User talk:DR04/Archive 4

references on Bono
Hi Chupper

I've done some work on the way references are presented in the article. I did two things:
 * The main thing was to combine as many multiple footnotes for the one point into one single footnote. Ie, i haven't removed any references, rather I put them under one footnote. Where we have in the text: [3][4][5] for example, i replaced it with [3] simply by changing the ref format from  to => . THis looks much better in the article, also it's easier to read especially if you use firefox as it should now highlight the references when you click on the [footnote]. It is also how it is done in books.
 * A small point: I changed a number of long urls to simply put the domain name there (ie, they still link - it's just 'piped' now).

Note: there are still one or two refs left to combine that are a little more tricky. I will get around to it soon. Merbabu 13:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete
Animas images, if you find more delete them. They were ul when I was on the wiki about a day. Thanks. IvoShandor 16:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Zoned school section of Trump Tower Chicago
There is a reason why the section is there; CPS will assign the tower to a set of zoned schools. WhisperToMe 03:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't mind the section being removed, just as long as the information is there :) WhisperToMe 22:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)
What happened to the images on Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)? On the talk page we had resolved to have 8-12 pics in the gallery and 2-4 in the article. Did you move the pics to the commons?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You can tell by my user page that I relish turning things into good articles. I am glad to have someone to interact with.  Basically, I have periodically taken the building from a few different angles.  I use a point and shoot digital so my night time view is not the highest quality, but it provides some variety.  I think we should revert to 2-4 pics in the article and could live with 8 in the gallery, but think by the time the thing gets big 12 may be more appropriate.  I suffer from the conflict of choosing from among my own pictorial work while not a trained photographer.  I feel you have chosen the best 4.  If you were to add 7 back (4 to the gallery and 3 to the article) which ones would they be.  TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you ratify the picture usage decision, please add a comment on the talk page to show stronger consensus. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

u2 wikiproject
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smithcool (talk • contribs).

Galena, IL image
I've going to extend good faith and assume you didn't see my response before reverting my changes to the image, but I would ask that you revert yourself. Right now, the image is a copyright violation/infringement and will be deleted as you do not have the right to release it into the public domain. Please do so as soon as possible. - auburn pilot   talk  05:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Block warning
And how long will you block me for, kind sir? I have allies, you know, who will continue my work. As a matter of fact, they are "editing" your work now. Ta Ta!- CTUBauer — Preceding undated comment added 18:00, 8 July 2007

Stub vs. Start
The article is a stub in my mind. It has only about 1250 characters in the lead and the two text sections. It might not even be WP:DYK eligible which sets the hurdle at 1500 characters to rise above stub status. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of 2500 character articles I still class as stubs, but 1500 is a bare minimum.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Pshychiatry
What I have written is explained in the source I have cited.

One important point is that in this site what has to been written should be conform to the reality.

Now I have not written anything that is not real, or fictional or a thing of soap opera.

If you have any reason why what I have written should be removed, please cite the reason.

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.

Sorry, I am busy now, I will respond to your question later. -- AnyFile 17:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I can agree that some sentences I have written are not very clear. I will try to rewrite them more clearly.

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..

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.

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.

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 have stated that what I have written is not included in the source. 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.

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).

Now I cannot understand how could you say that what I have written is not present in the sources.

Is it that the what I have written is not written inside a book that only say the psychiatric-true?

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?


 * AnyFile 19:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 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?


 * 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.


 * I can see the the description of the psychiatry and the acupuncture are deliberatively vague. (with the aim of restoring health and well-being).


 * 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). 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).


 * 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. -- AnyFile 09:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan
I just wanted to check on the Ronald Reagan GA. It is rare to see a GA with a citation needed in the lead. However, it is so well cited elsewhere I would have difficulty contesting it on 2b. It was a very quick pass (about 4 hours after it was nominated). Can you just confirm it had a full evaluation because I like to make sure all GA and FA articles with a ChicagoWikiProject tag are all properly rated as such.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

references on Anti-Semitism
I deleted the references to Pat Buchann on the AS page as they seemed to me to be misleading opinions - 1 they referred to him as a right wing Republican - 2 they linked his critisim of US ME forgein as being too heavily influenced by concern for Israel's security with AS

These are both un-refrencable opinions and only serve to encourage the linkage of people who critize US forgein policy in the ME with regards to Israel as being anti-semitic - israel is a country - anti-semitism concerns people of a certain religion/heritage -

the edits I made should be restored or else the article edited to remove the bias that currently is being published

M —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Bono GAN
Glad to see there are dedicated members on all aspects of Wikipedia, you being one of them. Considering the WP:GAC page is currently at an article collaboration drive, Bono was reviewed within I was happy to review the article several minutes after it was nominated. Good luck with the article, NSR 77  T C  02:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Spire
Kudos on your work with the Chicago Spire article. Thanks for keeping us Chicago Wikipedians up to date. Looking forward to staying informed about this building Dkriegls 00:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Editing Kirk Hammett
Hey Chupper.

I changed the image on the article on Kirk Hammett. I thought the new picture was better, and what's so wrong about that?

I listed the man who had taken the picture(Florian Reischauer), and did not take any credit for the picture, so what did I do wrong? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hormii (talk • contribs).

Re: A Woman Like Me (Beyoncé song) to A Woman like Me (Beyoncé song)
Hi. Naming conventions states that prepositions such as like (which is a preposition in this instance) shouldn't be capitalised in song titles unless they are the first or last word in the title. I hope that helps. Extraordinary Machine 12:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

peer review
Chupper, in case you aren't aware, I responded to your E.P. peer review. – Outriggr § 05:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Chicago Spire.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Chicago Spire.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 18:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Brigham Young University Wikiproject
This new wikiproject has been proposed at WikiProject Council/Proposals. Please sign up in order to improve the quality of BYU related articles on wikipedia, including BYU-Idaho and BYU-Hawaii. Thanks. Wrad 01:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:05231963_ChicagoRiver.JPG on Navy Pier
shows that permission was granted for use on Chicago Spire, but it was also added to a gallery on Navy Pier. Was permission granted for this? If not let me know and I will have it removed. Thanks  master son T - C 03:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As Roma?
Thanks for the kind warning about me abusing that article...except this is the only thing i've ever written on wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.188.145.125 (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Convulsive therapy
Hi,

I notice you've edited the convulsive therapy article in the past. Currently it has numerous fact tags dating back to June/July of this year, and without the unverified facts there isn't much of an article left. If you know of any appropriate sources, I wonder if you could add them? If not, I'm going to propose the article for deletion. Thanks. Nmg20 17:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Bono...
ha ha - nice one. on the other hand, I'm ahead on U2. U2. --Merbabu 02:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * and here's another trick - look at the url: . --Merbabu 13:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review
You recently commented on Articles for deletion/Psychiatric abuse, which was closed as delete. The article has been nominated for a deletion review at Deletion review/Log/2007 October 5. Please feel free to comment on the decision there - as a contributor to the original AfD, your input would be welcomed. -- ChrisO 09:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Psychiatry
Hi Chupper. Just noticed your comment on Talk:Psychiatry. I commend you for making an effort to improve this article and steer it toward GA/FA. If you don't mind my saying so, though, I'm wondering if you might pursue the process a bit differently. As you probably know, though they may deserve much credit and praise for their work, no single editor really gets to own an article. Instead, we try to move forward via consensus, esp on contentious topics. However, your comment sounded like you're planning to act in a rather unilateral fashion: "The criticism section will not be included ... the information will be included .... the current article will be replaced soon anyway." Do you have a sense of what this might read like? Instead, I would recommend that you propose some changes -- either vet a new structure/outline through Talk, or maybe replace one section at a time with an brief explanation in Talk. I think you'll find that a gradual and more open process will gain you -- and Wikipedia -- much more in the long run. How does that sound? Pls reply to my talk or article Talk, as appropriate. Anyway, good luck with your hard work on all this. HG | Talk 14:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your detailed reply -- but for heaven's sake, I'm certainly not suggesting that you refrain from editing and reworking this article!! Your sandbox looks great and I'm sure you'll make terrific strides. Yes, I do appreciate the situation. Frankly, I'm hoping (partly for your sake) that the "psychiatric abuse" brouhaha will draw more attention, to give your more input and contributors. Just wanted to give you a heads up on your tone. And to encourage you, if we can draw more helpful attention your way, to open up the process and do it in manageable chunks. It's hard to get folks to work on a User Page, (though I had seen your note), so maybe you could run some specific ideas (e.g., your new outline) through Talk? I suppose you'll use your own judgment on how boldly to replace the article, but I imagine folks could feel ignored if their recent edits suddenly evaporated (i.e., not integrated in the rewrite). Take care, HG | Talk 23:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Psychiatry article
I peeked at it in your sandbox and it looks great. Have you been following the trials and tribulations of Psychiatric abuse? -- Mattisse 23:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoops! I see by your talk page that you have seen the abuse article. Never mind! -- Mattisse  23:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)