User talk:Nickyfann

Welcome to Wikipedia
-- Scarpy (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Schizophrenia
You added some odd content to that article, including the TotallyDisputed template which seems utterly inappropriate, and certainly should not be placed without an explanation on the talkpage as to why. However, adding that template to an article that is a featured article seems to not stand a snowball's chance in hell. - Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) • I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here! 18:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for any problems "LilacSoul". Won't do it again. It does strike me as odd that the "question neutrality" logo is allowed for some articles but not others.... I believe it to be justified here for the simple reason that people question the existence of "schizophrenia". Why "Irish Republicanism" - for example - has a "Question neutrality of article" logo and this one doesn't I cannot understand. Many people question the existence of schizophrenia. Will keep all debate to the discussion page then if that is OK. best wishes nickyfann Nickyfann (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Nickyfann (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

its not possible to show that schizophrenia doesnt exist, as it is simply a list of symptoms from a very operationalised manual ie DSM. It is however easy to pick the concept of diagnosis apart and demonstrate that the assumptions behide this thinking lacks evidence and usefulness. I think any article on a diagnosis should acknowledge this bias - especially those that simply copy DSM directly onto wikipedia. see Talk:Schizoaffective disorder Earlypsychosis (talk) 09:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

August 2008
Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. TestEditBot (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Romford
You inserted the word "probably" into a sentence that is attributed to a citation that does not agree with your assertion. Do you have another reliable source that gives an alternative etymology or doubts this one? Such an addition would improve the article, but changing the meaning of text attributed to a citation does not. MRSC (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi MRSC. Sorry. I added "probably" simply because I think it is justified. Many place name origins are contested. Also it is a word used by "Mills" - authority on English place names - in a source on Romford. I dispute that "rum" - means "broad" or "roomy" in Old English as well. Though I may be wrong.

I will not change it back again because this is more my opinion (though I think it justified).

Incidentally, at present the article makes no mention of what was probably "Roman Romford" - id est DUROLITUM. This is usually mentioned in the vast majority of historical accounts of Romford.

Nickyfann (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)