User talk:Psychiatrick/Archive 1

Rufus May new page
may be of interest to you. cheers Earlypsychosis (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Google Books link to book cover
It's generally accepted to link to Google books pages in a citation to a specific page, because that allows quick verification. But linking to the book cover in a list of books is made redundant by the ISBN link, which is vendor-neutral. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Global Initiative on Psychiatry
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Global Initiative on Psychiatry, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.ammado.com/nonprofit/45806.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 09:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All has been reworded. Psychiatrick (talk) 10:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for speaking up
I agree with what you wrote to User:Woland1234 on December 13, 2010. That account continues to make inappropriate deletions (still) with no justification or edit summary. Personally, I recognize that many if not all are absurd. I'm reporting this account. Do you want to make a report also? Christian Roess (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries if you don't want to get involved to the extent I mentioned above. I've been reading through the various policies and it is hard to nail down precisely what kind of "abuse" is going on here. I'm going to sit on this for a few days and make a personal appeal to User:Woland1234 and also take this to the "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents". This User never leaves edit summaries and almost always deletes, usually categories. Or adds a category, then later deletes it, and adds it later, then deletes it again. (ie., see Fredric Jameson, where the Category:Postmodern theory and Category:Science fiction critics has been appearing and disappearing from this article). Let me know if you have any suggestions on how to deal with this. Christian Roess (talk) 10:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My supposition is that an account can just be used to make the impression of working hard in Wikipedia in order to obtain additional user rights and opportunities. I would also like you to put this issue on the ‘Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents’. Psychiatrick (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your insight and contributions. Much appreciated. Let me work on this in the coming days, as Christmas is around the corner and I may be pulled in other directions. I'll keep you posted. We don't want to silence those who act in good faith, and Woland1234 would go a long way toward acting in good faith by simply responding. But there is no communication from that user up to this point. This isn't about starting some "flame wars" but creating dialogue. Christian Roess (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have made a plea, one more time, here. If this User continues further, or unabated, I will be following through on my warning. Christian Roess (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Sociology membership
I see that within the last year you have made at least one substantial comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology, but you have not added yourself to the project's official member list. This prevents you from, among other things, receiving our sociology newsletter, as that member list acts as our newsletter mailing list (you can find the latest issue of our sociology newsletter here). If you'd like to receive the newsletter and help us figure out how many members we really have, please consider joining our WikiProject and adding yourself to our official member list. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added myself to the member list. Thank you for the invitation to join the project. Psychiatrick (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply
Let me answer your questions.

It would be a good idea if you looked more carefully on Lead. This suppose to be a brief summary of the most important factual information in the article. This may include such things as how many (range of numbers), time frame, important international events related to the subject, major implications of the policy, and so on.

I do not have time to look carefully on things at ruwiki, so this is all based only on my first impression... There are a few things you can do on ruwiki. 1. Do not comment about other users at all, talk only about content. 2. Ignore any comments by others that are obviously made in a bad faith or outright ridiculous. Respond only to reasonable questions or concerns. 3. Tolerate minor edits by others even if they negatively affect the article.

With regard to your requested move, I think you should withdraw it. The reason: only a tiny fraction of victims were really "political", although such cases gain most publicity. Same as Gulag. Sorry for the criticism.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hodja Nasreddin, I appreciate your opinion very much but prefer to make an attempt to reach consensus with the Wikipedia community as to my requested move and not to oppose this consensus. In ruwiki, consensus was reached, and the corresponding article was moved into ‘Use of psychiatry for political purposes in the USSR’ (Использование психиатрии в политических целях в СССР) with the term ‘political’ in the title. Psychiatrick (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. A difference in opinions is fine. I am not going to comment or vote because of my topic ban.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. You said: "It is strange for me to see such a lull in the English version of the article". Nothing strange. Look who edited this article and who was active at the article talk page (I know most of them). All these people are banned, topic-banned or stopped their participation, except maybe P. who just came from his lengthy topic ban and does not want to be involved in controversial subjects. This project is dying. Why this is happening? There are many reasons, but one of them is quite obvious: no one should be issuing lengthy or indefinite bans to key content contributors with problematic behavior, such as User:Mikkalai, User:HanzoHattori, or User:Muscovite99, but only to SPAs who create more disruption than content like User:Jacob Peters. Of course I mean people who create real content, which requires a significant expertise, rather than assessors of pages or workers with categories. There are very few such people, and each of them was irreplaceable.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * With this I agree, as I know some users including professors (eg Heljqfy) who were trying to write their articles in a highly professional way by capitalizing on their specialty or area of expertise and were blocked many times or indefinitely banned because of heated disputes with the overwhelming majority of not enough competent people. After seeing the aftermath of the disputes, other users started trying to evade writing the articles if their subjects are complicated or controversial. As a result, the Wikipedia lacks qualified editors and is inundated with the articles about pokémons and other fictitious characters, which are easy to write. Psychiatrick (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits in Kraepelin an dPsychiatry articles
Hi. You've recently made a couple of edits in the Emil Kraepelin and Psychiatry articles. I have a question in relation to these which I've posted on the talk page of Emil Kraepelin. If you could answer this I would be most grateful. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * RE. Yes, this is generally a good idea to create several sub-articles and a "summary article", rather than one large article. I do not like how Ivan Pavlov was described there. He was dead when the "session" in "his name" took place, and it would never happen if he was alive. In fact, he was one of the bravest and most honorable Soviet scientists, which must be better described in his biography. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that Ivan Pavlov was one of the bravest and most honorable Soviet scientists. It was just indicated that the Pavlovian session was held in his name but he was not described there at all. Psychiatrick (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest to at least remove his photo from article about abuses because he had nothing to do with psychiatric abuses. Neither he had anything to do with "session". The session was not organized by his followers by any means. Sergei Vavilov had nothing to do with physiology. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 04:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, Pavlov’s photo in the section does not describe him in improper way but his photo can be deleted per consensus with the Wikipedia community. Psychiatrick (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But unfortunately I can not be a part of that consensus as long as my topic ban remains in force. I only noted that photo of Pavlov should be removed from the article about abuses because he died long time before the abuses have been committed, and because he risked his life by objecting to other similar abuses in his letters to Nikolay Bukharin and other CPSU leadership. Was not he? Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right to assert that Pavlov protested against the developing Soviet repressions because there is the source: Григорьян Н.Г. Противостояние системе. К оценке социально-политической позиции И.П.Павлова // Философские исследования, 1993, № 4, с.399-417. But I would not like to be responsible and blocked for the possible damage that I may inflict on the Wikipedia by deleting Pavlov’s photo. You may delete his photo by yourself or with the help of someone else. In addition, I think every deletion is possible only per consensus. Psychiatrick (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever you prefer. There is good book, "Heroes, villains and conformists of Soviet science" (Russian) by excellent author Simon Shnoll (he taught Biophysics at Physics department of Moscow University). The position of Pavlov was also mentioned in many other books (e.g. "Crime without punishment" (Russian), this is mostly about writers rather than scientists, etc.)Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

GAN
Sure, no problem. It's actually very easy to do (the rest, including the creation of the review page, will be taken care by a bot). For future GA noms you might want to make, you can read the instructions at WP:GAN ("How to nominate an article" section). A pretty thorough article, by the way! Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 15, 2011; 18:56 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Please don’t forsake me now because that’s my first good article nominee in the English Wikipedia. Psychiatrick (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm completely ignorant about the article's subject, so I won't be much help with the actual review process. However, I'll be happy to help with the technical aspects of the nomination or the article formatting, if that's the kind of help you need. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 15, 2011; 19:55 (UTC)
 * Well, you've got a point there, but having money (even a lot of it) does not automatically make one qualified to write encyclopedic articles about economics! Same thing with the human rights abuses&mdash;as much as a sympathize with the victims, I'd better be able to offer more than that if I were to write a competent GA review. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 18, 2011; 14:47 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I can not help too, although for a different reason. BTW, do you know that Pavel Sudoplatov simulated madness to avoid an execution after his arrest in 1953, but stopped pretending when he learned that he is actually going to be transferred to "facility"? . Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanx!
Much thanks, P., for your wishes! Although I see a minor perspectives for my election there, I'm not disappointed in the Wikipedia in general. That is why I write here, in en-wiki — you see, the whole idea is smart, isn't it :)?

Best regards and thank you again, Cherurbino (talk) 04:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks again! Cherurbino (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Any good idea can suffer from so grave shortcomings that they can damage the implementers of the idea. The Wikipedia administrators are afraid of conflicts, disagreements, people who have different opinions and different way of thinking. The Wikipedia administrators seem to think high-quality articles can be written only in quiet environment. But I think the quiet environment will be the death of the Wikipedia, although I know it is very difficult to write articles in disquiet environment. Psychiatrick (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

GA review of Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union
I've begun the review at Talk:Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union/GA1. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 22:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 16:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Alexander Voloshanovich


A tag has been placed on Alexander Voloshanovich requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —AssassiN's Creed (talk) 10:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Every phrase in the article was reworded and was not copied from the source used to write the article, but the article was deleted and cannot be compared with the source anymore. It means that copyright infringement indicated in the notification cannot be proven and is too strong rebuke without strong reason. Psychiatrick (talk) 01:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The source you ask about
Hi, ! You ask me to adduce a source. Unfortunately, I don’t know any electronic source that is available online. But I’ve got printed versions of the journal mentioned (I’m its subscriber, by the way). Every printed issue contains a list of all the members of the editorial board, so that every issue published before 2008 can serve as a source.--Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, If it is very important for you to add to the article about Yuri Savenko the information that he is a former member of the editorial board of the Moskovskiy Psikhoterapevticheskiy Zhurnal now known as the Konsultativnaya psikhologiya i psikhoterapiya, please add this information and source simultaneously. Of course, you may use any printed version of the journal, even though it is not available online. Psychiatrick (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not really the core of my interests. I only intended to help you with expanding the article you had created.

P.S. There is a grammar error in the : “He also is a member of the council [- - -]” The adverb “also” follows the verb “to be” as well as the adverbs “always”, “sometimes” etc. So you are to choose one of the two variants: “He is also a member…” or “Also he is a member…” But: “he had also been…” instead of “he had been also…” I'm sure the sentence cited contains a typo rather than a mistake. But as you ask about sources, I prefer adducing them to my correcting your sentence. Here are the sources: Besides, my English is too bad to correct the style of your article. I’m merely drawing your attention to a misprint in your article.--Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Качалова К.Н., Израилевич Е.Е. Практическая грамматика английского языка. // Глава «Наречие» §15 «Место наречия в предложении».
 * Бонк Н. Учебник английского языка, т. 1, грамматический справочник § 29.
 * Thank you very much. I have substituted the sentence “He also is a member” for “He is also a member”, although “He also is a member” is often used by native English speakers and writers who do not consider that the only correct place of the adverb “also” is after the verb “is”. Examples are here: . Psychiatrick (talk) 08:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your advice. Personally, I consider en-WP an English exercise, a supplement to English textbooks, so that your information is of much more interest to me than my own contributions here. And yet I mostly use English textbooks and guides written by professional translators. I especially like translations of H. Campbell Creighton (M.A., Oxon) who is famous for his excellent translations of Russian scholarly and scientific literature including some books by Teodor Oizerman and Igor Kon. In 1989, H. C. Creighton edited English translation of Human Physiology by Evgeni Babsky and Anatoly Zubkov. I often “consult” with Creighton’s translations when I have some problems in writing English. His translations are available on the Internet, by the way.

Besides, there are Wikipedists who work at universities and research institutes in their real life. I’ve got acquainted with some interesting people in the Polish WP while my contributions to this project are corrected by, a scientist from France. If you’re interested in psychiatry, you should certainly have a look at his page.

As for Yuri Savenko, I just know his name. I was going to publish an article on psychiatry last year. Having read some papers from his journal, I send my article there. To my surprise, I haven’t received any answer at all. It’s a strange policy of the editors' courtesy, I should say. I have heard of the person nothing more except your WP articles.--Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Any journal or magazine does not usually respond to persons whose articles it receives. Nothing strange. Psychiatrick (talk) 09:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Advice needed
Could you please tell me how to translate the title ru:Вопросы психологии into English? Should I use the definite article? To my mind, the latter of the two variants is more appropriate: “Questions of Psychology” and “The Questions of Psychology”. I think I am to use the definite article because the journal covers all the areas (the questions) of psychology. But my English is not good enough. Thanks in advance for your answer.--Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to translate ru:Вопросы психологии into The Issues Relevant to Psychology. Questions are rather what one asks. Psychology considers issues but does not ask questions. The definite article “the” is used before the title of the journal only because the title is unique. Psychiatrick (talk) 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I’ve written this translation even though it’s a bit too cumbersome for a journal’s title, to tell the truth. You seemingly have a good sense of humor.--Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

FAC
I don't know about good luck&mdash;you'd probably be better off thanking the person who did the GA review! All I did was add a line to a page where it was then picked up by a bot :)

As for the FAC submission, I'll be happy to help with it as well, but please note that before an article can be nominated, it should undergo a peer review. The process consists of five easy steps, and while I can certainly submit the article for peer review for you, it makes more sense if you do it yourself, because it's you who'll be the one answering the questions and addressing concerns anyway. Once the peer review is finished, the article can be moved on to FAC.

By the way, great job on expanding that article! It's a very interesting and educational read. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 11, 2011; 13:39 (UTC)
 * Unless you are being stalked by your opponents from ru_wiki, I don't see why you would have the same problems here, and it would be you fending off the questions which will come up during the peer review anyway. Submitting a nomination involves going through five mostly procedural (and easy) steps, but if you insist, I'll submit it for peer review next week. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 12, 2011; 19:03 (UTC)
 * If me nominating this article for peer review would count as moral support and help you deal with the questions better, then I will gladly do so :) I was just making sure. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 12, 2011; 21:52 (UTC)

Zemskov-Maksudov
I see you added the story about Maksudov's criticism of the Zemskov's views to the GULAG article. However, I think it would be useful for you to read Zemskov's answer published in the same journal. From your edits I conclude that, by contrast to some other editors working in this area, you are trying to be unbiased, and you are interested to know truth. Therefore, I recommend you to read this article and to consider a possibility to reflect what it says in the GULAG article. I am somewhat busy right now, and I cannot work on this article seriously. I see some issues with your edits, however, I believe we will be able to fix them together in close future. Good luck. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, . If I have time, I will try my best to fulfill your request. Psychiatrick (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Psychiatrick (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Loren Mosher and Soteria
Hi. I just posted some additional sources for the Loren Mosher and Soteria articles on their talk pages (Talk:Soteria; Talk:Loren Mosher). I don't really have time to expand the articles at the moment so I thought you might like to as you're a major contributor? FiachraByrne (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, . You are right to come to me for this. Thank you for finding these sources and posting them on the talk pages. When I have time, I will expand the articles. Psychiatrick (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I might direct similar sources your way in the future if that's alright and you have the time? Incidentally, do you have any interest in writing an article on Open dialogue?FiachraByrne (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please post similar sources, if any, on the talk pages of the articles, because posting the sources on the talk pages can help other editors write or understand these articles. Regarding the article “Open dialogue”, I need to see at least its stub to understand if I have any interest in writing it. Psychiatrick (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes of course. I'll try and get an Open dialogue stub with sources written up soon (probably about a week). When I get that done I'll post a note here so that you can see if you have any interest in the topic. Thanks again. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is kind of you. Thanks. Psychiatrick (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Edit
Code scares people (just show a wiki n00b a reference, infobox or a table and see how quickly their desire to edit Wikipedia evaporates...). Moving as much of the reference code to the bottom makes editing the body more friendly, particularly for the new editors. Also, it allows easier sorting and standardization of reference, since all the code is now in one place and can be easily compared to one another. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 18:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you like the idea, you may want to help testing the script for it, see User_talk:Δ. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 19:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi
I reverted your edits on psychiatry as I felt your contributions gave WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to certain viewpoints, some of which I believe were WP:FRINGE. Your contributions are welcome, and can be productive, so long as they fall under policies and guidelines, such as WP:MEDRS, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE etc. If you haven't already, it would be of benefit if you could read the policies and guidelines that I have wiki linked in this message. See the discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine. Have a nice day. :)-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  13:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. I replied. Have a good day. --Psychiatrick (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Psychiatry, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. Yobol (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion
Properly assessing the neutrality and reliability of the sources used in an article requires familiarity with and understanding of the subject matter&mdash;and in the field of psychiatry I possess neither. The best way to handle this incident is to continue the discussion on the talk page, and if that goes nowhere, there is always WP:RSN. I am sorry, but there really isn't anything I can do, at least at this point.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 27, 2012; 19:51 (UTC)
 * I understand and it looks convincing, but I really can't properly assess the quality/neutrality of a source in a field I know next to nothing about. From where I stand, you might as well ask for my "expertise" in the field of astrobiology :)
 * The editor who removed the paragraph is an editor in good standing, so the best way to find out his reasons is by continuing the discussion on the article's talk page. Perhaps it is all a misunderstanding, but even so it should be discussed by the people who are familiar with the subject.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 27, 2012; 20:15 (UTC)

Edit war at Mental disorder‎‎
Your recent editing history at Mental disorder shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Joja lozzo  20:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. I replied. --Psychiatrick (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Review
See here and the section above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 16:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Abuse article
I see you are working on it. Drop me a note on my talk if you want me to take a look at it. And I understand if you don't. Happy New Year.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry I am slow about working on it. I am hoping to research and help out this summer, but it's been very difficult to get the time together.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK.--Psychiatrick (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Psychiatry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DSM (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Illness

 * Authors such as Ivan Illich have noticed that far from helping to understand the medicalization of life, it merely serves to the medical monopoly over and against life. Certainly authors like Sasz have solely criticized the psychiatry and attempted to present other parts of medicine as allegedelly scientific and reasonable founded, while authors like Vicente Navarro, and Ivan Illich have criticized the medicine as a whole. Navarro for example noticed that medicine disguise the underlying causes of disease. Illich also noticed that medicine practice is an important source of damages so called iatrogenic illnesses and goes further when he notices the social effects of medical monopoly over life. Let me cite Illich: "Social iatrogenesis designates a category of etiology that encompasses many forms. It obtains when medical bureaucracy creates ill-health by increasing stress, by multiplying disabling dependence, by generating new painful needs, by lowering the levels of tolerance for discomfort or pain, by reducing the leeway that people are wont to concede to an individual when he suffers, and by abolishing even the right to self-care. Social iatrogenesis is at work when health care is turned into a standardized item, a staple; when all suffering is 'hospitalized' and homes become inhospitable to birth, sickness, and death; when the language in which people could experience their bodies is turned into bureaucratic gobbledegook; or when suffering, mourning, and healing outside the patient role are labeled a form of deviance [...] Like its clinical counterpart, social iatrogenesis can escalate from an adventitious feature into an inherent characteristic of the medical system. When the intensity of biomedical intervention crosses a critical threshold, clinical iatrogenesis turns from error, accident, or fault into an incurable perversion of medical practice. In the same way, when professional autonomy degenerates into a radical monopoly8 and people are rendered impotent to cope with their milieu, social iatrogenesis becomes the main product of the medical organization[...]Medicine is a moral enterprise and therefore inevitably gives content to good and evil. In every society, medicine, like law and religion, defines what is normal, proper, or desirable. Medicine has the authority to label one man's complaint a legitimate illness, to declare a second man sick though he himself does not complain, and to refuse a third social recognition of his pain, his disability, and even his death.22 It is medicine which stamps some pain as "merely subjective," 23 some impairment as malingering,24 and some deaths—though not others—as suicide.25 The judge determines what is legal and who is guilty.26 The priest declares what is holy and who has broken a taboo. The physician decides what is a symptom and who is sick. He is a moral entrepreneur,27 charged with inquisitorial powers to discover certain wrongs to be righted.28 Medicine, like all crusades, creates a new group of outsiders each time it makes a new diagnosis stick.29 Morality is as implicit in sickness as it is in crime or in sin.".
 * But PF/SPK (Huber) goes even beyond noticing that the basic ground of medicine is a war against illness which necesarily drives to a war against patients as it occurred during the so called Third Reich, you could read for example: (www.spkpfh.de/Again.htm) which I will cite here: ''"It is a historical fact, made public for the first time in 1970/71 by the SOCIALIST PATIENTS’ COLLECTIVE and meanwhile having become an integral part of general knowledge, that the mass murder of people, declared by medical doctors as patients, during the so-called Third Reich – at least 275,000 people killed – was carried out by medical doctors in the name of "health". The so-called eugenics movement of the medical doctors throughout the whole world had prepared the mass murder of people. That mass murder was not the doing of the Nazis but rather the medical doctors’ doing, who had found in Nazi-Germany the suitable conditions to put into practice the extermination of people they had been planning and preparing for ideologically already since the 19th century, and it was carried out in the name of "health". It was by the use of the propagandistic term "health" that they had been preparing the grounds for the programmed killing of people. And the Jews, too, were being fought and killed as patients, for instance, as "a cancerous ulcer in the people’s body". On the other hand, Jews were exempted from prosecution when they were found to have got "good, healthy blood". Thus Jewish women (!) for instance were made pregnant by SS-men in the so-called Lebensborn ("Fountain of life") institutions, in order to create "healthy" offspring. Thus, solely what the doctors had defined as "health" constituted the criteria of selection for those being allowed to live or forced to die. Hitler was but the executor and the highest henchman of this ideology, which, as a therapeutic one in its ravaging against all "unworthy life", had been common to the world and not only to the Germans, and that a long time before the Nazi era. Even so-called leftist Parties in the Prussian Landtag and Reichstag had introduced relative bills in the Parliament long before 1933. And it was not only in Germany, but also in Scandinavia, France, Switzerland, and who knows where else, that patient people were murdered in institutions, and that continued for a long time after the end by force of the so-called Third Reich. Thus the doctors’ international "health"–ideology had prepared the grounds for the murder of hundreds of thousands of patient people already long before. The medical profession as a whole had done in public calculations as to the cost the "national community" had to bear for maintaining the patient people in life, and painted with glaring brightness the threat patient people would represent for the "people’s health" according to the motto: "first of all they are expensive, and in the second place they are monsters" [Denn erstens sind sie teuer, und zweitens Ungeheuer]. The propagandistic call for slaughter "Health" ["Sieg HEIL!"] was followed by the killing as the therapy.[...] Also the sterilization laws against the so-called "hereditarily sick offspring" were not an invention of the Nazis. Already in 1907, sterilization legislation for so-called eugenic reasons had been passed in Indiana / USA. At least other 30 US-States had joined in. Compulsory sterilization was continued in the USA, as well as in the Scandinavian countries – e.g. Sweden –, till the end of the 1970s[...]The propagandistic call for slaughter "Health" ["Sieg HEIL!"] was followed by the killing as the therapy, and that by far not only in the so-called Third Reich. The parallels to nowadays cannot be ignored. Not even in the party manifesto of today’s Greens, by the way. Nowadays too, an extremely aggressive long-running HEAL-political propaganda under the sign of "health" is being pressed ahead from part of the doctors. "Health" doesn’t exist, has never existed. All the more so today: from the genetic point of view, nobody is "healthy", everybody is genetically defective, everybody is ill. And once again calculations are being spread in which patients are presented mainly as a "cost factor" that ought to be "reduced", because otherwise the national economy would collapse under the expense of illness. Through the cost-benefit accounting the lives of the single persons are being registered, summed up, are made an economic balance of it, are evaluated and devaluated. Numbers are being turned into supernumeraries, i.e. "unworthy life", nowadays as well as in the past. To give priority to aspects of profitability in the case of illness, that means in the end to practice coercive euthanasia (euthaNAZIa). Others are in for it today; you will be in for it tomorrow. So, no one takes notice. It’s because of their money that they decide who’s allowed to live and who’s going to die. Who ignores in this the ruling class of the jackers, there included your family doctor, has not reckoned with the most important thing. It’s the doctor who decides, who selects, as the Master of death and life, at the death-life selection platform in Auschwitz and everywhere where the only thing they care about are "healthy" numbers and ill ‘supernumeraries’."'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.27.6.129 (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much. I am pleased to receive this barnstar. --Psychiatrick (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism
Your to Medicalization removed quotation marks from text which is almost an exact quote of a sentence in PMC1122833, to which it is sourced. This has the effect of passing off someone else's work as your own and is regarded as plagiarism, which is unacceptable on Wikipedia. I have reverted your edit. Having read your edit summary, I have no idea what issues you have with the other user, but the text was not a "paraphrase" as you seem to think; it was a copy. Please take the time to read Plagiarism and take care to ensure you do not make the same mistake in future. --RexxS (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I’ve fixed this problem. --Psychiatrick (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you as well

 * Let’s consider your indefinite block in ruwiki as an attempt to make you a European and let’s thank Russian admins for it.Psychiatrick (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Is not Russia considered to be a European country?--Mishae (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Now a European mostly means a citizen of a country of the European Union.Psychiatrick (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't have a European Union citizenship. What does all this suppose to do with my indefinnite block on Russian Wikipedia??? And why should I thank Russian admins for the block? I'm Russian, I was born in Moscow (o.k, I currently live in Minnesota, USA), but it doesn't mean I give up on my Russian heritage. I have duel citizenship with Russia. By the way, are you Russian or are you Ukrainian, or from Baltic states?--Mishae (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I’m Russian. I don’t suggest that you should give up on your Russian heritage that is available to you whether or not you have any blocks in the Russian Wikipedia. But if I were you, I would reject the Russian heritage rooted assumption that working under tutors, sanctions, or their threats is a normal practice. Psychiatrick (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * O.K, I'll try. I used to do a project filmography on the Russian Wikipedia, since the Russian movies are not common there for some reason. I wasn't blocked because I wasn't Russian in their opinion. I suspect it have something to do with a Russian Wikipedia being Semi rather then Russian. Thats maybe one reason why a lot of Ukranians, or Russian-non-Jews get blocked there. O.K, so I partially Jewish, but my excidental anti-semi remarks made them to block me, even though I apologized for a grave mistake. So, yeah, we have not Russian block, we have Russian Jewish block. I don't have anything agianst the Jews, but dew to my disability, I might get angry, and misspeak. Russians never wanted to aknowledge the fact that I do have a disability, and even though one guy did mentioned it to the admins, they ignored it, since in their opinion it violated one of their rules. Currently I am very active on the Ukranian Wikipedia, even though I don't know Ukranian. People always help me there, and I slowly learn the language. English Wikipedia interests me as well, but it have too much articles, and find the one that is not yet written is very hard.--Mishae (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Policies and guidelines seem to be only created for so-called “healthy people” and don’t take into account that someone may have disability. So admins’ banhammers “kill” every user who makes too many mistakes. Psychiatrick (talk) 04:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the rule that I wasn't very happy with on the Russian Wikipedia. Maybe I did violate copyvio too much on the Russian Wikipedia, but they could have just help me fix the article to the point that it doesn't violate anything. Instead, they decided to block me. I don't violate any rules because I like to violate them, I violate them because sometimes I don't understand right away what the community wants from me, and probably, same goes with other users too. As far as disability goes, keep in mind that we are people too (something that the Russian Wikipedia, or you for that matter don't want to aknowledge, altough it does says it on my user page). Like, we are here to help the project too, we just sometimes don't understand things righ away. Another thing to point out, that even though there are some users that ought to be blocked, there are some that get blocked for over reaction of the admin. In my case for example, I wasn't helped, I got over reacted, and got blocked after it. In some cases, the rules might be written so long, that you get lost at how to follow them, and which ones. For example, there are rules, yes, and there are Ignore all rules, that gives you the ???. Not taking into account that someone have, or someone doesn't have a disability, is making me mad. You see, all of us are users, and we both working on a joint project, no matter what we are. But Wikipedians (The Russians especialy) need to take into consideration that there are some people that have special accomodations. Like, we need to be explained a little bit more then other users, but in the end we might get it, just not as quickly. The more users explain other users the rules (and not hiding them, like Russians did), the more chances we will follow. Banhammers sometimes "kill" good users too, like myself, of which I am not very happy about. So, I think you are getting the point what I am trying to say. By the way, if you live in Russia, why you didn't open an account on the Russian Wikipedia????--Mishae (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I wouldn’t like to return to the Russian Wikipedia because of prolonged conflicts, which surrounded me and my articles there, and the order of its Arbcom to provide it with original paid-for copyrighted journal papers. Russian Wikipedia is only one with such conflicts. Psychiatrick (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ????? What do you mean by paid-for copyrighted journal paper? How do you know about it? Did you read it on their site?--Mishae (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Psychiatrick (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I need to talk to you, can you give me your e-mail please.--Mishae (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can. Here is my Wikipedia e-mail. Psychiatrick (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How about non Wikipedia e-mail?--Mishae (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I wouldn’t like to expose my non Wikipedia e-mail here because of possible spam from other users and organizations. Psychiatrick (talk) 22:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * O.K. I sent you an e-mail via Wikipedia, I hope I didn't wrote something that I shouldn't.--Mishae (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Stories Project
Hi!

My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who make and use Wikipedia have so much to share.

I'm scouring user pages looking for inspiring, motivating and interesting stories of how Wikipedia has affected the lives of people. I'm asking questions like "How has Wikipedia changed your life?", "What's the most interesting story you have about Wikipedia?" and "Has Wikipedia ever surprised you?"

Your work on psychiatry is interesting, I'm curious why you write about it?

Last year, we used the annual fundraiser as a way to show the world who it is who actually writes Wikipedia. We featured editors from Brazil, Ukraine, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Kenya, India, United States and England. This campaign was a huge success, resulting in the most financially successful fundraising campaign ever. It was also a campaign that stayed true to the spirit of Wikipedia, educating the public that this free top-5 website is created by volunteers like you and I.

This year we want to highlight more Russian-language Wikipedia editors, so I am in the process of planning a trip to Russia to interview editors.

If you or someone you know (or have heard about) has been positively affected by Wikipedia, or have something interesting to say about Wikipedia I'd very much like to hear about it!

Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project, or if you know someone else with whom I should speak.

Of course, if you have any questions or concerns, please ask! I will answer as soon as I can. I apologize for any poor translation of this letter, I am using Google-translate. I hope it makes you laugh :)

Thank you for your time,

Victor Grigas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Victorgrigas

vgrigas@wikimedia.org

__________________________________

Привет!

Меня зовут Виктор, и я рассказчик с Wikimedia Foundation, некоммерческая организация, которая поддерживает Википедию. Я хроник вдохновляющих историй сообщества Википедии по всему миру, в том числе и читателей, редакторов и доноров. Истории совершенно необходимы для любой некоммерческой органицации, чтобы убедить людей поддержывать наш проект, и мы знаем, что у людей, которые строют и используют Википедии есть много, что рассказать!

Я ищу вдохновляющие страницы пользователей, и интересных историй о том, как Википедия влияют на жизнь людей. Я задавал вопросы вроде "Как Википедия изменила Вашу жизнь?", "Какая самая интересная история у Вас есть о Википедии?" и "Википедия ли когда-нибудь Вас удивило?"

В прошлом году мы использовали ежегодный сбор средств как способ показать миру, кто на самом деле пишет Википедия. Мы показывали редакторов из Бразилии, Украины, Аргентины, Саудовской Аравии, Кении, Индии, США и Англии. Этот метод имел огромный успех, в результате чего у нас была наиболее финансово успешная кампании по сбору средств в историе организации. Кроме того, мы остались верны духу Википедии, просвещение общественности, что это бесплатно ТОП-5 Сайт создан добровольцами, как Ви и я.

В этом году мы хотим выделить еще редакторов Википедии на русском языке, так что я нахожусь в процессе планирования поездки в Россию и интервью с редакторами.

Если Википедия положительно повлеяла на Вас или на кого-то из Ваших знакомых, или у Вас есть что-то интересное сказать о Википедии, я бы очень хотел услышать об этом!

Пожалуйста, дайте мне знать, если Ви бы хотели участвовать в проекте Истории Википедии, или если вы знаете кого-то еще, с кем я должен поговорить.

Конечно, если у Вас есть какие-либо вопросы или сомнения, пожалуйста, обращайтесь! Я отвечу, как только смогу. Извините за плохой перевод этого письма, я использую Google-перевод. Я надеюсь, что заставляет вас смеяться :)

Спасибо за Ваше время,

Victor Grigas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Victorgrigas

vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Victor Grigas (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kuibyshev (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

International Journal of Social Psychiatry
Hi, I'm sorry, but it was incorrect to move this page, as neither the journal cover nor its website include "the" in its name. I'll request to move the page back (because of the double redirects, it cannot just be moved back any more). --Randykitty (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: the move of this journal does not seem to be justified either. --Randykitty (talk) 12:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. It’s my fault. You are right to move the pages back. But you can make redirect pages with the definite article “the” before the names of the journals, because I have a lot of research articles in which the names of the journals begin with the definite article “the.”--Psychiatrick (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)