I see you have been editing psychiatry-related, controversial articles. I wonder if you know that the views of secular critics of psychichiatry are VERY DIFFERENT to the views of religious or fringe groups. Our Weltanschauung is wholly different.
I will give you a couple of examples. Scientologists maintain that World War II, the Bosnia war and even September 11 were caused by psychiatrists; and that evil psychiatrists caused the universe’s mess trillions of years ago (see e.g., Space opera in Scientology doctrine). NOBODY I know in the psychiatric survivor movement, or in the critical literature by professionals that I have read, hold such views.
Please read the Antipsychiatry article and compare it with the Scientology and psychiatry and Psychiatry: An Industry of Death to see the big difference! 189.140.202.203 17:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
So I guess if I post here you can read it. Can others read it also? What if someone else sends me a message. Does it all stay on this page?
Thanks for that information by the way, there should be a Wiki article on the difference between Scientology and Antipsychiatry. It gets confusing. Szasz helped found the CCHR, did he not? I'm assuming he was a scientologist, has he broken from Scientology now?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Scuro ( talk • contribs)
When you talk of the ICSPP, Szasz, Scientology, Breggin, Baughman, Mindfreedom et al,...really you can say they are all different, and they are. Szasz denies he ever was a scientologist while Baughman works for them. Breggin may have been but not since the 70's. ICSPP is not linked with Scientology yet the CCHR is. One thing for certain, the message is basically the same when it comes to Psychology or Psychiatry. One may be more extreme but they all speak with the same voice. More interestingly, one creates content for the other, and the other broadcast it. It doesn't matter if the broadcaster or the content creator are affiliated to scientology or not. They share. They work together. They go to protests together. They show up at the same awards nights and fight the same battles. DO SSRI's make people commit suicide? You know which side the antipsychs and scientology are always going to be on...and that is the same side.
-- Scuro 05:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Scuro. I sense (and share) you frustration with Ombudsman's unilateral editing style on the Peter Breggin article. Unfortunately Ombudsman has a history in tendacious editing on subjects critical to medicine and psychiatry. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others. I urge you to continue to edit in a collaborative manner and do not resort to edit warring, instead leave me to deal with him. He is on an indefinate probations and "may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article concerning a medical subject which he disrupts by tendentious editing". He is well on his way towards that. and if he continues along these lines I will invoke that ruling.
In the meantime, would you mind considering reworking the new section on Columbine. As it is, I don't really understand the direct relevence to Breggin. The "infamous Colombine trial" is not sufficient to inform a non expert in the subject as to what you are talking about. The quote from the judge appear to me to be completely unrelated to Breggin. We also have to be careful of due balance in a WP:BLP, as the article is growing to the extent that the majority of it is examples of criticism of his credibility. While its important that these issues are mentioned, its also imperative that we don't pile on by listing every example of criticism. Thanks Rockpocke t 21:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
-- Scuro 23:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Peter Breggin responding: I still have no idea how to work in the system, but it is ridiculous to think that an expert like me would not attempt to obtain every bit of evidence possible in a case. In fact, I open every dialogue with an attorney with a request for everything. The lawyers in the Columbine case arrived late, were unable to obtain the discover, and I didn't even find out there was a roomful of evidence until I was asked about it by the defense in the deposition. Experts live at the mercy of the integrity and ability of the attorneys that hire us. I should be allowed to respond to each of the legal attacks on my own bio page. Meanwhile, I am unsure about how to communicate with you. Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterBreggin ( talk • contribs) 21:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution over at QW. Any new eyes looking over the discussion are appriciated. Shot info 08:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
You have put a lot of work into that. Sometimes it's nice when others see and recognize your efforts. The other guy is way off base. -- Scuro 17:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Seems like you are doing some good things around WP. I do wonder if you are a Scientologist with an ax to grind, however, I think you're contributions are overall helpful. Yeago 02:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I try to keep my posts very honest and add good things to Wiki. I have an extensive background in dealing with ADHD and hope to share some of that knowledge over time. Sure I have slant...a bias, and as you guessed I'm no fan of the Scientology or the Anti-Psych stance on ADHD. I couldn't care less about their religion. For the record, I've never had anything to do with Scientology. The trick for me is to get good information posted without inserting my bias. It's hard sometimes, because people get so emotional on this issue and other issues related to it, and your natural tendency is to respond in kind.
-- Scuro 03:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
After reading your talk page I have a Scientologist story to share with you. About 26 years ago I decided to visit ten religious institutions to compare their practices, symbols, and beliefs. I was a student at UCLA Graduate School at the time, on summer vacation. I went to a Temple, some Christian churches, a Mormon (LDS) church, a Scientology Center, and a talk by J. Krishnamurti.
Once some visitors at a house in Van Nuys in which I rented a room, as I found out later, were Scientologists. Surprisingly, I saw them about a month later when I visited the Scientology Center in Hollywood, California during a Friday night Open House, member recruitment event. I looked at their books. They called be into the office and quized me. I remember them asking if I felt "blocked." I said no. Later, as I sat in the big room, this woman I recognized, bursts out of a side room and announces to the room, "Hot damn, we made our quota." I didn't laugh. I never went back. Larry R. Holmgren 04:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to get your opinion on the drug if you don't mind. I enjoy your posts about it. I am not a huge wikipedia person and am not on it much. I was wondering if you are ever on AIM or yahoo or anything. Let me know. Thanks man, Rjkd12 15:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I have yahoo but don't really use it. Generally from reading the literature and personal observation I can confidently say that Ritalin/Contcerta works very well for those who have or had the hyperactive type of ADHD. Adderall does too but may also work a little better for those who are the "spacey" type of inattentive of ADHDers. It doesn't decrease all of your symptoms but generally helps you do better on tasks and have better focus. It won't make you smarter. Unfortunatly I don't know a lot about medication and you should ask your Dr. about this if you have ADHD.
-- Scuro 22:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Re your recent deletions in Antipsychiatry article, before editing again that section I recommend your reading of the many Scientology articles in Wikipedia. The citations don’t have to be external. Follow the internal WP links (and the others in the box at the right here) and you will find all the scientological doctrines referred to in the CCHR section.
— Cesar Tort 08:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Please, do not place your personal communications in main user pages.
If you want to post a personal message for me or any other WP user, do it in the talk pages (such as this one).
Thankyouverymuch!
— Cesar Tort 05:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
My error, I'm still learning the ropes to the structure of Wikipedia. My apologies to you. -- scuro 15:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Love your userpage; did you see Little Miss Sunshine? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess I will have to watch it now! -- scuro 17:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your link to Russell Barkley's lecture on ADHD. Very interesting. Lova Falk 17:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
No problems, his lecture style is conversational but loaded with information. -- scuro 17:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
I award you a barnstar for your hard work with sites on subjects like ADHD, SCT, mental illness, etc. These are all difficult subjects, because they easily give rise to controversy and personal opinions clouding the information, but I find you conscientious and friendly when dealing with this controversy. I really appreciate it! Lova Falk 08:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC) |
Please remember to mark your edits, as you did to Dextroamphetamine as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. It should not be used to un-do another person's edits as part of a content dispute. I have brought this to your attention before, when you removed disputed content and marked it as a minor change. [1] KonradG 16:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification Konrad. I will not make that mistake again. -- scuro 04:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a case that has you listed as one of the parties. It has recently been opened for discussion. Jac roe 19:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Amphetamine. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. KonradG 22:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Scuro - that's extremely kind! Thanks for your work on the article, too - I think some good stuff's coming out of the current sparring on the talk page. Nmg20 15:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd like you to please take note that there has been a new post in the ECT discussion area-right at the beginning as a matter of fact- reflecting another editor's intent to do a "major edit" of the ECT article, to reflect a "more realistic worldview".
I did not want to begin another editing war on here, however, it seemed to be in your best interest to have a head's up of coming attractions. I stumbled upon the info simply because I was reading about Hemingway's ECT treatment, and wanted to know more about ECT. Brattysoul ( talk) 04:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
that i am not a scientologist, far from it. im feeling a bit of a vibe on the talk page, and i wanted to clear that up. if you thought i was, i understand your paranoia.
that said, i *am* skeptical of psychiatry in general, and that is my POV. i consider ETC to be barbaric and haphazard, and while i refrain from interjecting such personal opinions into any of the articles i am involved in, please keep in mind that NPOV on controversial articles is achieved through the collaboration of opposing POVs. the line linking to shock therapy is relevant. i am not interested in pursuing an in-depth analysis of the very real controversy surrounding ECT, but a prominent, direct link to the article which details the history of these treaments is by no means unreasonable. -- PopeFauveXXIII 03:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, collaboration is the key. Defence of the inclusion of the history of shock therapy ( in the intro ) belongs on the talk page of ECT. I am open to what you have to say no matter what opinions we share or don't share.-- scuro 05:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Almost... done... Jac roe Blank 21:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
For his tireless resilience and contributions that have prevented scientific studies and articles from being misrepresented in electroconvulsive therapy, Scuro is hereby awarded the Barnstar of Diligence. Loodog 02:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC) |
Hi Scuro,
Let me tell you first that I appreciated your politeness after I told you that your suppression of my edit was "rude". After all, you had provided explanations. With your second edit your propose a neutral POV, a consensus and this, also, is appreciated. Concerning your point that Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder treatments is actually a more proper place, the point is well taken. However, I'd like to find the common denominator between our two edits and provide the explanations I did not provide in the first place; I think that some aspects of your editing, while not erroneous, are not neutral. But I don't want to start any long discussion on this, since I agree that it is not the place (the ADHD article) for that; I agree that Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder treatments is the place where such discussions should take place, if necessary.
But as it is, the ADHD article slightly misrepresents the scientific consensus on magnesium and omega-3 fatty acids in ADHD. You propose:
Certain supplements such as magnesium and omega-3 fatty acids have increasingly become popular and have recently been shown in a few studies to have some benefits with regards to ADHD symptoms.
It is true that supplements are gaining in popularity in the population (in non-specialists) and it is also true that magnesium and omega-3 fatty acids are especially popular. However, concerning those two nutrients (well, n-3 FAs are a class of nutrients, to be accurate) and only those two (for others, there might be a lack of consensus, I don't know), there is incontrovertible evidence that they are below normals in people with ADHD. You might have scientists who have an opinion on this and others who don't, but you won't find a scientist who questions that people who suffer from ADHD also lack magnesium and n-3 class fatty acids. Well, if somebody does find a scientist questioning these facts, it would be important to change the remarks on Mg and n-3 FAs in the “causes” section and remove the references, because that’s what they say.
By mentioning popularity, you (perhaps inadvertently) lead the reader to think that Mg and n-3 FAs may or may not be lacking in the brains of people with ADHD, and that it is a matter of personal choice on the part of lay persons to choose whether they should follow the popular trend or not, because science has nothing definitive to say about that. This might be true for other supplements, but it is not true of Mg and n-3 FAs.
Hence, popularity is not really relevant here. Could you perhaps rephrase your edit? I suggest :
It is increasingly recognized that n-3 fatty acids and magnesium are low in people with ADHD. Treatment was shown to have benefits with regards to ADHD symptoms.
You might wonder if my removing of “few” and “some” reveals a non-neutral point of view (“few studies ... some benefits with regards ...”).
When one says “x has benefits”, one’s not saying that it is a cure or the treatment of choice. There is no need to further emphasize this: in addition, consider the results with Mg (see reference, in the article), this is quite a good deal of improvement, although it is clearly not an invitation to Mg monotherapy! But I propose not to argue on this and just say “has benefits”, instead of “some benefits” vs, say, “remarkable benefits”. Concerning “few studies”, well, first, this might not be true, we’d have to check that (I can, my pleasure); second, a great number of studies can mean various things (uncertainty about the results, dose ranging research, search for interactions and side effects, or simply advertisement, attention-getting (a common complaint voiced by doctors, who say they are inundated by “new studies” that show little or no real improvements over other less expensive medications).
Typically, in the case of basic biochemical abnormalities, such as in this case, there is no need to prove more than once that normal levels are better than abnormal levels. Think about glucose in diabetes (TII) or potassium in dehydration-induced hypokalemia: we know that glucose and potassium are not causes, but part effects, part causes of some complications, IOW, part of the pathophysiology, but doctors and patients do try to manage these aspects of the problem (with a proper diet and, eventually, supplements)! In a similar manner, if Mg and n-3 FAs have physiological roles in glucose metabolism (Mg) and dopamine transmission (n-3 FAs), (clinical evidence will appear, if it’s not already there, in the ADHD treatment page) and if those factors are demonstrated aspects of the pathophysiology of ADHD (see the “causes” section), then, well, all that remains is to quantify the improvements, explain further in what manner it is relevant to therapy, how the treatment of the deficiency potentiates other useful therapies such as stimulants or psychotherapy or how it addresses comorbidities (such as obesity and drug abuse, which also benefit from Mg and n-3 FAs).
With all this said, if we consider my earlier version:
Since people with ADHD lack magnesium and omega-3 fatty acids, and considering the role of magnesium and omega-3 fatty acids in neural function, the treatment of those deficiencies is warranted.[43][44][47]
For my personal benefit, I’d welcome more specific criticisms. I am convinced that you’re not alone feeling that there’s something wrong. But what?
I’ll certainly award you a second diligence medal if you do that!
Your colleague, Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 01:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Scuro! The Underdiscussion tag isn't to be used in the main namespace, on actual encyclopedia articles. It's only meant for behind the scenes articles, like on Wikipedia policies, and such, when those articles are under discussion for changes or improvements. Take care, justen 02:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
You tagged Causes of mental illness with one of the Weasel tags incorrectly. I'm presuming you mean to tag the section as a whole. If you meant to tag the article use {{weasel|date=August 2007}}; if the words inline with the text, use {{weasel-inline}}. Hope that helps ... happy editing! David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍) 17:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Scuro. Sorry it took so long to get back to you. I was away from my computer for a few days.
My problem with the Dextroamphetamine discussion is that I have absolutely no idea what the paragraph means. My second problem is that I can't make out what the difference is between what KonradG is saying and what you are saying. I am a Biochemist, not a Pharmacolgist, but I would expect to be able to read a paragraph like that and understand the point that is being made. I don't. I suggest you completely re-write the paragraph, and put it on the talk page first, along the lines of "a and b say that giving dextroamphetamine long-term is bad because x, while c and d say it's okay because y." Then at least we'll know what the problem is and we can work together to find a consensus view.
You can respond to me here if you want. I'll be watching. Scolaire 08:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Dear Scuro, please do not delete such large sections of referenced text without discussing it on the Talk page. I appreciate that you mentioned WP:UNDUE in the edit summary, but this guideline often requires some degree of interpretation and discussion. Of course, I'm hopeful that you are approaching your bold edit as a WP:BRD and will readily shift to discussion. Thanks muchly, HG | Talk 03:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi scuro. You asked about why the Psychiatric abuse article is up again. There was a process to review the deletion. WP:DRV. They decided to restore it and put it up again for another AfD. HG | Talk 23:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Scuro, you are technically in breach of the three revert rule (having reverted chemical imbalance 4 times), and if you continue to edit in this manner, you could be blocked from editing by an administrator. This message serves as a warning to you. -- Limegreen 13:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The page is now protected until disputes are resolved on the talk page. Voice-of-All 20:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Convulsive therapy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Convulsive therapy. Thank you. Nmg20 ( talk) 12:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Please don't insult the vandals – [2]. Thank you for your contributions and happy editing! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, as you have reverted my attempt at separating what I believe are overlapping but distinct terms, could please explain why you dont think they are distinct enough to warrant separate pages. See Talk:Chemical_imbalance#converted_to_dab_page. John Vandenberg ( talk) 00:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey sir. I know you've had an opinion before on the existence of a controversy section over at Psychiatry. Even after the article rewrite and integration of certain points, an editor has expressed interest in reintroducing this section into the article. I would really appreciate it if you could let me know your thoughts as to whether it should or shouldn't be included as the article is written now. Let me know at Talk:Psychiatry#Should we reintroduce "Controversy" section?. Thanks so much for your time. Chupper ( talk) 19:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I added a Withdrawal section to Dextroamphetamines, I see you have indicated a layout for this page (as required by a pharmaceutical template). I may be able to help you re-organise this page if you wish, under the given guidelines. Are you sure this is the intended layout? I see that you did notice some crucial missing areas of interest that need to be addressed (withdrawal probably being the key area). I will check other pharmaceutical pages for confirmation of your suggestions. -- TeChNoWC ( talk) 13:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. I have responded in the talk section of the article. -- scuro ( talk) 16:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Majority or minority have nothing to do with this. I have restored the edits you removed from the 'ADHD' entry. Scientific truth is established through objective experimentation, repeatable results reviewed by peers, and through the ability to predict accurately, not by a majority vote, always assuming any such vote had ever been taken, which it hasn't. At present, no objective scientific proof exists of the existence of 'ADHD', and no objective test is made in its diagnosis. 'ADHD' has many scientific and medical critics. It is deeply misleading for an encyclopaedia entry to present such a contentious diagnosis as if it were established fact. The reader must be allowed to make his or her own mind up. Please do not revert these edits. I have not deleted anything or destroyed anything, merely altered the language to ensure that the reader is aware of the controversy. To delete this is censorship of an important fact. Peter Hitchens signed in as Clockback ( talk) 22:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Majority viewpoint has everything to do with your edits. Please look at WP:UNDUE. You misunderstand what majority viewpoint means, more on the talk page of ADHD. -- scuro ( talk) 05:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey Scuro - when I referred to 'utter nonsense' I didn't mean your comment and didn't want to revert a revert and get into a mess, just wanted you to know that. I am going to 'step away from the computer though' so best luck in sorting things out, even though we don't always agree! Miamomimi ( talk) 12:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, would you have a look at the discussion there? Thanks. Voice-of-All 03:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I reverted your reversion to remove that paragraph. It was out of place in treatments so I copied it to a section above but forgot to delete it where it came from. My last edit which you reverted was to delete the original. Sifaka talk 02:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of debate on validity or terms concerning ADHD. I would highly recommend looking at publications by the American Psychiatric Association and its subgroup the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. I found a recent July 2007 publication which basically sums up the consensus on ADH and treatments. The APA and the AACAP are the proverbial 800 lb gorillas and represent the mainstream view. If something comes into direct conflict with what they say, I would be very hesitant about it. They link lots of good studies (and use the term "neurobiological" to describe ADHD). While it won't prevent the fringe elements from adding unwarranted support for non-mainstream beliefs, the article it gives an extremely convenient source to check if they are going against mainstream thought on the matter and if so then revert with confidence.
The problem with scientific papers in such an well studied topic is that you get a lot off poorly designed, conflicted-interest research that goes against mainstream and a whole bunch of salesmen looking to make a buck who disseminate flawed or fabricated results. Most people (including major news outlets too) can't tell the difference between a hack paper and an excellent, well researched paper. The APA and AACAP wade through all the garbage and only use the best designed experiments to report only the best supported findings. Hope my mini rant helps... Sifaka talk 02:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been a bit stretched in other areas of Wikipedia and haven't been able to be as active as I would like on the ADHD talk pages. Aside from Peter and what's-his-name popping up every few months, are there any particular concerns I should be aware of? -- Ned Scott 07:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
At some point the controversy issue will be put to bed. Keep an eye on the page, your input when that time comes would be appreciated.-- scuro ( talk) 05:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Scuro, just popped by to say I've got some citations together that I hope will be of some use but I've a bit more reading to do so please bear with me, I haven't forgotton. Regards, Miamomimi ( talk) 14:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the update, take your time and get the best citations. -- scuro ( talk) 15:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Scuro, I responded to all your comments on my Talk page, but I have now deleted them, as I realized that repeatedly posting warnings without specificity was harassment, per WP:HUSH, particularly the whole latest example, "Don't be a dick." Be advised, do not continue it, or you could be blocked. -- Abd ( talk) 06:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
That's an impressive little warning you created there Abd. To bad it has nothing to do with reality. If you need to block me, go for it. If you need to delete my warnings off of your talk page, be my guest. Sense a bitter tone? Guess who is the cause. All if forgiven if you can play the nice way as per Wiki guidelines. Continue with your negative feedback and what may be the start of stalking behaviour, and I will take the time to document everything.-- scuro ( talk) 11:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, time for one more warning. Scuro, you restored content to my Talk page which I had removed, in violation of policy. Don't edit war on a user talk page, it will get you blocked. If you need to refer to such content, use diffs. From WP:HUSH, "Placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing 'suspected sockpuppet' and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a common form of harassment." There is an essay which repeats this more explicitly: Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments. -- Abd ( talk) 04:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
You deleted on the grounds that I didn't cite my complaints. I provided them with restored text. Apparently you were not really interested in the citations because you deleted them also. The deleted text from your talk page is below. -- scuro ( talk) 06:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Fourth warning and citations from removed first warning -(title to new post) Once again Abd you make talk personal. You are supposed to stick to content but nearly every post strays onto the topic of me. Here is the cited text from today.
please stop - (title and content of first removed thread from Abd talk page)
(Newly added citations to support claim, are added below)
-- scuro ( talk) 03:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
This is *highly* offensive if the material is not vandalism or the like. From Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments: Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission. (emphasis from the original). This is with reference to your edits [3] [4]. -- Abd ( talk) 05:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The definitive way is to check the list at Special:Listusers/sysop, but I can tell you that he is not an administrator. Administrators are expected to be role models, so not to fall into the do as I say, not as I do problem. Therefore they are generally held to a higher standard. However, since they are also asked to deal with problematic behaviour, sometimes they need to comment on the contributor.
I have had a look at the talk pages you mentioned and what I see is two editors, both of whom appear to have the interests of the project at heart, but have got drawn into a battle of words that has got a little too personal. I think you both need to take a step back and look at each other's points about content with fresh eyes. Have a read of WP:JACK and see if you can follow that dictum. If you feel that the situation is too personalised then WP:MEDCAB or WP:MEDIATION might be a option to consider. Rockpocke t 22:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I once wrote a "personaly policy", if you will, regarding criticism or controversy sections. It hasn't been updated for awhile, and remember, although it discuss Wiki policies, it isn't policy in and of it self. Hope it is what you were looking for. Let me know if you have any questions.
Chupper ( talk) 15:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Scuro, sorry I couldn't get back to you this morning my net link went down. I hear what you're saying re: Abd and agree that I've had some difficulty myself. I am generally reluctant to proceed to formal complaint, but realise this is sometimes necessary. However I would much rather resolve issues amicably and I wonder if you are still having problems? Miamomimi ( talk) 21:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Scuro, I noticed the request to participate in a discussion below and would tell you that I concur with your comments. Miamomimi ( talk) 20:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Please take part at this discussion. Yellowbeard ( talk) 10:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I saw your comment and I left a request/query in response. -- A. B. (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Scuro - I have SO had enough of Abd and his guesses as what motivates my every move on Wikipedia. Basically I'm between leaving and formal complaint. Have you seen his comments
here? I so wish I hadn't had anything to do with that discussion; anything involving Abd eventually ends in this incredibly insulting irritation. I can only agree with one contributor in the discussion who coined it:
Is your offer to do this still open as I've had enough? See my comments on the discussion page, if he responds I want to proceed to formal complaint. Miamomimi ( talk) 18:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
On 19:40, 25 February 2008 User:ShadowCreatorII posted this comment on Talk:Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: controversies. I ( User:Sifaka) removed the comment from the article talk page and left this message on User talk:ShadowCreatorII.
On 01:45, 29 February 2008, User:ShadowCreatorII posted this message on Talk:Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: controversies. I removed it and left this message at User talk:ShadowCreatorII. I informed him that I would notify you. The most important thing to do is avoid escalating matters. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution may be a useful resource. Sifaka talk 03:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Ss06470 has tried our patience, and I was thinking about leaving a note on WP:AN/I about him after reading his response to me tonight. However, lumping Abd in with him really isn't a good idea. Abd is just trying to be objective, and I don't think it was ever his intention to help Ss06470 make personal attacks, but rather tell him out to retract them. I really don't want to see this dispute between you and Abd get any more heated, and little good will come from this. -- Ned Scott 05:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This section was not relevant to the the discussion page so I removed and and pasted it here. The talk page of the article is supposed to be used to discuss the content of an article and how it may be improved, not to debate potential dispute interventions. As a personal opinion, this may create a lot more controversy than it's worth. Sifaka talk 06:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I like many of you have a life. I have a job, kids, and a wife. I edit Wikipedia in my free time and I don't like to be abused when I do so. Contrary to popular belief, I do not get paid to do anything on Wikipedia. But enough about me.
Ss064707 has been warned four times not to personally abuse contributors on Wiki by three different editors.
He has clearly been told why this is not appropriate yet he continues to do so. Today he posted this.
User
Abd, has in fact, instructed Ss064707 how to personally attack me and others. Here he gives an example of how to do it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ss06470#second_warning.2C_no_personal_attacks
User
Abd refuses to let bygones be bygones even though the olive branch has been extended by several users many times. He actively tries to control other editors. Abd has been warned countless times to focus on content.
The question I have for your folks is why must we take this night after night? If I lodge a complaint now, will you publicly support it? Please respond to this post if you will. ~~----
Scuro, I still think this dispute between you and Abd is some sort of misunderstanding and/or both of you over-reacting to each other. And I certainly don't believe that Abd's advice to Ss064707 was to help him make personal attacks, but was only instructing him on how to retract ones already made. That in itself is a prime example of the misunderstandings I speak of.
As for Ss064707, yes, I too have gotten tired of his soapboxing rants and personal attacks, but that's an issue that can be easily dealt with via a report to WP:AN/I, if it gets that far. -- Ned Scott 06:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
For some time I have thought that the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas article is not neutral, mainly because it gives undue weight to human emissions, and neglects to mention virtually any information about natural sources of GHGs. I attempted some edits, which are as expected being resisted by the articles authors. The problem is that I am stuck in a ridiculous situation where the authors refuse to acknowledge that the dispute about neutrality even exists, repeatedly removing the POV tag from the article despite the fact that I am obviously disputing it. Another editor has reinserted the POV tag, also to have it removed, and a third editor has raised the same issues as I am basing my POV dispute on but the authors of the page still refuse to have the tag on it.
Repeatedly linking to wiki policy on NPOV disputes and quoting sections about not removing the POV tag simply because you disagree with it hasn't helped. I am being threatened with the 3RR if I add the tag again. I am not asking for you to put the tag back up for me (unless you also think that the article is not neutral) but have come to you for an outsiders input after reading the dispute resolution page. I am trying to keep the argument about the addition/removal of the POV tag, rather than being drawn into arguments about global warming. Restepc ( talk) 18:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I wish I had the time but don't. I can't keep up with the few articles that I actively edit. Have you tried http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution ? -- scuro ( talk) 08:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
That's how I ended up here, you were to be a 3rd opinion....actually now that I think about it you were to be the 5th opinion, the 3rd and 4th agreeing with me but it not making any difference, an Admin has turned up on the page now and hopefully it'll get sorted so no worries, thanks for your reply Restepc ( talk) 09:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not admin so if you got one on your page you have more then I could ever give you. If things look entirely hopeless and you have exhausted every avenue I can give you what little support I can offer.-- scuro ( talk) 21:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello. So, we know a little about each other. But I'd like to talk more informally.
I know from your user page that you have experience with people with mental illness. You also seem to have a positive outcome bias, a type of confirmation bias, in favor of electroshock. I know I'm not free of bias either. I have a negative outcome bias about the subject. I want to talk about our opinions about ECT.
All I know about your experience is what you wrote on your talk page. My experience is that a friend of mine received over 10 involuntary electroshocks at a public hospital in 2006. She was twenty something. She told the staff that after only the first shock, it felt like rape. Her side effects included amnesia, a headache, and a jawache. She forgot the names of some of the staff. However, they continued to shock her, as if stupefying her would make her happy or as if control of her behavior was most important. At one point, she tried to stop the next shock by eating before the shock, because it is unsafe to have swallowed food before the sedation. The staff watched her swallow part of a napkin. They shocked her anyway. Afterward, she was taken to the emergency room because her breathing was abnormal. Being smart, she finally manipulated the confirmation bias of the staff, pretended to get happier, even though she felt assaulted, and they let her go. Now she has posttraumatic stress disorder as a consequence of the treatment.
Since then, I have heard from many people with similar experience with electroshock. Perhaps it helped some people in the short term, but there are harrowing long term effects. I believe there is a better solution than electroshock. I have also heard of a lawsuit being planned about one of the cases.
I don't claim that mental illnesses are unreal. But involuntary psychiatric treatment often makes people's conditions worse. There is even evidence that it contributes to school shootings.
Also, if a patient wants electroshock, I approve. But the fact that it causes people cognitive detriments, such as even just short term amnesia, implies that it is causing harm to the nervous system. For comparison, I think people have the right to smoke in open areas, but I think it's unsafe. And just because doctors say electroshock is safe doesn't prove it. Back in the 1940s, doctors told pregnant women and soldiers that they should smoke to relax themselves. Smoking is unsafe and the doctors were incorrect in their evaluation of it. I feel that the medical mainstream is also wrong about electroshock. I believe that in the future people will discover proof of its unsafety.
So, I'd like to know your thoughts and, if you are willing, more about your experience with the mentally ill.
Chris Dubey ( talk) 19:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC).
Hi Chris,
A cousin who I rarely see had it and I know of a family friend of my mother who had it. From what I have heard, it was a positive experience for both but then again, I've never asked either one personal questions about it. There is a lot of personal testimony describing ECT, Kitty Dukakis comes to mind. Personal stories are interesting but of little use for articles like this one in Wikipedia.
The article was a mess before with many instances of blatant bias, and really that is how I got involved. I can't stand misinformation, in the end I had to research this topic extensively. As long as this article confirms to majority or minority viewpoint I have no problem to changes. Make sure you use good sources...also be careful with your assumptions. For example, do all patients experience cognitive detriments?...and do all all forms of ECT cause cognitive detriments? Also is involuntary ECT ALWAYS a bad thing? I'm don't feel that strongly about the issue but I can tell you it is not a black and white issue. The best thing wikipedia can do for it's readers is to offer good info with excellent citations.-- scuro ( talk) 21:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
A
proposed deletion template has been added to the article
Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Nmg20 ( talk) 10:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Adding wed pages is not sufficient. See the talk page were I have outlined proper ways to formate your references.
Talk:Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder
Doc James ( talk) 16:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
You jest, are you telling me that the Mayo Clinic webpage citation is not a good enough reference. Explain in detail. -- scuro ( talk) 10:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
There are two issues. One is reference style and the other is reference source.
Wikipedia has specific style guidelines for medical pages. If you look at any of the featured articles in medicine you will notice a consistent formating style for references. {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}}, etc.
The second issue is with respect to the source. We want to us peer reviewed sources over none peer reviewed ones. So added a url to the mayo clinic web page is not sufficient and I am not even one of the more picky editors when it comes to ref style.
Doc James ( talk) 18:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Scuro - saw your note on ADHD talk. I've already asked that editor to slow down - see [ [5]] and related reply [ [6]]. I for one can't keep up with the pace of edits so will just wait for him to stop and then go back over the page to check that it is still looking reasonable at a later point. The notion of collaborative editing does not seem to be valued highly at this point. -- Vannin ( talk) 05:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with your latest change to the amphetamine article. Mostly I disagree on the point that the version prior to your edit was more POV-prone than your own edit. The withdrawal effects in question can be experienced from both use (as determined by physician) and abuse (e.g. exceeding physician prescribed amount or other illicit use). When a person that is unfamiliar with the topic reads that sentence, he or she may interpret "abuse" as the popular characterization of usage that leads to absolutely uncontrollable dependence. This person may then think, "Okay. So long as I don't go overboard I will not experience this"; or "so long as I take as much as my physician prescribed I will not experience these things". "Abuse" is a far more subjective term than is "use" when applying popular definitions as used in more casual contexts. I would prefer it if you would reconsider your edit.
Also, I would like to ask you something peripherally related. A few weeks ago I found a study where chimpanzees were given doses of pharmaceutical amphetamine (e.g. Adderall) over 4 weeks, 6 days/week, at .1 to 1 mg per kg body weight. The study concluded that permanent cognitive damage was caused from this short-term administration of low doses of amphetamine. Have you maybe come across this study or similar ones where the short-term low dosage effects were studied? Thanks. XJeanLuc ( talk) 02:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with you. The term abuse clearly defines what causes the reaction, and takes therapeutic use out of the picture. If you have some citations that prove otherwise I would be interested in seeing them. With regards to the monkey studies, I have read a number of these studies. Most often they are looking at the effects of drug abuse. The key here is that the drug is injected. You certainly can't compare injected doses with oral doses, both as equal in dosage and equal in outcome. Injected drugs make it to the brain at maximum dosage in seconds. Compare that to ingesting. The ingested drug reaches peak levels after 1/2 an hour and stay near that level for about 21/2 hours. The injected drug wears off quickly and a crash occurs. Therapeutic drugs find the right dosage for benefit and stay there. Injected drugs find the right high..which needs to be constantly increased.-- scuro ( talk) 05:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
A study like that would have caught my eye! Let me know if you find it. -- scuro ( talk) 11:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Scuro. I posted on your talk page before (under my normal user name) and have gone through some of your older posts. I think that you probably would be able to answer a very personal and specific question that I have about amphetamine use. I do not have a knowledgeable person that I can turn to for this - even my physician could not give me a straight answer. I would greatly appreciate it if you would let me ask you my question. I can post it here or onto an email account. If you don't want to answer it here, I could email save it in a yahoo email account, give you the account password, and then you could answer it there. I really need help in trying to make sense of my situation. Thanks. Ytrewqxqwerty ( talk) 10:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Yt, a possibly inappropriate question?...hmm. I'm going to direct you to forum where a lot smarter people then me hang out. Some of them have impressive letters behind their names. You can post directly, I've seen all sorts of questions asked and you will get the viewpoint of several people. This forum is a caring forum. http://www.addforums.com/forums/index.php -- scuro ( talk) 02:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey Scuro
I can give you a one month access to uptodate and lexi drugs. Both these programs are continually updated and will give you access to the stuff I gave you. All I need is an email address. They have some great pages on ADHD and every other medical disorder you can think of. The pages are all extensively referenced to the literature and written by world renowned experts in the fields.
It is not good form to ref directly to Uptodate though as the general public doesn't have good access to it. But you can use it to find good references to other literature.
-- Doc James ( talk) 20:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey Scuro
You are a disruptive editor. And as it says on the ANI you need to have a close eye kept on you. I recommend you stop your disruptive behavior and stop pushing you fringe point of view. You do not seem to have any true desire to discuss the issues at hand or work together. This has been sited by a number of editors not just myself. You are trying to control the content and POV of the article.
-- Doc James ( talk) 12:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Have been looking at the above comments. Seems like lots of other editors have been having similar problems with your edits on many other pages. Seems like you are trying to control a whole bunch of pages.
-- Doc James ( talk) 12:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Doc James, you can frame it any way you want, but anyone who looks seriously at this issue will not agree with you. No editor of any standing is backing your ANI complaint, or your viewpoint on the village pump, which was that webpages can't be a source of info to be cited. Speaking of control, editors should look at the edit history on the ADHD. Clearly there is an editor trying to control everything, resorting to edit warring, and it ain't me.
Finally I do stick with a few pages and usually they are controversial mental health issues. These pages come under frequent attack and they take up all of my time here on Wikipedia. I am very proud that in the end these pages usually stay balanced. I welcome you to assume good faith and to build consensus. Any time that you are ready, we can begin. I will note that I am no longer going to tolerate personal attacks such as your post above. Times up, you have been given plenty of chances to follow wiki policy on behaviour.-- scuro ( talk) 16:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
This is a NICE guideline that speaks extensively about the ADHD controversy aswell as every other aspect of ADHD. http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/CG72FullGuideline.pdf
It is current Sept 2008. It is published by a major group of medical scientists and physicians at all the best academic centers in the UK, and has strong backing from the UK government.
I think as you said above that we can finally put this controversy to rest. Happy editing.
-- Doc James ( talk) 14:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi there Scuro!
| |
---|---|
Please accept this invite to join the Good Article Collaboration Center, a project aimed at improving articles to GA status while working with other users. We hope to see you there! |
I'd love to. But too many pages are being modified in a major ways, in an uncolaborative manner. My time here is sucked up by such people. When "order" is a top priority at Wikiland, editors like myself would have more free time. I've made a request for a medcab on the ADHD page. 6 days later and no mediator has stepped forward.-- scuro ( talk) 04:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey Scuro Any interest in a truce? Not sure if that is possible and even though this continuing warring is fun it can get a bit tiresome at time. I would prefer to concentrate on content rather then this.
I however will not let this article become completely unbalanced as it was before I arrived. I think we can all agree that the controversy is real as it is backed up by many very good references. If you think that enough positive assertions about ADHD and its treatment are missing then I recommend you add more well reference source.
Doc James ( talk) 18:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
James, you seem to be an intelligent and concerned contributor who knows how to find information and assess information. Your just the type of contributor that wikipeida is looking for, although up to date, the behaviour needs significant improvement. Truce would have to come on terms that I have been asking for all along. Make that offer on the med cab and I'll certainly consider it and do it totally in good faith. I will continue to go "up the ladder" until this is resolved so if you do want to reach a truce I'd suggest that we work on that in an urgent manner. An immediate sign of good faith would be to place the POV tag that was recently stripped three times, back on the article.-- scuro ( talk) 20:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Doc James ( talk) 13:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Please be advised that continued edit warring may result in being blocked from editing on Wikipedia. You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- Doc James ( talk) 17:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC) 16:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I think all efforts have been made and the attitude still has not changed. The RFC sure makes sense. I do not have experience with the process either, but will do whatever I can. -- Vannin ( talk) 02:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
lower-case all "OWN WORDS" will help. Also, sock accusations are pretty big, so I suggest you add it more as a footnote ("some concern"). Xavexgoem ( talk) 15:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice, much appreciated.-- scuro ( talk) 19:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
A few things, very brief, I am at work and busy. My job is so pesky when I'd rather spend time on WP. <gr>
This is the first message. All I did upon arriving at your page was click the option to "Leave me a new message" . Hope it works well for you.
Mark, I have to admit I don't really know what this box does besides allow you to post a new thread without opening up the whole page and go to the bottom to post. -- scuro ( talk) 23:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Scuro,
I would second Vaoverland's suggestion to partially step back with JMH. He is hitting out and getting nasty at the moment, and others will see this for what it is. Rebutting the things that he is saying will be coming down to his level. If the RFC does not work then there are other things that can be done, and these can be explored later. -- Vannin ( talk) 21:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I hope the new Talk box is working out for you. Please read the recent additions on my talk page, so you can stay up to date on where I stand. Best wishes, Vaoverland ( talk) 06:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Both you and Vannin talk about not getting personal then you insult my academic institution and my friends which is they same as insulting me.
For example in the last day you imply stuff such as "we all know better" "any one with a basic understanding of scientific methodology would understand all of this". This is not dealing with content. You then comment on my talk page: "You are new, we are forgiving." I do not need to be patronized
How is this not insulting? You have continued with these petty insults all trough out the ANI, the mediation, and now the RfC. I was very accommodating to your questions when we started but this has become very frustrated.
I was and am open to mediation but the real issues which is content and what is considered a reasonable reference has never been dealt with or addressed
Doc James ( talk) 06:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Informal mediation has already been tried, so the next step would be Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. This would concern article content, not user behavior. Meanwhile, how about suspending the issue of user behavior? There is no deadline and either of you (or anyone else) can address that issue later, if you wish. -- Una Smith ( talk) 21:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
don't worry about future steps until they're at your front door (pun totally intended)
:-)
Xavexgoem ( talk) 00:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Scuro I completely agree that we need to deal with content. I would also prefer that insult of my institution are not made without proper references. When one claims something like "the TI is an antipharm group" one should reference it to a credible source. Other wise it is not really dealing with content. It is making insults of people that some of us here know. When I added info that Dr. Barkleys takes money from pharmaceutical companies I referenced this.
Also as I mentioned to your freind ICBSeverywhere if you want to disagree with the comments of the TI then find resources that say the safety of stimulants has been determined by randomized controlled trials for what ever lenght your source say, then reference the source. Or write that a case study of 200 kids or whatever it was didn't find any safety concerns up to five years. This is how scientific discourse takes place. One deals with content rather then insulting the authors of papers.
Hope we can make progress on these issues. -- Doc James ( talk) 06:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Here is a 2001 study Schachter HM, Pham B, King J, Langford S, Moher D (2001).
"How efficacious and safe is short-acting methylphenidate for the treatment of attention-deficit disorder in children and adolescents? A meta-analysis". CMAJ. 165 (11): 1475–88.
PMC
81663.
PMID
11762571. {{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
The NICE guildlines touch on it aswell.
I see you have been editing psychiatry-related, controversial articles. I wonder if you know that the views of secular critics of psychichiatry are VERY DIFFERENT to the views of religious or fringe groups. Our Weltanschauung is wholly different.
I will give you a couple of examples. Scientologists maintain that World War II, the Bosnia war and even September 11 were caused by psychiatrists; and that evil psychiatrists caused the universe’s mess trillions of years ago (see e.g., Space opera in Scientology doctrine). NOBODY I know in the psychiatric survivor movement, or in the critical literature by professionals that I have read, hold such views.
Please read the Antipsychiatry article and compare it with the Scientology and psychiatry and Psychiatry: An Industry of Death to see the big difference! 189.140.202.203 17:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
So I guess if I post here you can read it. Can others read it also? What if someone else sends me a message. Does it all stay on this page?
Thanks for that information by the way, there should be a Wiki article on the difference between Scientology and Antipsychiatry. It gets confusing. Szasz helped found the CCHR, did he not? I'm assuming he was a scientologist, has he broken from Scientology now?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Scuro ( talk • contribs)
When you talk of the ICSPP, Szasz, Scientology, Breggin, Baughman, Mindfreedom et al,...really you can say they are all different, and they are. Szasz denies he ever was a scientologist while Baughman works for them. Breggin may have been but not since the 70's. ICSPP is not linked with Scientology yet the CCHR is. One thing for certain, the message is basically the same when it comes to Psychology or Psychiatry. One may be more extreme but they all speak with the same voice. More interestingly, one creates content for the other, and the other broadcast it. It doesn't matter if the broadcaster or the content creator are affiliated to scientology or not. They share. They work together. They go to protests together. They show up at the same awards nights and fight the same battles. DO SSRI's make people commit suicide? You know which side the antipsychs and scientology are always going to be on...and that is the same side.
-- Scuro 05:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Scuro. I sense (and share) you frustration with Ombudsman's unilateral editing style on the Peter Breggin article. Unfortunately Ombudsman has a history in tendacious editing on subjects critical to medicine and psychiatry. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others. I urge you to continue to edit in a collaborative manner and do not resort to edit warring, instead leave me to deal with him. He is on an indefinate probations and "may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article concerning a medical subject which he disrupts by tendentious editing". He is well on his way towards that. and if he continues along these lines I will invoke that ruling.
In the meantime, would you mind considering reworking the new section on Columbine. As it is, I don't really understand the direct relevence to Breggin. The "infamous Colombine trial" is not sufficient to inform a non expert in the subject as to what you are talking about. The quote from the judge appear to me to be completely unrelated to Breggin. We also have to be careful of due balance in a WP:BLP, as the article is growing to the extent that the majority of it is examples of criticism of his credibility. While its important that these issues are mentioned, its also imperative that we don't pile on by listing every example of criticism. Thanks Rockpocke t 21:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
-- Scuro 23:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Peter Breggin responding: I still have no idea how to work in the system, but it is ridiculous to think that an expert like me would not attempt to obtain every bit of evidence possible in a case. In fact, I open every dialogue with an attorney with a request for everything. The lawyers in the Columbine case arrived late, were unable to obtain the discover, and I didn't even find out there was a roomful of evidence until I was asked about it by the defense in the deposition. Experts live at the mercy of the integrity and ability of the attorneys that hire us. I should be allowed to respond to each of the legal attacks on my own bio page. Meanwhile, I am unsure about how to communicate with you. Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterBreggin ( talk • contribs) 21:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution over at QW. Any new eyes looking over the discussion are appriciated. Shot info 08:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
You have put a lot of work into that. Sometimes it's nice when others see and recognize your efforts. The other guy is way off base. -- Scuro 17:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Seems like you are doing some good things around WP. I do wonder if you are a Scientologist with an ax to grind, however, I think you're contributions are overall helpful. Yeago 02:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I try to keep my posts very honest and add good things to Wiki. I have an extensive background in dealing with ADHD and hope to share some of that knowledge over time. Sure I have slant...a bias, and as you guessed I'm no fan of the Scientology or the Anti-Psych stance on ADHD. I couldn't care less about their religion. For the record, I've never had anything to do with Scientology. The trick for me is to get good information posted without inserting my bias. It's hard sometimes, because people get so emotional on this issue and other issues related to it, and your natural tendency is to respond in kind.
-- Scuro 03:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
After reading your talk page I have a Scientologist story to share with you. About 26 years ago I decided to visit ten religious institutions to compare their practices, symbols, and beliefs. I was a student at UCLA Graduate School at the time, on summer vacation. I went to a Temple, some Christian churches, a Mormon (LDS) church, a Scientology Center, and a talk by J. Krishnamurti.
Once some visitors at a house in Van Nuys in which I rented a room, as I found out later, were Scientologists. Surprisingly, I saw them about a month later when I visited the Scientology Center in Hollywood, California during a Friday night Open House, member recruitment event. I looked at their books. They called be into the office and quized me. I remember them asking if I felt "blocked." I said no. Later, as I sat in the big room, this woman I recognized, bursts out of a side room and announces to the room, "Hot damn, we made our quota." I didn't laugh. I never went back. Larry R. Holmgren 04:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to get your opinion on the drug if you don't mind. I enjoy your posts about it. I am not a huge wikipedia person and am not on it much. I was wondering if you are ever on AIM or yahoo or anything. Let me know. Thanks man, Rjkd12 15:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I have yahoo but don't really use it. Generally from reading the literature and personal observation I can confidently say that Ritalin/Contcerta works very well for those who have or had the hyperactive type of ADHD. Adderall does too but may also work a little better for those who are the "spacey" type of inattentive of ADHDers. It doesn't decrease all of your symptoms but generally helps you do better on tasks and have better focus. It won't make you smarter. Unfortunatly I don't know a lot about medication and you should ask your Dr. about this if you have ADHD.
-- Scuro 22:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Re your recent deletions in Antipsychiatry article, before editing again that section I recommend your reading of the many Scientology articles in Wikipedia. The citations don’t have to be external. Follow the internal WP links (and the others in the box at the right here) and you will find all the scientological doctrines referred to in the CCHR section.
— Cesar Tort 08:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Please, do not place your personal communications in main user pages.
If you want to post a personal message for me or any other WP user, do it in the talk pages (such as this one).
Thankyouverymuch!
— Cesar Tort 05:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
My error, I'm still learning the ropes to the structure of Wikipedia. My apologies to you. -- scuro 15:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Love your userpage; did you see Little Miss Sunshine? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess I will have to watch it now! -- scuro 17:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your link to Russell Barkley's lecture on ADHD. Very interesting. Lova Falk 17:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
No problems, his lecture style is conversational but loaded with information. -- scuro 17:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
I award you a barnstar for your hard work with sites on subjects like ADHD, SCT, mental illness, etc. These are all difficult subjects, because they easily give rise to controversy and personal opinions clouding the information, but I find you conscientious and friendly when dealing with this controversy. I really appreciate it! Lova Falk 08:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC) |
Please remember to mark your edits, as you did to Dextroamphetamine as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. It should not be used to un-do another person's edits as part of a content dispute. I have brought this to your attention before, when you removed disputed content and marked it as a minor change. [1] KonradG 16:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification Konrad. I will not make that mistake again. -- scuro 04:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a case that has you listed as one of the parties. It has recently been opened for discussion. Jac roe 19:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Amphetamine. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. KonradG 22:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Scuro - that's extremely kind! Thanks for your work on the article, too - I think some good stuff's coming out of the current sparring on the talk page. Nmg20 15:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd like you to please take note that there has been a new post in the ECT discussion area-right at the beginning as a matter of fact- reflecting another editor's intent to do a "major edit" of the ECT article, to reflect a "more realistic worldview".
I did not want to begin another editing war on here, however, it seemed to be in your best interest to have a head's up of coming attractions. I stumbled upon the info simply because I was reading about Hemingway's ECT treatment, and wanted to know more about ECT. Brattysoul ( talk) 04:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
that i am not a scientologist, far from it. im feeling a bit of a vibe on the talk page, and i wanted to clear that up. if you thought i was, i understand your paranoia.
that said, i *am* skeptical of psychiatry in general, and that is my POV. i consider ETC to be barbaric and haphazard, and while i refrain from interjecting such personal opinions into any of the articles i am involved in, please keep in mind that NPOV on controversial articles is achieved through the collaboration of opposing POVs. the line linking to shock therapy is relevant. i am not interested in pursuing an in-depth analysis of the very real controversy surrounding ECT, but a prominent, direct link to the article which details the history of these treaments is by no means unreasonable. -- PopeFauveXXIII 03:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, collaboration is the key. Defence of the inclusion of the history of shock therapy ( in the intro ) belongs on the talk page of ECT. I am open to what you have to say no matter what opinions we share or don't share.-- scuro 05:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Almost... done... Jac roe Blank 21:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
For his tireless resilience and contributions that have prevented scientific studies and articles from being misrepresented in electroconvulsive therapy, Scuro is hereby awarded the Barnstar of Diligence. Loodog 02:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC) |
Hi Scuro,
Let me tell you first that I appreciated your politeness after I told you that your suppression of my edit was "rude". After all, you had provided explanations. With your second edit your propose a neutral POV, a consensus and this, also, is appreciated. Concerning your point that Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder treatments is actually a more proper place, the point is well taken. However, I'd like to find the common denominator between our two edits and provide the explanations I did not provide in the first place; I think that some aspects of your editing, while not erroneous, are not neutral. But I don't want to start any long discussion on this, since I agree that it is not the place (the ADHD article) for that; I agree that Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder treatments is the place where such discussions should take place, if necessary.
But as it is, the ADHD article slightly misrepresents the scientific consensus on magnesium and omega-3 fatty acids in ADHD. You propose:
Certain supplements such as magnesium and omega-3 fatty acids have increasingly become popular and have recently been shown in a few studies to have some benefits with regards to ADHD symptoms.
It is true that supplements are gaining in popularity in the population (in non-specialists) and it is also true that magnesium and omega-3 fatty acids are especially popular. However, concerning those two nutrients (well, n-3 FAs are a class of nutrients, to be accurate) and only those two (for others, there might be a lack of consensus, I don't know), there is incontrovertible evidence that they are below normals in people with ADHD. You might have scientists who have an opinion on this and others who don't, but you won't find a scientist who questions that people who suffer from ADHD also lack magnesium and n-3 class fatty acids. Well, if somebody does find a scientist questioning these facts, it would be important to change the remarks on Mg and n-3 FAs in the “causes” section and remove the references, because that’s what they say.
By mentioning popularity, you (perhaps inadvertently) lead the reader to think that Mg and n-3 FAs may or may not be lacking in the brains of people with ADHD, and that it is a matter of personal choice on the part of lay persons to choose whether they should follow the popular trend or not, because science has nothing definitive to say about that. This might be true for other supplements, but it is not true of Mg and n-3 FAs.
Hence, popularity is not really relevant here. Could you perhaps rephrase your edit? I suggest :
It is increasingly recognized that n-3 fatty acids and magnesium are low in people with ADHD. Treatment was shown to have benefits with regards to ADHD symptoms.
You might wonder if my removing of “few” and “some” reveals a non-neutral point of view (“few studies ... some benefits with regards ...”).
When one says “x has benefits”, one’s not saying that it is a cure or the treatment of choice. There is no need to further emphasize this: in addition, consider the results with Mg (see reference, in the article), this is quite a good deal of improvement, although it is clearly not an invitation to Mg monotherapy! But I propose not to argue on this and just say “has benefits”, instead of “some benefits” vs, say, “remarkable benefits”. Concerning “few studies”, well, first, this might not be true, we’d have to check that (I can, my pleasure); second, a great number of studies can mean various things (uncertainty about the results, dose ranging research, search for interactions and side effects, or simply advertisement, attention-getting (a common complaint voiced by doctors, who say they are inundated by “new studies” that show little or no real improvements over other less expensive medications).
Typically, in the case of basic biochemical abnormalities, such as in this case, there is no need to prove more than once that normal levels are better than abnormal levels. Think about glucose in diabetes (TII) or potassium in dehydration-induced hypokalemia: we know that glucose and potassium are not causes, but part effects, part causes of some complications, IOW, part of the pathophysiology, but doctors and patients do try to manage these aspects of the problem (with a proper diet and, eventually, supplements)! In a similar manner, if Mg and n-3 FAs have physiological roles in glucose metabolism (Mg) and dopamine transmission (n-3 FAs), (clinical evidence will appear, if it’s not already there, in the ADHD treatment page) and if those factors are demonstrated aspects of the pathophysiology of ADHD (see the “causes” section), then, well, all that remains is to quantify the improvements, explain further in what manner it is relevant to therapy, how the treatment of the deficiency potentiates other useful therapies such as stimulants or psychotherapy or how it addresses comorbidities (such as obesity and drug abuse, which also benefit from Mg and n-3 FAs).
With all this said, if we consider my earlier version:
Since people with ADHD lack magnesium and omega-3 fatty acids, and considering the role of magnesium and omega-3 fatty acids in neural function, the treatment of those deficiencies is warranted.[43][44][47]
For my personal benefit, I’d welcome more specific criticisms. I am convinced that you’re not alone feeling that there’s something wrong. But what?
I’ll certainly award you a second diligence medal if you do that!
Your colleague, Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 01:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Scuro! The Underdiscussion tag isn't to be used in the main namespace, on actual encyclopedia articles. It's only meant for behind the scenes articles, like on Wikipedia policies, and such, when those articles are under discussion for changes or improvements. Take care, justen 02:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
You tagged Causes of mental illness with one of the Weasel tags incorrectly. I'm presuming you mean to tag the section as a whole. If you meant to tag the article use {{weasel|date=August 2007}}; if the words inline with the text, use {{weasel-inline}}. Hope that helps ... happy editing! David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍) 17:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Scuro. Sorry it took so long to get back to you. I was away from my computer for a few days.
My problem with the Dextroamphetamine discussion is that I have absolutely no idea what the paragraph means. My second problem is that I can't make out what the difference is between what KonradG is saying and what you are saying. I am a Biochemist, not a Pharmacolgist, but I would expect to be able to read a paragraph like that and understand the point that is being made. I don't. I suggest you completely re-write the paragraph, and put it on the talk page first, along the lines of "a and b say that giving dextroamphetamine long-term is bad because x, while c and d say it's okay because y." Then at least we'll know what the problem is and we can work together to find a consensus view.
You can respond to me here if you want. I'll be watching. Scolaire 08:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Dear Scuro, please do not delete such large sections of referenced text without discussing it on the Talk page. I appreciate that you mentioned WP:UNDUE in the edit summary, but this guideline often requires some degree of interpretation and discussion. Of course, I'm hopeful that you are approaching your bold edit as a WP:BRD and will readily shift to discussion. Thanks muchly, HG | Talk 03:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi scuro. You asked about why the Psychiatric abuse article is up again. There was a process to review the deletion. WP:DRV. They decided to restore it and put it up again for another AfD. HG | Talk 23:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Scuro, you are technically in breach of the three revert rule (having reverted chemical imbalance 4 times), and if you continue to edit in this manner, you could be blocked from editing by an administrator. This message serves as a warning to you. -- Limegreen 13:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The page is now protected until disputes are resolved on the talk page. Voice-of-All 20:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Convulsive therapy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Convulsive therapy. Thank you. Nmg20 ( talk) 12:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Please don't insult the vandals – [2]. Thank you for your contributions and happy editing! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, as you have reverted my attempt at separating what I believe are overlapping but distinct terms, could please explain why you dont think they are distinct enough to warrant separate pages. See Talk:Chemical_imbalance#converted_to_dab_page. John Vandenberg ( talk) 00:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey sir. I know you've had an opinion before on the existence of a controversy section over at Psychiatry. Even after the article rewrite and integration of certain points, an editor has expressed interest in reintroducing this section into the article. I would really appreciate it if you could let me know your thoughts as to whether it should or shouldn't be included as the article is written now. Let me know at Talk:Psychiatry#Should we reintroduce "Controversy" section?. Thanks so much for your time. Chupper ( talk) 19:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I added a Withdrawal section to Dextroamphetamines, I see you have indicated a layout for this page (as required by a pharmaceutical template). I may be able to help you re-organise this page if you wish, under the given guidelines. Are you sure this is the intended layout? I see that you did notice some crucial missing areas of interest that need to be addressed (withdrawal probably being the key area). I will check other pharmaceutical pages for confirmation of your suggestions. -- TeChNoWC ( talk) 13:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. I have responded in the talk section of the article. -- scuro ( talk) 16:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Majority or minority have nothing to do with this. I have restored the edits you removed from the 'ADHD' entry. Scientific truth is established through objective experimentation, repeatable results reviewed by peers, and through the ability to predict accurately, not by a majority vote, always assuming any such vote had ever been taken, which it hasn't. At present, no objective scientific proof exists of the existence of 'ADHD', and no objective test is made in its diagnosis. 'ADHD' has many scientific and medical critics. It is deeply misleading for an encyclopaedia entry to present such a contentious diagnosis as if it were established fact. The reader must be allowed to make his or her own mind up. Please do not revert these edits. I have not deleted anything or destroyed anything, merely altered the language to ensure that the reader is aware of the controversy. To delete this is censorship of an important fact. Peter Hitchens signed in as Clockback ( talk) 22:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Majority viewpoint has everything to do with your edits. Please look at WP:UNDUE. You misunderstand what majority viewpoint means, more on the talk page of ADHD. -- scuro ( talk) 05:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey Scuro - when I referred to 'utter nonsense' I didn't mean your comment and didn't want to revert a revert and get into a mess, just wanted you to know that. I am going to 'step away from the computer though' so best luck in sorting things out, even though we don't always agree! Miamomimi ( talk) 12:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, would you have a look at the discussion there? Thanks. Voice-of-All 03:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I reverted your reversion to remove that paragraph. It was out of place in treatments so I copied it to a section above but forgot to delete it where it came from. My last edit which you reverted was to delete the original. Sifaka talk 02:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of debate on validity or terms concerning ADHD. I would highly recommend looking at publications by the American Psychiatric Association and its subgroup the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. I found a recent July 2007 publication which basically sums up the consensus on ADH and treatments. The APA and the AACAP are the proverbial 800 lb gorillas and represent the mainstream view. If something comes into direct conflict with what they say, I would be very hesitant about it. They link lots of good studies (and use the term "neurobiological" to describe ADHD). While it won't prevent the fringe elements from adding unwarranted support for non-mainstream beliefs, the article it gives an extremely convenient source to check if they are going against mainstream thought on the matter and if so then revert with confidence.
The problem with scientific papers in such an well studied topic is that you get a lot off poorly designed, conflicted-interest research that goes against mainstream and a whole bunch of salesmen looking to make a buck who disseminate flawed or fabricated results. Most people (including major news outlets too) can't tell the difference between a hack paper and an excellent, well researched paper. The APA and AACAP wade through all the garbage and only use the best designed experiments to report only the best supported findings. Hope my mini rant helps... Sifaka talk 02:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been a bit stretched in other areas of Wikipedia and haven't been able to be as active as I would like on the ADHD talk pages. Aside from Peter and what's-his-name popping up every few months, are there any particular concerns I should be aware of? -- Ned Scott 07:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
At some point the controversy issue will be put to bed. Keep an eye on the page, your input when that time comes would be appreciated.-- scuro ( talk) 05:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Scuro, just popped by to say I've got some citations together that I hope will be of some use but I've a bit more reading to do so please bear with me, I haven't forgotton. Regards, Miamomimi ( talk) 14:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the update, take your time and get the best citations. -- scuro ( talk) 15:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Scuro, I responded to all your comments on my Talk page, but I have now deleted them, as I realized that repeatedly posting warnings without specificity was harassment, per WP:HUSH, particularly the whole latest example, "Don't be a dick." Be advised, do not continue it, or you could be blocked. -- Abd ( talk) 06:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
That's an impressive little warning you created there Abd. To bad it has nothing to do with reality. If you need to block me, go for it. If you need to delete my warnings off of your talk page, be my guest. Sense a bitter tone? Guess who is the cause. All if forgiven if you can play the nice way as per Wiki guidelines. Continue with your negative feedback and what may be the start of stalking behaviour, and I will take the time to document everything.-- scuro ( talk) 11:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, time for one more warning. Scuro, you restored content to my Talk page which I had removed, in violation of policy. Don't edit war on a user talk page, it will get you blocked. If you need to refer to such content, use diffs. From WP:HUSH, "Placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing 'suspected sockpuppet' and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a common form of harassment." There is an essay which repeats this more explicitly: Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments. -- Abd ( talk) 04:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
You deleted on the grounds that I didn't cite my complaints. I provided them with restored text. Apparently you were not really interested in the citations because you deleted them also. The deleted text from your talk page is below. -- scuro ( talk) 06:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Fourth warning and citations from removed first warning -(title to new post) Once again Abd you make talk personal. You are supposed to stick to content but nearly every post strays onto the topic of me. Here is the cited text from today.
please stop - (title and content of first removed thread from Abd talk page)
(Newly added citations to support claim, are added below)
-- scuro ( talk) 03:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
This is *highly* offensive if the material is not vandalism or the like. From Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments: Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission. (emphasis from the original). This is with reference to your edits [3] [4]. -- Abd ( talk) 05:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The definitive way is to check the list at Special:Listusers/sysop, but I can tell you that he is not an administrator. Administrators are expected to be role models, so not to fall into the do as I say, not as I do problem. Therefore they are generally held to a higher standard. However, since they are also asked to deal with problematic behaviour, sometimes they need to comment on the contributor.
I have had a look at the talk pages you mentioned and what I see is two editors, both of whom appear to have the interests of the project at heart, but have got drawn into a battle of words that has got a little too personal. I think you both need to take a step back and look at each other's points about content with fresh eyes. Have a read of WP:JACK and see if you can follow that dictum. If you feel that the situation is too personalised then WP:MEDCAB or WP:MEDIATION might be a option to consider. Rockpocke t 22:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I once wrote a "personaly policy", if you will, regarding criticism or controversy sections. It hasn't been updated for awhile, and remember, although it discuss Wiki policies, it isn't policy in and of it self. Hope it is what you were looking for. Let me know if you have any questions.
Chupper ( talk) 15:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Scuro, sorry I couldn't get back to you this morning my net link went down. I hear what you're saying re: Abd and agree that I've had some difficulty myself. I am generally reluctant to proceed to formal complaint, but realise this is sometimes necessary. However I would much rather resolve issues amicably and I wonder if you are still having problems? Miamomimi ( talk) 21:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Scuro, I noticed the request to participate in a discussion below and would tell you that I concur with your comments. Miamomimi ( talk) 20:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Please take part at this discussion. Yellowbeard ( talk) 10:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I saw your comment and I left a request/query in response. -- A. B. (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Scuro - I have SO had enough of Abd and his guesses as what motivates my every move on Wikipedia. Basically I'm between leaving and formal complaint. Have you seen his comments
here? I so wish I hadn't had anything to do with that discussion; anything involving Abd eventually ends in this incredibly insulting irritation. I can only agree with one contributor in the discussion who coined it:
Is your offer to do this still open as I've had enough? See my comments on the discussion page, if he responds I want to proceed to formal complaint. Miamomimi ( talk) 18:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
On 19:40, 25 February 2008 User:ShadowCreatorII posted this comment on Talk:Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: controversies. I ( User:Sifaka) removed the comment from the article talk page and left this message on User talk:ShadowCreatorII.
On 01:45, 29 February 2008, User:ShadowCreatorII posted this message on Talk:Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: controversies. I removed it and left this message at User talk:ShadowCreatorII. I informed him that I would notify you. The most important thing to do is avoid escalating matters. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution may be a useful resource. Sifaka talk 03:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Ss06470 has tried our patience, and I was thinking about leaving a note on WP:AN/I about him after reading his response to me tonight. However, lumping Abd in with him really isn't a good idea. Abd is just trying to be objective, and I don't think it was ever his intention to help Ss06470 make personal attacks, but rather tell him out to retract them. I really don't want to see this dispute between you and Abd get any more heated, and little good will come from this. -- Ned Scott 05:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This section was not relevant to the the discussion page so I removed and and pasted it here. The talk page of the article is supposed to be used to discuss the content of an article and how it may be improved, not to debate potential dispute interventions. As a personal opinion, this may create a lot more controversy than it's worth. Sifaka talk 06:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I like many of you have a life. I have a job, kids, and a wife. I edit Wikipedia in my free time and I don't like to be abused when I do so. Contrary to popular belief, I do not get paid to do anything on Wikipedia. But enough about me.
Ss064707 has been warned four times not to personally abuse contributors on Wiki by three different editors.
He has clearly been told why this is not appropriate yet he continues to do so. Today he posted this.
User
Abd, has in fact, instructed Ss064707 how to personally attack me and others. Here he gives an example of how to do it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ss06470#second_warning.2C_no_personal_attacks
User
Abd refuses to let bygones be bygones even though the olive branch has been extended by several users many times. He actively tries to control other editors. Abd has been warned countless times to focus on content.
The question I have for your folks is why must we take this night after night? If I lodge a complaint now, will you publicly support it? Please respond to this post if you will. ~~----
Scuro, I still think this dispute between you and Abd is some sort of misunderstanding and/or both of you over-reacting to each other. And I certainly don't believe that Abd's advice to Ss064707 was to help him make personal attacks, but was only instructing him on how to retract ones already made. That in itself is a prime example of the misunderstandings I speak of.
As for Ss064707, yes, I too have gotten tired of his soapboxing rants and personal attacks, but that's an issue that can be easily dealt with via a report to WP:AN/I, if it gets that far. -- Ned Scott 06:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
For some time I have thought that the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas article is not neutral, mainly because it gives undue weight to human emissions, and neglects to mention virtually any information about natural sources of GHGs. I attempted some edits, which are as expected being resisted by the articles authors. The problem is that I am stuck in a ridiculous situation where the authors refuse to acknowledge that the dispute about neutrality even exists, repeatedly removing the POV tag from the article despite the fact that I am obviously disputing it. Another editor has reinserted the POV tag, also to have it removed, and a third editor has raised the same issues as I am basing my POV dispute on but the authors of the page still refuse to have the tag on it.
Repeatedly linking to wiki policy on NPOV disputes and quoting sections about not removing the POV tag simply because you disagree with it hasn't helped. I am being threatened with the 3RR if I add the tag again. I am not asking for you to put the tag back up for me (unless you also think that the article is not neutral) but have come to you for an outsiders input after reading the dispute resolution page. I am trying to keep the argument about the addition/removal of the POV tag, rather than being drawn into arguments about global warming. Restepc ( talk) 18:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I wish I had the time but don't. I can't keep up with the few articles that I actively edit. Have you tried http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution ? -- scuro ( talk) 08:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
That's how I ended up here, you were to be a 3rd opinion....actually now that I think about it you were to be the 5th opinion, the 3rd and 4th agreeing with me but it not making any difference, an Admin has turned up on the page now and hopefully it'll get sorted so no worries, thanks for your reply Restepc ( talk) 09:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not admin so if you got one on your page you have more then I could ever give you. If things look entirely hopeless and you have exhausted every avenue I can give you what little support I can offer.-- scuro ( talk) 21:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello. So, we know a little about each other. But I'd like to talk more informally.
I know from your user page that you have experience with people with mental illness. You also seem to have a positive outcome bias, a type of confirmation bias, in favor of electroshock. I know I'm not free of bias either. I have a negative outcome bias about the subject. I want to talk about our opinions about ECT.
All I know about your experience is what you wrote on your talk page. My experience is that a friend of mine received over 10 involuntary electroshocks at a public hospital in 2006. She was twenty something. She told the staff that after only the first shock, it felt like rape. Her side effects included amnesia, a headache, and a jawache. She forgot the names of some of the staff. However, they continued to shock her, as if stupefying her would make her happy or as if control of her behavior was most important. At one point, she tried to stop the next shock by eating before the shock, because it is unsafe to have swallowed food before the sedation. The staff watched her swallow part of a napkin. They shocked her anyway. Afterward, she was taken to the emergency room because her breathing was abnormal. Being smart, she finally manipulated the confirmation bias of the staff, pretended to get happier, even though she felt assaulted, and they let her go. Now she has posttraumatic stress disorder as a consequence of the treatment.
Since then, I have heard from many people with similar experience with electroshock. Perhaps it helped some people in the short term, but there are harrowing long term effects. I believe there is a better solution than electroshock. I have also heard of a lawsuit being planned about one of the cases.
I don't claim that mental illnesses are unreal. But involuntary psychiatric treatment often makes people's conditions worse. There is even evidence that it contributes to school shootings.
Also, if a patient wants electroshock, I approve. But the fact that it causes people cognitive detriments, such as even just short term amnesia, implies that it is causing harm to the nervous system. For comparison, I think people have the right to smoke in open areas, but I think it's unsafe. And just because doctors say electroshock is safe doesn't prove it. Back in the 1940s, doctors told pregnant women and soldiers that they should smoke to relax themselves. Smoking is unsafe and the doctors were incorrect in their evaluation of it. I feel that the medical mainstream is also wrong about electroshock. I believe that in the future people will discover proof of its unsafety.
So, I'd like to know your thoughts and, if you are willing, more about your experience with the mentally ill.
Chris Dubey ( talk) 19:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC).
Hi Chris,
A cousin who I rarely see had it and I know of a family friend of my mother who had it. From what I have heard, it was a positive experience for both but then again, I've never asked either one personal questions about it. There is a lot of personal testimony describing ECT, Kitty Dukakis comes to mind. Personal stories are interesting but of little use for articles like this one in Wikipedia.
The article was a mess before with many instances of blatant bias, and really that is how I got involved. I can't stand misinformation, in the end I had to research this topic extensively. As long as this article confirms to majority or minority viewpoint I have no problem to changes. Make sure you use good sources...also be careful with your assumptions. For example, do all patients experience cognitive detriments?...and do all all forms of ECT cause cognitive detriments? Also is involuntary ECT ALWAYS a bad thing? I'm don't feel that strongly about the issue but I can tell you it is not a black and white issue. The best thing wikipedia can do for it's readers is to offer good info with excellent citations.-- scuro ( talk) 21:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
A
proposed deletion template has been added to the article
Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Nmg20 ( talk) 10:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Adding wed pages is not sufficient. See the talk page were I have outlined proper ways to formate your references.
Talk:Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder
Doc James ( talk) 16:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
You jest, are you telling me that the Mayo Clinic webpage citation is not a good enough reference. Explain in detail. -- scuro ( talk) 10:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
There are two issues. One is reference style and the other is reference source.
Wikipedia has specific style guidelines for medical pages. If you look at any of the featured articles in medicine you will notice a consistent formating style for references. {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}}, etc.
The second issue is with respect to the source. We want to us peer reviewed sources over none peer reviewed ones. So added a url to the mayo clinic web page is not sufficient and I am not even one of the more picky editors when it comes to ref style.
Doc James ( talk) 18:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Scuro - saw your note on ADHD talk. I've already asked that editor to slow down - see [ [5]] and related reply [ [6]]. I for one can't keep up with the pace of edits so will just wait for him to stop and then go back over the page to check that it is still looking reasonable at a later point. The notion of collaborative editing does not seem to be valued highly at this point. -- Vannin ( talk) 05:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with your latest change to the amphetamine article. Mostly I disagree on the point that the version prior to your edit was more POV-prone than your own edit. The withdrawal effects in question can be experienced from both use (as determined by physician) and abuse (e.g. exceeding physician prescribed amount or other illicit use). When a person that is unfamiliar with the topic reads that sentence, he or she may interpret "abuse" as the popular characterization of usage that leads to absolutely uncontrollable dependence. This person may then think, "Okay. So long as I don't go overboard I will not experience this"; or "so long as I take as much as my physician prescribed I will not experience these things". "Abuse" is a far more subjective term than is "use" when applying popular definitions as used in more casual contexts. I would prefer it if you would reconsider your edit.
Also, I would like to ask you something peripherally related. A few weeks ago I found a study where chimpanzees were given doses of pharmaceutical amphetamine (e.g. Adderall) over 4 weeks, 6 days/week, at .1 to 1 mg per kg body weight. The study concluded that permanent cognitive damage was caused from this short-term administration of low doses of amphetamine. Have you maybe come across this study or similar ones where the short-term low dosage effects were studied? Thanks. XJeanLuc ( talk) 02:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with you. The term abuse clearly defines what causes the reaction, and takes therapeutic use out of the picture. If you have some citations that prove otherwise I would be interested in seeing them. With regards to the monkey studies, I have read a number of these studies. Most often they are looking at the effects of drug abuse. The key here is that the drug is injected. You certainly can't compare injected doses with oral doses, both as equal in dosage and equal in outcome. Injected drugs make it to the brain at maximum dosage in seconds. Compare that to ingesting. The ingested drug reaches peak levels after 1/2 an hour and stay near that level for about 21/2 hours. The injected drug wears off quickly and a crash occurs. Therapeutic drugs find the right dosage for benefit and stay there. Injected drugs find the right high..which needs to be constantly increased.-- scuro ( talk) 05:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
A study like that would have caught my eye! Let me know if you find it. -- scuro ( talk) 11:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Scuro. I posted on your talk page before (under my normal user name) and have gone through some of your older posts. I think that you probably would be able to answer a very personal and specific question that I have about amphetamine use. I do not have a knowledgeable person that I can turn to for this - even my physician could not give me a straight answer. I would greatly appreciate it if you would let me ask you my question. I can post it here or onto an email account. If you don't want to answer it here, I could email save it in a yahoo email account, give you the account password, and then you could answer it there. I really need help in trying to make sense of my situation. Thanks. Ytrewqxqwerty ( talk) 10:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Yt, a possibly inappropriate question?...hmm. I'm going to direct you to forum where a lot smarter people then me hang out. Some of them have impressive letters behind their names. You can post directly, I've seen all sorts of questions asked and you will get the viewpoint of several people. This forum is a caring forum. http://www.addforums.com/forums/index.php -- scuro ( talk) 02:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey Scuro
I can give you a one month access to uptodate and lexi drugs. Both these programs are continually updated and will give you access to the stuff I gave you. All I need is an email address. They have some great pages on ADHD and every other medical disorder you can think of. The pages are all extensively referenced to the literature and written by world renowned experts in the fields.
It is not good form to ref directly to Uptodate though as the general public doesn't have good access to it. But you can use it to find good references to other literature.
-- Doc James ( talk) 20:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey Scuro
You are a disruptive editor. And as it says on the ANI you need to have a close eye kept on you. I recommend you stop your disruptive behavior and stop pushing you fringe point of view. You do not seem to have any true desire to discuss the issues at hand or work together. This has been sited by a number of editors not just myself. You are trying to control the content and POV of the article.
-- Doc James ( talk) 12:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Have been looking at the above comments. Seems like lots of other editors have been having similar problems with your edits on many other pages. Seems like you are trying to control a whole bunch of pages.
-- Doc James ( talk) 12:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Doc James, you can frame it any way you want, but anyone who looks seriously at this issue will not agree with you. No editor of any standing is backing your ANI complaint, or your viewpoint on the village pump, which was that webpages can't be a source of info to be cited. Speaking of control, editors should look at the edit history on the ADHD. Clearly there is an editor trying to control everything, resorting to edit warring, and it ain't me.
Finally I do stick with a few pages and usually they are controversial mental health issues. These pages come under frequent attack and they take up all of my time here on Wikipedia. I am very proud that in the end these pages usually stay balanced. I welcome you to assume good faith and to build consensus. Any time that you are ready, we can begin. I will note that I am no longer going to tolerate personal attacks such as your post above. Times up, you have been given plenty of chances to follow wiki policy on behaviour.-- scuro ( talk) 16:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
This is a NICE guideline that speaks extensively about the ADHD controversy aswell as every other aspect of ADHD. http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/CG72FullGuideline.pdf
It is current Sept 2008. It is published by a major group of medical scientists and physicians at all the best academic centers in the UK, and has strong backing from the UK government.
I think as you said above that we can finally put this controversy to rest. Happy editing.
-- Doc James ( talk) 14:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi there Scuro!
| |
---|---|
Please accept this invite to join the Good Article Collaboration Center, a project aimed at improving articles to GA status while working with other users. We hope to see you there! |
I'd love to. But too many pages are being modified in a major ways, in an uncolaborative manner. My time here is sucked up by such people. When "order" is a top priority at Wikiland, editors like myself would have more free time. I've made a request for a medcab on the ADHD page. 6 days later and no mediator has stepped forward.-- scuro ( talk) 04:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey Scuro Any interest in a truce? Not sure if that is possible and even though this continuing warring is fun it can get a bit tiresome at time. I would prefer to concentrate on content rather then this.
I however will not let this article become completely unbalanced as it was before I arrived. I think we can all agree that the controversy is real as it is backed up by many very good references. If you think that enough positive assertions about ADHD and its treatment are missing then I recommend you add more well reference source.
Doc James ( talk) 18:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
James, you seem to be an intelligent and concerned contributor who knows how to find information and assess information. Your just the type of contributor that wikipeida is looking for, although up to date, the behaviour needs significant improvement. Truce would have to come on terms that I have been asking for all along. Make that offer on the med cab and I'll certainly consider it and do it totally in good faith. I will continue to go "up the ladder" until this is resolved so if you do want to reach a truce I'd suggest that we work on that in an urgent manner. An immediate sign of good faith would be to place the POV tag that was recently stripped three times, back on the article.-- scuro ( talk) 20:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Doc James ( talk) 13:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Please be advised that continued edit warring may result in being blocked from editing on Wikipedia. You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- Doc James ( talk) 17:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC) 16:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I think all efforts have been made and the attitude still has not changed. The RFC sure makes sense. I do not have experience with the process either, but will do whatever I can. -- Vannin ( talk) 02:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
lower-case all "OWN WORDS" will help. Also, sock accusations are pretty big, so I suggest you add it more as a footnote ("some concern"). Xavexgoem ( talk) 15:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice, much appreciated.-- scuro ( talk) 19:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
A few things, very brief, I am at work and busy. My job is so pesky when I'd rather spend time on WP. <gr>
This is the first message. All I did upon arriving at your page was click the option to "Leave me a new message" . Hope it works well for you.
Mark, I have to admit I don't really know what this box does besides allow you to post a new thread without opening up the whole page and go to the bottom to post. -- scuro ( talk) 23:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Scuro,
I would second Vaoverland's suggestion to partially step back with JMH. He is hitting out and getting nasty at the moment, and others will see this for what it is. Rebutting the things that he is saying will be coming down to his level. If the RFC does not work then there are other things that can be done, and these can be explored later. -- Vannin ( talk) 21:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I hope the new Talk box is working out for you. Please read the recent additions on my talk page, so you can stay up to date on where I stand. Best wishes, Vaoverland ( talk) 06:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Both you and Vannin talk about not getting personal then you insult my academic institution and my friends which is they same as insulting me.
For example in the last day you imply stuff such as "we all know better" "any one with a basic understanding of scientific methodology would understand all of this". This is not dealing with content. You then comment on my talk page: "You are new, we are forgiving." I do not need to be patronized
How is this not insulting? You have continued with these petty insults all trough out the ANI, the mediation, and now the RfC. I was very accommodating to your questions when we started but this has become very frustrated.
I was and am open to mediation but the real issues which is content and what is considered a reasonable reference has never been dealt with or addressed
Doc James ( talk) 06:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Informal mediation has already been tried, so the next step would be Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. This would concern article content, not user behavior. Meanwhile, how about suspending the issue of user behavior? There is no deadline and either of you (or anyone else) can address that issue later, if you wish. -- Una Smith ( talk) 21:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
don't worry about future steps until they're at your front door (pun totally intended)
:-)
Xavexgoem ( talk) 00:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Scuro I completely agree that we need to deal with content. I would also prefer that insult of my institution are not made without proper references. When one claims something like "the TI is an antipharm group" one should reference it to a credible source. Other wise it is not really dealing with content. It is making insults of people that some of us here know. When I added info that Dr. Barkleys takes money from pharmaceutical companies I referenced this.
Also as I mentioned to your freind ICBSeverywhere if you want to disagree with the comments of the TI then find resources that say the safety of stimulants has been determined by randomized controlled trials for what ever lenght your source say, then reference the source. Or write that a case study of 200 kids or whatever it was didn't find any safety concerns up to five years. This is how scientific discourse takes place. One deals with content rather then insulting the authors of papers.
Hope we can make progress on these issues. -- Doc James ( talk) 06:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Here is a 2001 study Schachter HM, Pham B, King J, Langford S, Moher D (2001).
"How efficacious and safe is short-acting methylphenidate for the treatment of attention-deficit disorder in children and adolescents? A meta-analysis". CMAJ. 165 (11): 1475–88.
PMC
81663.
PMID
11762571. {{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
The NICE guildlines touch on it aswell.