User talk:Mark v1.0

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mark v1.0 (talk | contribs) at 03:49, 2 June 2008 (→Re: Thomas Szasz edit). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome!

Hello, Mark v1.0, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  RJFJR 19:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Music-Thanatology, by Axlq, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Music-Thanatology is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Music-Thanatology, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Music-Thanatology itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 05:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Dealing_with_disruptive_editors You have been invited to discuss issues on the ECT talk page but have declined that invitation. Consensus instead of unilateral editing is the process that one is to follow on Wikipedia. Your contribution on the talk page would be welcome.--15:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a last invitation to follow Wikipedian guidelines. A well supported sentence, that ECT does not cause brain damage, has been deleted 3 times by you. This has been done without proper citations, as requested, to back up your claim that ECT causes brain damage. Recently you are placed a citation request several times on this same sentence and again offer no support for the request. This goes against WP:VERIFY and this repeated action is seen by editors as disruptive editing. I'd ask you kindly to change your behaviour now.--scuro 03:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I dropped my claim to brain damage. After another editor (different from scuro) reverted it. I had agreed in talk to another party. I had stopped deleting the sentence once another editor arrived. I switched to "who", after some other person put "who" in. I said it needs to say psychiatrists(who) beleive it doesn't cause brain damage. In talk under the title you created with my name in it I listed the names of outspoken activists who do NOT accept ECT is not damageing. Therefore you/wiki have to change the sentence to specify who is accepting that ECT causes no brain damage.--Mark v1.0 06:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my VERIFY ? is a list of outspoken activists [List at bottom]who claim ECT damages the brain. They do not accept, so the sentence has to specify who it is accepted by.--Mark v1.0 06:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect for your viewpoint, while the reverting has changed you are still targeting the same sentence with unreasonable edits. First you attempted to delete the whole sentence, then you attempted to ask for a citation for the same sentence even though a paragraph of excellent citations and reasoning was provided for you. Now you want to qualify the sentence and that request is also unreasonable. See ECT talk page. Your actions are different but the pattern of behaviour is predictable. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Now might be the time to take a long hard look into the mirror. You are passionate and intelligent and have much to offer, it would be wikipedia's loss if you were eventually banned over your instance that the sentence can not stand as is.--scuro 20:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for the multiple deleting of the sentence initially, it was done through ignorance. I believe the sentence false and misleading. Again, I state I dropped my claim of deletion when a second editor arrived to the scene. As we agreed upon in Talk:ECT.
2nd thing,I did not start the citation asking for sources.
your 3rd allegation of "qualify the sentence", THAT IS WHAT I MEANT BY "WHO" IN YOUR SECOND ALLEGATION. not to site sources, but to clarify the sentence as to who is doing the accepting.


Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Graphsmi sm.GIF. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki flaw

Hi Mark,

I have seen your archived discussion on brain damage caused by electroshock. Your arguments impressed me. Alas, there's a Wikipedia flaw in its system, as you can see in my user page.

Big Pharma sponsors psychiatry, which means that they have, literally, billions of dollars to promote a pseudoscience. The massive data of peer-reviewed journals advocating biopsychiatry are as pseudo-scientific as the tons of peer-reviewed parapsychology journals which purport to demonstrate the paranormal. While Wikipedia is able to deal with paranormal crank theories, once a pseudoscience reaches the academia, like the use of psychiatry against political dissidents in the former Soviet Union, there's little to do except to destroy the commie system. In our case it'll be a little harder to destroy the Therapeutic State since, with the exception of Slovenia, all states approve electroshock.

This is a huge subject. I've read Thomas Szasz, Peter Breggin, Robert Whitaker, Jeffrey Masson, Elliot Valenstein and many more critics. But they're still a minority and, though they're right, Wikipedia cannot recognize it because of its rules. If you want to discuss this in a more private way, just e-mail me.

Cesar Tort 06:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thomas Szasz edit

Might I suggest that you move the information you just added to, perhaps, the references section so it serves more as a source of information... I do not think that its current location as the very first line in his main arguments section is the appropriate place. In any event, I expect that another editor will soon delete it or move it somewhere else in the article if you do nothing with it. κaτaʟavenoTC 14:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok I will move it elsewhere, I was a bit emotional at the time from reading yet another persons enterpritation of what Szasz means when he says that mental illness is not a disease, people understand it as mental illness doesn't exist.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 03:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mark_v1.0&oldid=216549481"