User talk:Staug73

Welcome to the Wikipedia!
Hello, and Welcome to the Wikipedia, Staug73! Thanks for weighing in on the Psychosurgery article discussion. Hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:


 * Take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial and Manual of Style.
 * When you have time, you can peruse The five pillars of Wikipedia, and assume good faith, but keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
 * Always keep the notion of NPOV in mind, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
 * If you need any help, post your question at the Help Desk.
 * Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

And some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, Wikiquette, and you can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes: &#x7e;&#x7e;&#x7e;&#x7e;.

Best of luck, Staug73, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 20:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Controversy of ECT
Hi Staug73,

I’m afraid not even you can remove the sourced material you included in the Controversy section of the ECT article (excellent material by the way).

Those guys are really pov pushers willing to waste enormous amounts of time and energy to push their pov. I for one cannot handle them alone for the simple and plain reason that I have very limited time to edit in WP.

I would recommend to put the article’s content back and just ask for a third party comment, perhaps here.

Or feel free to come to my talk page and leave a note.

Congrats (and best wishes) for your ECT copyedits,

—Cesar Tort 00:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I just replied in my own talk page
 * Cheers! —Cesar Tort 17:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Warning: do not remove POV tags unilaterally
Wikipedia is a community of editors. No single editor should remove a POV tag especially when a fellow Wikipedian has already objected to this practice in discussion. I understand your passion but play the game by the rules.--scuro 04:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Electroconvulsive therapy
I have given this a quick read-through. With regard to POV, some of those talk page comments that accuse the article of carrying weight are in themselves biased; one states:
 * "The article is totally pro-electroshock. Giving it a pretty name doesn't make it anything more than zapping a persons brain to erase why they feel bad. Its a barbaric practice, and should be treated as little better than drilling holes in peoples heads to let the spirits out."

A later comment states:
 * "ECT is the most effective treatment for depression. It is commonly utilized and medically accepted. This article does not reflect that."

The phrase "between a rock and a hard place" comes to mind. I think you have done a pretty good job so far in your effort to introduce the required balance into the article, but you won't be able to please all readers. It is well sourced; that aspect cannot reasonably be criticised. An article review might be a good idea. If the outcome of that is positive, you have what could become a featured article, although stability will need to be reached before that can happen. Now that you have begun the mediation process, stick with that and see what the outcome will be. Adrian  M. H.  15:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

deletion of ECT controversy
Hi again,

User Adambro has reverted your request for deletion.

I'm not familiar with such policies. But since you requested deletion with your user I.P. number rather than with your User name, I recommend you to post the deletion tag again using your User name and see what happens.

Cheers,

—Cesar Tort 17:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You might find this useful . —Cesar Tort 02:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
Your request for mediation has been accepted. Jacroe 18:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN
Hello Staug73. I noticed this edit summary and feel you may benefit from reading WP:OWN. When individuals feel so strongly about articles (or sections of articles), it becomes near impossible for them to retain a detached, neutral point of view. Please consider taking a break if you feel stressed about editing collaboratively with others. Best wishes. Rockpock e  t  07:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

About to wrap it up...
Hey, head on back to the mediation request. If you'll agree to a few things, we can close it! -- Jacroe 03:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You asked, I answered. I'm waiting on your reply. It's almost over. JacroeBlank 19:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

tough ECT audience!
Hi, I wonder if you are still editing the tough article.

I think the template should be restored in the ETC article. The guy who removed it stated in edit summary “This is a worldwide medical treatment”. I believe this is false: isn’t it forbidden in Slovenia or another Eastern Europe country?

—Cesar Tort 06:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes: WP is a labyrinth.


 * Above I called your attention to this one: . —Cesar Tort 16:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

ECT Mediation
Almost... done... JacroeBlank 21:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

June 2014
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced statement
I reverted your edit to Deep sleep therapy because in making it you failed to look for a source and would have prevented other editors from doing so. In fact, the statement you deleted is relevant, deserves proper consideration, and seems reasonably capable of verification. Please take something like this to the talk page rather than act in this peremptory way. Bjenks (talk) 03:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)