User talk:AnyFile

AnyFile, I've answered your question about e-mail at Help_desk Was there something else about e-mailing that you wanted to know? &mdash;Triskaideka 15:58, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hello. Linking to Electromagnetic Field does not work because of the incorrect capital letters; electromagnetic field works.

Field (mathematics) is about something entirely different from what you seem to have intended in that article. Also, if you link to A|B, the reader sees B, but the link points to A, not the other way around. Michael Hardy 21:05, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anyfile, you've put the page Clauser and Horne's 1974 Bell test down as needing attention. Can you please tell me what you think is wrong with it? Caroline Thompson 22:31, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * You asked me why I have added Clauser and Horne's 1974 Bell test to page needing attention. I added it to that list becouse I got very confused when I read it. I can not figure of what it speak about. Actually I even not read accurately since I do not understand the starting point. I could not understand what the experiment want to verify. Reading again it today (quickly, just some part) I have found out that at the very begining is said that it concearn Bell inequalities. I have not time now to read all of these article and the wikipedia article linked.


 * I can suppose anyway that a person who have read the article Bell inequalities and some other article would have clear the point. So I will cancel the needing attention. But as I was confused so can be an average user. I have a degree in Physics even if such argument and similar like EPR were well hidden to us by our teachers. So I can supposed that if I was confused many other could be.


 * For these reasons I will keep the clean up.


 * I want to stress out that the problem I found out in the article was about the way it was written not about the argument (that actually I have not undestood) AnyFile 17:04, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining. I can't immediately see how to get around the problem though.  Of course it is true that the page is "incomprehensible to someone who doesn't already know what the article's talking about", but it was never intended to be read on its own. It forms one of a set, based around the Bell's theorem page. Caroline Thompson 18:42, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tacitus
Thank you! I'll get to work merging in the translated material right away. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 00:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi!
Hi AnyFile,

I have read some of your comments in talk:Psychiatry and I agree with you.

I wonder if you have read the article Biopsychiatry controversy?

This is the article that you can help us to improve.

—Cesar Tort

Your 07.14.2007 edits to Psychiatry
Wikipedia is not a soapbox, please stop using it as such. I'm removing your recent edits to Psychiatry for the following reasons. I give these reasons because I feel bad just removing your edits with no explanation:

''It is not uncommon, in the past but also in the present day, that a person is committed to a psychiatric asylum or psychiatric ward not for having a proved mental illness, but because it is in the interest of some people that that person go away from the society and is forcibly kept in the psychiatric asylum (or ward). For instance if an old person can not afford his/her living expense it can be committed to a psychiatric asylum. It is well reported that people interested in the money of a person can easily have this person declare subject of mental illness and enter in possession of that money. Have a person declared having a mental illness is also an easy, economical and with fewer trouble to obtain a divorce. And this is considered a legal way to get end to a marriage even in countries where divorce is (or was) considered unacceptable or illegal.''
 * "It is not uncommon"? What does that mean?  It happens once every 10 times? 100 times? 1,000 times?  Also "because it is in the interest of some people that that person go away from the society and is forcibly kept in the psychiatric asylum (or ward)".  You state this is in the interest of some people, but you don't actually state this happens.  Bottom line here, even if this was the case, which I don't believe happens frequently, this belongs in an involuntary commitment article, not in Psychiatry.

''It is notable that no proofs have to be given to declare a person affected by mental illness, but just an opinion by a self-proclaimed expert in the field. It is also notable that a person does not became affected by a mental illness when something happens to his/her body, but when a psychiatrist declare him/her as such. While there is no need to show real proofs, based on real evidence of the presence of a problem in the body of the person, on the other hands proofs are required for a person declared affected by mental illness to just ask that his/her position to be reconsidered. Moreover there is no a way for a person to prove that he/she is not affected by mental illness. It should be noted that all of this came from the fact that the diagnosis and the declaration of being affected by mental illness are based only on opinion.''
 * What is "proofs"? A differential diagnosis is the same coming from any physician - psychiatrist, neurosurgeoun, pediatrician.  If you want to say that a psychiatrist has no "proof" to give a patient a diagnosis, then you could say a neurosurgeon has no "proof" to cut into your head, or a oncologist has no "proof" to diagnose you with Hodgkin's lymphoma.  If you want to say they have no "proof", then all physicians don't have "proof".  And what do you mean by "does not became affected by a mental illness when something happens to his/her body, but when a psychiatrist declare him/her as such"?  I would say all mental disorders have a physiological component that can usually and very qualitatively be detected using neuroimaging or another neurophysiologic measurement.  Also, sorry, but most mental health professionals, physicians included, aren't "self-proclaimed expert[s] in the field".  Again, running with the "proof" statement you made earlier - "It should be noted that all of this came from the fact that the diagnosis and the declaration of being affected by mental illness are based only on opinion."  Well, if that is how you want to look at it, that is fine - but, again, then all diagnoses are "opinion" by any physician of any specialty.

Moreover psychiatrists, in a way similar that what happen in other field of the medicine, but in this specific field in a more troublemaking way due to the lack of need of any proofs, can be accused and even charged for not having diagnosed a mental illness to a person that is affected, but it is not consider a fault to make a diagnosis to a person that is not affected.
 * "it is not consider a fault to make a diagnosis to a person that is not affected"?? What does that mean? They are not at fault?  Who decides they are not at fault? You? What is fault? A disciplinary action?

''Psychiatrists consider that the sole fact that a person ask information to a psychiatrist is an enough proof that the person is affected by a mental illness. On the same ground it is easy to convince a psychiatrist that a person is affected by a mental illness (the sole fact the one or more people are spending time to reporting that a person has some problems, is enough, for a psychiatrist, to be sure that that person should be affected by a mental illness). All of this make very easy to obtain a declaration that a person is affected by a mental illness and there are no provision to avoid that a person is declared mental ill when there is no reason.''
 * Where do you get this idea? If a physician or any other mental health professional is obtaining a medical or psychopathological history of a patient, performing a mental status examination, conducting psychological testing such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory or intelligence quotient tests, obtaining neuroimages through functional magnetic resonance imaging or positron emission tomography scanning, or other neurophysiologic measurements such as electroencephalography and does not find anything, they would not diagnose them with anything.  Now, I could agree that people are diagnosed with something when nothing is there, but how often does this happen?  You state, in absolute terms, that if there is no disorder present, they will be diagnosed.  Adding referenced material with percentages from studies of an "over diagnosis" may be more helpful.  But even then, what about the "under diagnosis"?  What about people suffering from schizophrenia or major depression or anything else that never see a MHP?

The bottom line with all your edits is that they aren't included in all your references. Much of this is inaccurate and original research (although I can't speak to your Italian source). In addition, even if this was accurate, per WP:SIZE, this information should be included in the Anti-psychiatry article and only a "short summary" should actually stay in "Psychiatry". Chupper 15:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

1st response

 * You stated on my talk page: What I have written is explained in the source I have cited.
 * As mentioned above, your edits and the content you wrote is not included in the references you used. The only reference I can't speak to is the Italian reference.  Thanks to my university, I have a handy dandy journal & book viewer online.  I get to see most references online in a matter of seconds.
 * You stated on my talk page: One important point is that in this site what has to been written should be conform to the reality.
 * Couldn't agree more.
 * You stated on my talk page: Now I have not written anything that is not real, or fictional or a thing of soap opera.
 * Sounds like you are getting confused between a soap opera and soap box. I'm referring to the latter.  It also sounds like you could read up on some Wikipedia policies, which I have already mentioned above, such as - WP:SOAP & WP:SIZE
 * You stated on my talk page: If you have any reason why what I have written should be removed, please cite the reason.
 * Do you not see the responses I wrote above on July 14?
 * You stated on my talk page: And that you think that anti-psychiatry is the correct place to put criticism, this does not mean that this is the true. And if this would be true than the same should apply to Astrology.
 * You are wrong here. Criticisms of Astrology isn't long enough to merit its own article.  Psychiatry has a criticism section long enough to merit its own article.  And again, as I've said before, per WP:SIZE, information should be included in the Anti-psychiatry article and only a "short summary" should actually stay in "Psychiatry".
 * Chupper 18:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

2nd response
''I can agree that some sentences I have written are not very clear. I will try to rewrite them more clearly.''
 * Ok.

Anti-psychiatry should deal only about the movement so called (if it exists a movement so called, as far as I know there are many movement, that for different reasons, have found problems in the psychiatry theory/behaviour.
 * Right, so your thoughts would subscribe to that movement. You can't differentiate your own opinions from those of the movement.  While the "movement" may be informal, you aren't the first to subscribe to these ideas, and therefore your ideas are in tandem with that.  So, these contributions belong in Anti-psychiatry.

''Actually what I would consider more useful is not a section under the page psychiatry that talk about the criticism, but that at every sentences where what is said is consider in such a way only by a restricted group of people, this should be stressed. The fact that this group of people have made many effort to convince people that their believe are true, so that many people actually believe them as true, this make this statement true.''

For instance:

"Psychiatric inpatients are people admitted to a hospital or clinic to receive psychiatric care."

Now a real encyclopaedia should state what people receive when admitted in the hospital, not what psychiatrists want us to believe.
 * I see you are one of those "psychiatry conspiracy theorists". While I respect your stance, the bulk of governments, academic institutions, and hospitals see psychiatry as a valid, scientifically supported branch of medicine.  Until your ideology becomes the prominent one, adding these "warnings" are of no help to the article.  And I'm not sure you have the authority to state what a "real encyclopaedia" should or should not include, unless you make up your own.

For example one point that should be said is that the diagnosis is only based on the opinion of self-proclamated experts in the field, but nobody could oppose on their opinion, since there are no proof of what they state.
 * Your argument here has nothing to do with improving the article. And why do you think nobody can oppose physicians?

''here I cannot explain you what a proof is, I think that, after many century science has tried to explain the need of proof to state a conclusion, it should already well known. Why the psychiatry thinks that it not need to give proves it is a good question, and a good explanation of what psychiatry is should include a warning on the danger it make, and among them there is the fact that decisions taken only on opinion often give problem and no benefit.''
 * You tend to through words around like "truth", "proof". Science doesn't believe in proof.  Science believes in evidence.  And right now, according to science (see references on the talk page of the Psychiatry article), psychiatry is scientifically supported.  Beyond the references I listed on the talk page, I can literally find hundreds of thousands of articles in peer reviewed journals supporting psychiatric diagnoses.  The bottom line, from a theoritical perspective, is that your thoughts aren't in the majority.  You can't change the article for your own beliefs - not to mention we do have an article discussing the criticsms of psychiatry, at length!

You have stated that what I have written is not included in the source.
 * You are right, and they weren't. About 90% of your content was WP:OR. Someone would make a statement in your source, and you would draw your own conclusions.

''First of all let me say about the Italian source, what I have taken from it is only that the author of this book noted that in psychiatry there is the "strangeness" that every people who consult a psychiatrists is found to be ill, while the same do not apply to other branch of medicine. And he conclude that one reason for this is that the psychiatrists consider that the sole fact that a person has asked for psychiatric advise means that this person is ill.''
 * OK, then mention this in Anti-psychiatry.

''About the Szasz book, I actually not sure that the one I have written is the one, among his books I have written, where it is well explained what I have tried to summarize. There is a study about the easiness how people can be declare mental ill because of the willing of their relative. There are example of that too : for instance there is an example of sons and daughters that make their mother declared mental ill and sent to asylium so that they can use her house and her money. Their is the example of one important politician of the United Stated of the late XIX century, who was able to divorce from his wife, declaring her having a mental illness (and in this way he kept the money of her wife).''
 * And these situations exist and have existed... your point? If you want to discuss this, include it in the Anti-psychiatry article.  And be sure to differentiate between involuntary commitment and "psychiatric imprisonment", something used in totalitarian countries.

Now I cannot understand how could you say that what I have written is not present in the sources.
 * It isn't. Again, you were drawing conclusions from what the author stated, and stating your conclusions in absolutes.  Thats what we call WP:OR.

Is it that the what I have written is not written inside a book that only say the psychiatric-true?
 * Hmmm, I'm hinting sarcasm here. Try to assume good faith.

''I would like to finish saying that I really can not understand what psychiatry is from the article. One reason could be that psychiatry is actually not clear. For instance if it is said that it is done to get well being, why psychiatrists often do harmful treatment that cause pain and no effect useful to the patients?''
 * Sorry you don't like the article. You can feel free to make positive contributions not using the article as your own soap box.  Sorry, but a small percentage of "harmful treatment[s]" is not "often" and according to the references listed, isn't enough to discredit the whole profession.


 * Anyfile, it sounds like you have your own personal strong beliefs. While I respect your beliefs, Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  It is not a vehicle for you to state your beliefs.  Why don't you start up your own blog or website stating your beliefs?  Chupper 19:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

3rd response

 * Sorry to replay here again (I hope this is the last time). The real point is if on Wikipedia under the page Psychiatry should go what the psychiatry really is or what a group of people have interest to be believed?
 * Anyfile, the bottom line is your definition "what psychiatry really is" isn't what most people believe. Because you feel like society and the far majority of academic institutions, research institutions, and governments are wrong doesn't mean you yourself can redefine psychiatry.  You are in the minority here.  Your question of "should something be defined by what it really is" or "what a group of people have interest to be believed" is more of a philosophical question that can be applied to ANY discipline.  Wikipedia can't support defining the ultimatum you perceive as what psychiatry "really is" because most people and authoritative (at this time) sources don't agree with you.


 * To make clearer my point, the same question arise in many other situation. Think for example about what should be written about a tourist town where the pollution is high but the authority written in their papers that there the climate and the environment is beautiful and clean. Shall in the article be written so that it is stated that this town is high polluted or a paradise on the earth?
 * The example above is completely artificial, but the same question arise in many real circumstance, consider for instance the acupuncture or the homeopathy.
 * In these types of situations it would probably become necessary for you to conduct your own research. But until your own research gets published and becomes an authoritative source on the subject, encyclopedias like Wikipedia and other references will continue to use the pre existing authoritative papers.  While original research is always needed and very important, Wikipedia is not a vehicle to publish such information.  That's how science & research work today, Anyfile.  Sorry if you don't like it - I didn't make it up :).


 * I can see the the description of the psychiatry and the acupuncture are deliberatively vague. (with the aim of restoring health and well-being).
 * Wrong. The description or article for psychiatry is not deliberatively [sic] vague.  I will be working on this article, and many others have tried to improve this article in the past.  I don't feel as if the article is "vague", but if you do, I'm sorry.  I know editors aren't trying to keep it "vague" on puprose.  Feel free to improve it using edits with a NPOV theme.


 * I was not sarcastic. It is a real problem that people should consider the psychiatry as what psychiatrists want to be consider. (this is the official response I got from the health authority here where I live, the have answered me that they do not make any checks on what the psychiatrists are doing because they decide what is good and what is not).
 * And... your point is...? Keep comments regarding how to improve the article, not your own original research.  In the United States, psychiatrists are under the same systems of checks and scrutiny of any other physician, but I don't see how this relates to improvement of the article.


 * If the psychiatry is what is written in a book, then what happen if two books are written with two opposite things written on them? It is the same problem about book religiously believed to contain the truth (think for instance to the problem of the Earth moving around to Sun that was in contrast to what is written in the Bible).
 * In most meta-analysis that I've seen where there are conflicting sources, I notice professors and other scientists choose the newest and most abundant research (on the applicable side), and consider it authoritative. If the conflicting conclusions come up at about the same frequency, researchers and scientists will attempt to better the experiment and conduct more research.  When you hear it being said that "more research is needed" to facilitate an action, its probably because there are too few experiments conducted with conflicting results.  Also - bad idea to bring up the bible when talking science.  No scientist ever considers the bible or any supernatural source scientific.  I'll ignore that you brought that up :).
 * However, I'm assuming that you are talking about sources stating psychiatry is a reputable profession or not. I can tell you this - after a quick search at EBSCO, JSTOR, and ProQuest, I came up with 188,433 peer reviewed, distinct articles supporting all elements of psychiatric principles (psychopharmacology, neuroscience, behavior, cognition, etc). Unless you have about the same number of articles supporting this specialty in a negative light, I'm going to say your sources are not authoritative.


 * I can seen that there are a lot of article stating that psychiatry is valid, but from that the only conclusion that can be logically taken is that a lot of articles have been written stating that, but we can not conclude that the psychiatry is valid. For examples a lot of articles have been written about the Philosopher's stone or the Luminiferous aether, but this do not make them real.
 * Right, but there haven't been hundreds of thousands of articles written on the philosopher's stone or luminiferous aether. Nor are there thousands of scientists conducting research in those areas.  I conduct research at my university dealing with the field of psychiatry, but its multidisciplined.  When I conduct research for psychiatry, I'm conducting research for psychology, neuroscience, biophysics etc.  While some universities have "psychiatry" departments most probably have neuroscience or psychology or biology departments.  Psychiatry pulls its research from all of these disciplines.  It isn't in its own little world.  Therefore psychiatry is definitely seen as a reputable discipline.

Anyfile, some final words here - and these do not relate directly to the improvement of the article. In your own search for or conclusion of understandings about the field of psychiatry -or any field for that matter, you can't take it on all at one time. It is futile. Even though I strongly disagree with the field of Iridology, I don't use general sources to debate its existence. I draw conclusions from specific experiments. Why don't you run your own experiments or perform a meta-analysis and try publishing it to a scientific journal? Or if you don't like to be peer reviewed, why don't you start up your own web site, or blog? Authoritative references state that psychiatry is a real discipline. As I said, I've pulled about 180,000 peer-reviewed articles supporting different elements of it. The fact that you or I don't or do believe its "real" can never be proven or disproven. That is not the way science works. We look to evidence, and evidence supports its existence. Until these authoritative references change into something else, articles like psychiatry can't have 90% of the content be made up of criticisms. Because of these authoritative references, that would not be NPOV. But we do have a SIGNIFICANT amount of content dealing the criticisms of psychiatry at the anti-psychiatry article. I could tell initially you wanted this content written write into the psychiatry article. This is because you were trying to use Wikipedia as a soap box. During your most recent comments I've noticed you have toned that down a bit and are now addressing issues of referencing and have questions about what and what is not "authoritative". I hope I've answered these for you. Chupper 13:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Isarco-Eisack
could you express an opinion with regard to this move request? Icsunonove 20:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Psychiatry, antipsychiatry
I have read some of your posts in Psychiatry. You may want to take a look at what I say about it in my user page. Presently I think it would be easier if you try to edit the Anti-psychiatry article. —Cesar Tort 07:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Article upgrade assistance request (Pre-translation stage)
Seasons Greetings,

This is in reference to a relatively new umbrella article on en-wikipedia named Ceremonial pole. Ceremonial pole is a human tradition since ancient times; either existed in past at some point of time, or still exists in some cultures across global continents from north to south & from east to west. Ceremonial poles are used to symbolize a variety of concepts in several different world cultures.

Through article Ceremonial pole we intend to take encyclopedic note of cultural aspects and festive celebrations around Ceremonial pole as an umbrella article and want to have historical, mythological, anthropological aspects, reverence or worships wherever concerned as a small part.

While Ceremonial poles have a long past and strong presence but usually less discussed subject. Even before we seek translation of this article in global languages, we need to have more encyclopedic information/input about Ceremonial poles from all global cultures and languages. And we seek your assistance in the same.

Since other contributors to the article are insisting for reliable sources and Standard native english; If your contributions get deleted (for some reason like linguistics or may be your information is reliable but unfortunately dosent match expectations of other editors) , please do list the same on Talk:Ceremonial pole page so that other wikipedians may help improve by interlanguage collaborations, and/or some other language wikipedias may be interested in giving more importance to reliablity of information over other factors on their respective wikipedia.

This particular request is being made to you since your user name is listed in Translators available list.

Thanking you with warm regards Mahitgar (talk) 05:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Mole Day!
 Happy Mole Day 6.022x1023  Hello! Wishing you a Happy Mole Day on the behalf of WikiProject Science.


 * What is this?
 * Mole Day is an unofficial holiday celebrated among chemists, chemistry students and chemistry enthusiasts on October 23, between 6:02 a.m. and 6:02 p.m. This date is derived from the Avogadro number, which is approximately 6.022×1023, and the day is named after scientist Amedeo Avogadro.


 * What you can do!


 * Participate in our and our sister WikiProjects
 * Expand articles listed here
 * Improve science articles
 * Sign the guestbook or place User WikiProject Science on your user page.
 * Add this page to your watchlist to see what's occurring here


 * Similar events


 * Pi day
 * DNA day
 * Evolution Day
 * Yuri's Night
 * Square Root Day


 * See also


 * Observances about science
 * Observances in October

- Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe/Unsubscribe -

Sent by on behalf of WikiProject Science and its related projects. Wikiproject Science

Wikiproject Chemistry

Wikiproject Physics

WikiProject History of Science Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)