I was wrong by not respecting the policy and therefore I apologize to the English Wikipedia community. Secondly I unintentionally hurt ContraPoints, after playing the devil's advocate and months later I discovered that ContraPoints deleted her videos exactly three months before I played the devil advocate 1.5 years ago, because she doesn't want to be associated with her old self. But at the moment of raising the discussion I unfortunately didn't knew that and hurt her feeling unintentional with extra weight 。゜゜(´Ｏ`) ゜゜。. Therefore I apologize to ContraPoints. Thirdly, I didn't read the whole context and created a discussion at the wrong time because three months ago at the time of this discussion another discussion about the same topic was already fired up by another person that time, in which the person could be interpreted as reacting 'strained'. People were already done with the topic. Therefore I apologized to Primefac and can understand better the broader context why the person responded like the person responded. Further, I think people should talk about truth and ethics, but keep in mind not violating the Wikipedia policy and reading the whole context and also the discussions should sometimes take place at the essay/guideline talk page to add more value then at an user talk page. Besides that, I discovered today that gender identity, one year later after my mistake, was added on 8 February 2021 to the Manual of Style/Biography, which is very nice (and was during the month of February in the year 2021 discussed). Finally, I would like to become a Wikipedian again after being exiled for 1.5 years, moreover my intention as a person is to help to contribute to improve the encyclopedia and add value to the English Wikipedia Community. I hope this case is an inspiration for other persons to not to make the same mistakes I did and to broaden the perspective of how the world works. If you have any questions feel free to ask them. Yours sincerely, Sorrow of Sophie (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC), writing as clear as possible, Sorrow of Sophie (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I have talked with the blocking administrator and they gave their opinion and told me to make my own decision. Normally I would be inclined to accept such a request however after looking through your contribution history I am seeing very little actual contribution to the encyclopedia. The vast majority of your edits are to your user page, very little to actually writing articles. I feel that the level of disruption that you have caused the project vs the actual improvement to the project does not justify giving you another chance. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

For the reviewing administrator, I have used my checkuser tools and verified no evidence of recent sockpuppetry or block evasion. Therefore, non-checkuser admins may review this unblock request and accept or decline the request as they see fit. --Yamla (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Yamla. Sorrow of Sophie I am going to discuss this matter with the blocking administration and get their opinion on the matter before I proceed with reviewing this request. Thank you for your patience. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for you considerations HighInBC, I read the discussion. Firstly, I am not blocked on any other Wikipedia. Secondly, that I have so many edits on userspace that cannot be undone and is what it is and that blocking administration didn't like the way I write is probably because of mine first unblock request in which I was more focussed on the policy itself, in addition the block administration worried I could sockpuppet again, but why would I want to sockpuppet what would I gain from it, other then not respecting the community policy and avoid scrutiny. I hope this extra comment brighten what my intention is. Thirdly, the reason I have so little post-edits is because I am blocked to make any edits. A year ago my idea was to stash the edits when I got unblock, but I have seen it was very problematic to copy and stash it in a notepad file, because the Wikipedia page changed within the time frame. I saw some mistakes on some pages, but couldn't fix it like dead references. I looked into the projects in which I could contribute, because before the block I wasn't aware of the Community portal and how policy and guidelines came into consensus. Thanks to community portal I saw which work could be done and I would like to contribute. Sorrow of Sophie (talk) 08:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I stand by my review however another administrator may feel differently, if so I have no objection. They will want to talk to the blocking admin though. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand and I respect your decision 100%. I wish you a good life and stay healthy in these turbulence time of COVID-19. Sorrow of Sophie (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sorrow of Sophie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Dear Administrator,

Thanks for the help and you have my gratitude Bbb23, Deepfriedokra, HighInBC, Primefac and others for teaching me about the world and for improving my virtues as a human being. I hope my final unblock request fulfills the community wishes and suits a writing style of a Wikipedian who adds value to Wikipedia, because I want to be a positive helpful Wikipedian even in this sometimes complex world. I had the worst luck to be reincarnated as a WikiDragon at least humans can flourish. The past is the past and we have only decisions which can affect the future and my decision is exactly that I like to add value to Wikipedia and make others strife and I understand my mistakes and deficities of the past. My attitude taught by these people is therefore to reflect, not dwell about the past, use time and write more efficient and effective, adhere to Old-fashioned Wikipedian values and be not a loony toony dragon. I am glad for the community to exercise this attitude.

Somebody jokes Sorrow of Sophie is too yellow; like the sun, now step-by-step it will turn into afterglow and may heal your dizziness. Otherwise please see a doctor, because I really care about you.

I understand the five pillars of Wikipedia and I will adhere to it and I am here to build an encyclopedia. Moreover, to show that I have the intention and effort I made a section Contributions 2nd chance at my talk page with my contributions which I would gladly like to add to Wikipedia. Currently I am editing also on Wiki Commons, because I like it if users can find images freely to use which support their projects or give things their finishing touch.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask them, and I wish you all the best of a good life.

Sorrow of Sophie (talk) 07:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; most of this request is incomprehensible and unhelpful, so much so that no admin has seen fit to act on it for a full season. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 21:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Contribution 2nd chance

Rugby union in Honduras

Rugby union in Honduras is a minor, but growing sport.

According to the World Bank, the population of Honduras in 2019 is 9,746,117.

The first two teams started physical training in 2012.

...

Maddogz Rugby Club, El Mochito, Santa Barbara, Honduras Maddogz was formed in 2013 by Canadian Jerry Boucher and the majority of players are miners in the El Mochito mine.

...

Rugby Clubs (External Links)

• Lenca Rugby Honduras
• Rugby Tegucigalpa Honduras
• Pirates Rugby Club, Roatan, Honduras
• Rugby Marcala Honduras

References (Not referred)

• "rugby". Retrieved 18 June 2021.
• "Honduras Join Sudamérica Rugby". Americas Rugby News. 2017-05-15. Retrieved 18 June 2021.
• "Bay Islands Voice".
• http://www.intouchrugby.com/magazine/john-mccourt-and-jason-turner-teach-big-hits/
• http://www.diez.hn/mobile/mfotogallerias/488202-235/el-rugby-un-deporte-que-crece-en-honduras?PICID=751065
• "El Rugby llega a Hondura". La Prensa (in Spanish). 2014-02-21. Retrieved 18 June 2021.
• "Honduras ya tiene federación de Rugby". La Tribuna (in Spanish). 2017-01-31. Retrieved 18 June 2021.

References

Talkpage Rugby union in Honduras:

I have dug into this topic and unfortunately very scarce sources are available which can verify the current written information, but the sources found are added to the article. Sorrow of Sophie (talk) 07:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Adventure therapy

Adventure therapy is a form of psychotherapy created in the 1960s under the name wilderness therapy. it wasn't until the 70s adventure programs were developed, in australia for example the first adventure therapy program started in 1979 It is influenced by a variety of theories such as behavior theory and systems theory. Experiential education is the defining basis for adventure therapy.

...

These increases may then be generalized to treatment outcomes within and across life domains.

...

One of the first of these programs was Salesmanship Club Camp,

Notes

References

Bibliography

Aghazarian, T. L. (1996). Use of a challenge course as an intervention tool to adolescent self-esteem (MS thesis). California, United States of America: San Jose State University. Retrieved 21 June 2021.

Blanchard, C. (1993). Effects of ropes course therapy on interpersonal behavior and self-esteem of adolescent psychiatric inpatients (PhD thesis). Las Cruces, New Mexico, United States of America: New Mexico State University. Retrieved 21 June 2021.

Bowen, Daniel J. (2016). Adventure therapy : treatment effectiveness and applications with Australian youth (PhD thesis). Australia: University of Canberra. doi:10.26191/zgbg-qz62. Retrieved 20 June 2021.

Berman, D. S.; Davis-Berman, J. (1995). Outdoor education and troubled youth (Report). Charleston, West Virginia, United States of America: ERIC. Retrieved 19 June 2021.

Davis-Berman, J.; Berman, Dene S.; Capone, Lynn (1994). "Outdoor Experiential Therapies: Implications for TR Practice". Journal of Experiential Education. 17 (2): 49–53. doi:10.1177/105382599401700212. Retrieved 22 June 2021.

Dickens, J. C. (1999). Behavioral indicators of conduct disorder in a ropes course initiativ (PhD thesis). Cincinnati, Ohio, United States of America: The Union Institute. Retrieved 21 June 2021.

Ewert, A.; McCormick, B.; Voight, A. (2001). "Outdoor Experiential Therapies: Implications for TR Practice". 35 (2): 107–122. Retrieved 21 June 2021. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Fuentes, Honeymae Dano (2018). The exploration of adventure therapy: a qualitative study of helping professionals' perceptions (MSW thesis). California, United States of America: California State University. Retrieved 19 June 2021.

Glass, J. S. (1999). The relationship of participation in a low-element challenge course to adolescent's self reported perceptions of group cohesion (PhD thesis). Greensboro, North Carolina, United States of America: niversity of North Carolinae. Retrieved 21 June 2021.

Gass, M. A. (1993). Adventure therapy : therapeutic applications of adventure programming. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt. ISBN 9780840382726.

Jillis, H.L.; Simpson, C. A.; Martin, B. A. (1995). Final evaluation of project adventure's co-op program for court referred, drug involved youth (PDF) (Report). Retrieved 19 June 2021.

Schoel, Jim; Prouty, Dick; Radcliffe, Paul (1988). Islands of healing: a guide to adventure based counseling. Hamilton, Massachusetts, United States of America: Project Adventure.

Moote GT Jr, Wodarski JS. The acquisition of life skills through adventure-based activities and programs: a review of the literature. Adolescence. 1997 Spring;32(125):143-67. PMID: 9105498.

Jillis, H.L., Simpson, C. A., Thomsen, D. D., & Martin, B. A. (1995). Final evaluation of project adventure's co-op program for court referred, drug involved youth. Online.

Parker, M. W. (1992). Impact of adventure interventions of traditional counseling interventions (ropes course). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma.

Ziven, H. S. (1988) The effects of the challenge group treatment program on psychiatrically hospitalized adolescents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology, Massachusetts.

Cherkizovo

Infobox update:

Key people: Igor Babaev (Chairman of the Board of Directors 2005-2006), Evgeny Igorevich Mikhaylov (Chairman of the Board, Director of Business Development 2006-Present)

In May 2011, Cherkizovo completed the acquisition of 100% of Mosselprom, a company specializing in the production of poultry products. It costed Cherkizovo $252.9 million, of which $183.8 million was Mosselprom's debt. Part of the deal was paid for with shares of Cherkizovo itself.

In March 2014 ... tons per year).

References