Jump to content

User talk:24.55.228.56

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.55.228.56 (talk) at 02:34, 17 January 2006 (→Please stop the nonsense on [[Larry C. Johnson]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Chemical Imbalance

Have you read the talk page?

e.g. "The chemical imbalance theory doesn't exist as a coheisive seperate theory from the idea that biochemistry is important, and that neurotransmitters are important. Furthermore chemical imbalance and chemical imbalance theory are not the same thing at all."

and "Chemical Imbalance is not a theory, but a hypothesised mechanism which stands or falls on its scientific merit on a case by case basis. That is, dopamine appears to have a role in addiction, schizophrenia, parkinsons; and serotonin is sometimes implicated in depression, but that doesn't constitute a "theory". Further, it's not always clear with the change in chemicals is a symptom or a cause."

As far as I'm aware, Chemical Imbalance Theory doesn't exist. It's not in the index of any of my text books, and I haven't come across it in neuroscience lectures (although I'm by no means an expert on neuroscience). Chemical Imbalance Theory is basically a straw man for anti-psychiatry types to attack. Thus, I think there are both scientific and non-scientific reasons to question it. I question the existence of the page (although to the extent that drug companies present lay explanations talking about 'chemical imbalances' then perhaps that justifies it).Limegreen 21:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a unifying "Chemical Imbalance Theory" and certainly not with capital letters :) However, psychiatrists make vague allusions to chemical imbalances all the time, especially when encouraging patients to take drugs. The serotonin theory of depression, for instance, is part of the chemical imbalance theory. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 02:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Think about signing in

Thanks for making solid contributions to wikipedia over the last two weeks! You may want to think about signing in. Anyone can edit, but there are advantages to creating an account if you want to contribute regularly. To join, create an account and then introduce yourself to the community at the new user log. If you have any questions feel free to ask me! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What are the advantages?--24.55.228.56 03:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well follow the above link(advantages) to see the listed advantages, but the main one is that if you like contributing you gain a reputation for making solid additions (or removals). Respect is nearly impossible to gain as an anonymous IP. Another big advantage is that your contributions are no longer suspect. Because a majority of the vandalism, questionable edits, and general chickanery come from anon IP, signing in shows some level of commitment to the project and to improve as you have done so far. You don't need to sign in to edit, but your contributions will be recognized. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 05:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect 24.55.228.56 is more comfortable being anonymous. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 02:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E. Fuller Torrey

Please visit the talk page and discuss before reverting everything again. We are attempting to come to a compromise on the article. If the reverting continues this evening and you break the 3 revert rule again, you're editing ability may be suspended. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 02:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have never broken the 3 revert rule. Who died and made you boss?--24.55.228.56 02:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Please take a look at your changes to the page made yesterday:

  1. (cur) (last) 07:43, November 17, 2005 24.55.228.56 (Fixed quotation marks/POV)
  2. (cur) (last) 07:41, November 17, 2005 24.55.228.56 (→NAMI)
  3. (cur) (last) 07:41, November 17, 2005 24.55.228.56 (Removed uncited POV speculation as to why Torrey is no longer formally associated with NAMI)
  4. (cur) (last) 07:29, November 17, 2005 24.55.228.56 (removed settlement line - citation needed)
  5. (cur) (last) 07:27, November 17, 2005 24.55.228.56 (civil libertarians support Torrey as well, Scientologists are a signif opponent)
  6. (cur) (last) 07:25, November 17, 2005 24.55.228.56 (lc)
  7. (cur) (last) 07:24, November 17, 2005 24.55.228.56 (uused actual mission from TAC website, not extreme anti-psychiatry POV description of mission)
  8. (cur) (last) 07:20, November 17, 2005 24.55.228.56 (Torrey is noted. He is only controversial to those with extreme anti-psychiatry POV.)
  9. (cur) (last) 04:18, November 17, 2005 24.55.228.56 (sp)
  10. (cur) (last) 04:15, November 17, 2005 24.55.228.56 (rv extreme antipsychiatry POV)
  11. (cur) (last) 03:59, November 17, 2005 24.55.228.56 (rv extreme antipsychiatry POV)
  12. (cur) (last) 03:54, November 17, 2005 24.55.228.56 (rv extreme antipsychiatry POV - removed self-made, self-serving definition of anosognosia)
  13. (cur) (last) 03:23, November 17, 2005 24.55.228.56 (rv POV warrior ombudsman - if you are not the official ombudsman, you need to change your misleading name)


You might also want to review the three revert rule, specifically: Reverting doesn't only mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. It means undoing the actions of another editor, and may include edits that mostly undo a previous edit and also add something new, page moving, admin actions such as protection, etc. Use common sense.

So again, I'm politely asking you to join the discussion and work towards a compromise. Thanks. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 02:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am dealing with an extreme POV editor who is attempting to destroy the E. Fuller Torrey page with antipsychiatry nonsense. The list of edits you just published to my discussion page is testament that my edits are thoughtful, accurate, and do not violate the 3R rule. Back off and stop harrassing me.--24.55.228.56 02:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand your frustration, but articles can have more than one POV and are expected to. Reverting isn't the way to solve the problem. I hope you decide to join the discussion. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 02:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

antipsychiatry nonsense

You said it all right there. If it's antipsychiatry, then it's nonsense. But, hey, nothing POV about that. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 02:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. Antipsychiatry = anti-science. It's just more flat earth nonsense. It is not encyclopedic and it has no place in a wiki article to explain mental illness.--24.55.228.56 03:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the two are necessarily analogous. They have some interesting points regarding mental hygiene laws and civil liberties. There are notable established credible psychiatrists who are in the antipsychiatry movement. --DocJohnny 00:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "antipsychiatry" is an actual movement and so it needs to be acknowledged in the encylopedia. But it is still silly flat earth nonsense. Contrary to your assertion, there are no "notable established credible psychiatrists who are in the antipsychiatry movement." Thomas Szsaz, Peter Breggin, and R.D. Laing, are the three most associated with the movemnt and they are fringe laughingstocks in the field of psychiatry with zero credibility.--24.55.228.56 14:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting analysis. The entire field of psychiatry has zero credibility so biomedical psychiatrists don't have the right to laugh at anybody. You really think the concept of human rights in psychiatry is "silly flat earth nonsense"? There's a lot more than three psychiatrists on our side. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps one day you'll choose to get a wiki account and have a name rather than an IP number. Maybe you'll even explain to us your hatred of the mentally ill. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Torrey

I have absolutely no idea who this person is and no interest in the subject of psychiatry; I would caution you to please be careful about making accusations and encourage you to read Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. To the rest, generally, unless there's something horrendously wrong with the article (vandalism, slurs, etc.), I protect articles as they stand when I see the protect request -- in this manner I am fair to everyone who requests an article be protected. In this case, it appears to me to be a content dispute between two users with differing viewpoints, not vandalism, and so I see no need to bend my personal standard. Protection, as the template says across the top of the page, is not necessarily an endorsement of any certain version. Please make use of the discussion page to work out your differences. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

recent edits

24.55.228.56, please do not just delete anything you happen not to like. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the nonsense on Larry C. Johnson

Please do not make wholesale changes to the article without responding to discussion in talk. Name-calling and verbal abuse is not enough; you need to actually address the arguments. You are steamrolling reversions with no regard for the WP:3RR and without responding to specific arguments against these reverts. I see you engage in similar behavior on other articles according to what I see on this page. Your actions are destructive of wikipedia goals.--csloat 01:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My actions are constructive and in defense of wikipedia. I am drawn to articles where an editor with extreme POV on a given topic, such as Commodore Sloat, attempts to repeatedly insert POV into that topic and bully others. I will not be bullied. Larry C. Johnson is an obscure bit player in the Valerie Plame scandal. Johnson attempted to insert himself into the Plame story by asserting that Plame was a covert CIA agent when named by Robert Novak in 2003. However, since Johnson had himself left he CIA in 1989, there is no way he could know Plame's status. Commodore Sloat is a well-known POV pusher, esp. on issues related to Iraq (e.g., Iraqi insurgency, Saddam Hussein, and al Qaeda. He writes an anti-Bush blog and has strong views on Larry C. Johnson and the Plame affair: http://www.shockandblog.com/blog/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=14 He even has a Plamegate poll![1] Commodore Sloat should not be editing wikipedia articles when he has strong POV views on the subject. I will continue to fight efforts by POV bullies to force their views on others via wikipedia.--24.55.228.56 02:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.55.228.56&oldid=35487173"