User talk:Anarchist42

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Red Dwarf Remastered. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as the text has been restored from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Welcome

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

Hello, Anarchist42, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Psy guy ^(talk) 20:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There

Your points on the NAR are valid, I'll leave them be. Hey, it's just my first day. And I hope this is the right way to leave a message. Woolhiser 00:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Anarchist42. I note your comments on JDW(?)'s talk page and take them very seriously. Thanks for the awfully good advice. May I ask where in Canada you are? I'm in Vancouver. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to hear from you (I have noticed your contributions in the past). I have a habit of trying to get bitter opponents to reach some sort of understanding (I guess I'm a diplomatic optimistic), however I have yet to see any effort by the psychiatric profession to even pretend to listen to the mentally ill, hence I view it as a challenge! I'm a resident of sunny Victoria, BC. -- Anarchist42 17:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just moved from Victoria! I am in awe of your diplomatic optimism and wish you well bringing psychiatrists and mental patients to some kind of understanding. I'm sure you've heard this quip about psychiatry: it's the only business where the customer is always wrong. Keep up the good work! Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 20:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomacy is the only option, since we can't sue them (I know, cause I tried). I tried sending (very polite) E-mails to many official websites, and none bothered to reply. -- Anarchist42 22:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I actually only discovered your comments interspersed in the discussion much later. Neither me nor Francesca responded to them specifically, so I hope you don't mind that I removed them. Please feel free to summarise your points I you'd like me to address them, but I think we've covered the stuff pretty well in our seperate discussion on bipolar disorder. JFW | T@lk 23:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bipolar disorder

Hey, I just got your message. Bipolar disorder belongs in the more appropriate category "Mood disorders." The category "Mental illness diagnosis by DSM and ISCDRHP" is not the place for a specific mood disorder when there is a sub category. --CDN99 18:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough (and thanks for the explanation). -- Anarchist42 22:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Canadian federal election, 2006

I have started a poll on using full party names or short forms on this template. Please vote at Talk:Canadian federal election, 2006. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 23:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Canada

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 17:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War on Drugs article improvement

Hey there. Just letting you know that the War on Drugs article has been nominated for improvement. Perhaps you may want to add your supporting vote or a comment on the process. Thank you and take care. --Howrealisreal 18:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist42

I cannot resist the temptation to ask. Are you, 1), an anarchist, and 2) a fan of the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy? Jobjörn 01:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR on psychiatry

Hi Anarchist. I have read your November 2005 exchange with Francesca and JFW. I just wonder if you have seen the three pages (WP:RFAR Cesar Tort, Ombudsman et al.) about the Biological psychiatry article? —Cesar Tort 18:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Cesar_Tort_and_Ombudsman_vs_others. Please feel free to reply there or hear. I believe that you have been needlessly pulled into arbitration, although I make no comment on your actual opinion (yet! I shall if requested).

Hi again. I wonder if you have read the five RFAR pages, including the talk pages (besides Requests there are the Evidence and huge Workshop pages)? Also, I wrote a polemical article about the ongoing debate User talk:Cesar Tort/discussion. —Cesar Tort 21:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read much of the RFAR pages (which IMHO is confusingly organized and verbose), but ignored the stuff about "Ombudsman" (I've previously noticed his POV edits, and he is already known as a problematic editor). Do you wish me to comment within User talk:Cesar Tort/discussion? (I believe that it is too long to just comment at the bottom). Anarchist42 22:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you are welcomed to comment. BTW, what happened to Francesca? Do you know how to contact her? —Cesar Tort 22:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Francesca_Allan_of_MindFreedomBC last contributed on January 4 2006, then blanked her own talk page after saying good-bye to wikipedia here: Talk:Psychiatry&diff=prev&oldid=33861014. Anarchist42 22:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This also appears blanked... Do you know what she said? —Cesar Tort 23:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - it seems the wikipedia can't handle that link, try this: [1].

Your comments

Thanks for your astute comments in my user page. As I just explained there, I used old sources because another editor suggested in an RFAR page that the history of biopsych ought to be mentioned. —Cesar Tort 00:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a hand

Hey Anarchist:

Could you give me a hand in Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Evidence? Presently I am alone resisting heavy criticism from other editors! —Cesar Tort 18:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, although you may not like all my comments. - Anarchist42 20:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes: I liked them! And do you know that, according to the first phrase in Evidence Page, you can even post there (not only in RFAR talk pages)?

BTW, there are a couple of typos that you might want to correct in your recent postings. For instance, the word “patient” is missing after you wrote “psychiatrist”. And at the bottom there is a superfluous word “my”.

Thanks again and I look forward to see you there! —Cesar Tort 21:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just would like to ask your permission to correct some typos. For instance, the indentation in your latest reply to an editor at the bottom of Talk evidence page. —Cesar Tort 00:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be my guest. - Anarchist42 00:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Boston Tea Party

Howdy, I noticed that you and I seem to post in one or two articles dealing with progressive issues in political science/sociology. There's currently a debate beginning in Boston Tea Party as to whether the article should include the category [2]. It meets definitions set in the articles Terrorism and Definition of terrorism, however, there are several self-proclaimed patriots who watch BTP who refuse to recognise the fact. The simple criteria for terrorism generally seem to be intimidation or destruction of property in order to change public policy or public opinion while a state of war has not yet been declared. Some users would rather use recent acts of terrorism as a yardstick, rather than using a firm definition, and hence lose their ability to discuss matters calmly. Would you be able to pop in to the Talk page and join in the discussion? Thanks much, samwaltz 05:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Health issues and the effects of cannabis

Hi, in regards to the study which you found to be flawed. I myself was skeptical and tried to find some sort of reference to this study in regards to peer review. I did not succeed. I am glad your research was more successfull. Tell me, what did you find in regard to this study to lead you to believe it is flawed? HighInBC 21:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It took a bit of searching, but I found out that that most of the study's subjects also smoked cigarettes! (Note that a similiar study which claimed that cannabis caused lung cancer had a math error which, when corrected, showed that cannabis actually prevented lung cancer). Anarchist42 18:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, also I found these: [3] and [4]

I had to find valid references to the studies discrediting, as an IP editor was very insistent on the citation. Right now me and him are discussing it as best I can, more voices/opinions would help. HighInBC 16:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work - keep it up! Cannabis actually prevents cancer, so the few biased and/or flawed studies showing otherwise need to be scrutinized. Anarchist42 16:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that is what the bulk of science seems to show. I could use a third opinion here:Talk:Health_issues_and_the_effects_of_cannabis#Citation_regarding_cancer regarding this citation. Apparently the 2 links to unfavorable review of the study are not enough. HighInBC 17:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley Sekula-Gibbs

With respect, your edit summary of "Restored links that were NOT dead in anyway, probably vandalism", the two links I removed were indeed dead when I removed them (I wanted to see her website, tried both links, and got not-found errors instead); I see today that they now both redirect to her real campaign website. If you'd checked my wikipedia edit history you would have noticed that I am not only not a "vandal", but rather that I routinely revert vandalism; I would appreciate it if you could refrain from casting assertions of vandalism in the future (especially when you can easily check any editor's contribution history). Anarchist42 19:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I call as I see them. And I will in the future. Have a good day!--Getaway 23:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt response. If I may be so bold as to request a clarification: are you claiming that the removed links were indeed not dead when I removed them, or rather that my edit was (in your opinion) vandalism? I ask because I wish not to, in the future, either remove relevent live links nor engage in vandalism. Anarchist42 03:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anararchist, I apologize for reverting your edits re the statistics. I meant to revert Getaway's edit and didn't notice that you had made one after that. --Strothra 20:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breggin

Hi Anarchist42,

I’ve just written in Peter Breggin’s edit summary: “Scuro’s copyedits are extreme POV! Article badly requires a tag (BTW, Barlett’s web cite is NOT a reliable source)”.

Perhaps you may want to take a look at the incredibly POV insertions of a new editor in that article?

--Cesar Tort 03:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Hey, I know we don't know eachother yet but we got off on the wrong foot. I had created a Illegal Immigration template a while ago, and it only had a few links - but then after I put it up, people started rushing in and adding links. Sadly, they did not actually place the template in their links, and I had to. there were so many new ones that I wasn't really paying attention to what I was placing it on, and that led you to correctly revert me in the 2006 elections, so I'd just like to apologize, I'm kinda new at the template thing (this is the first time it has been edited by other people - all the sudden like 10 people came in), but that's no excuse, next time I'll pay more attention,
Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 16:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul

Hi, you reverted my edit to Ron Paul as not being NPOV. However, while I personally believe Paul's statement, there is no proof that he did not write that newsletter article, nor is his word proof that he is not racist. For this reason, I believe "claimed" is a more neutral word than "explained". What is your take on this?--Daveswagon 20:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earth like planet?

I read this about 55 Cancri f in the Daily Mail and wondered if this is new info. As i'm not really into science maybe you could field this! I've seen on the edit history that you one of the only people to of added to the article, so wondering if you know anything about me. See this article for me to see if i'm right, thanks! And please get back to me. Pafcool2 20:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul

Ron Paul has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured quality. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Anarchist42! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 385 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Alan Weiss (musician) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 10

The Interior cordially invites you to the Vancouver Wikipedia 10th Anniversary Meetup! It is being held at Benny's Bagels at 2505 W Broadway. Meetup will start at 6:30pm. Drop by for some Wikipedia-style conviviality and free gear! Feel free to forward this invitation to any Wikipedians who might be able to attend, and visit the discussion page to suggest activities. Hope to see you there and have a Happy 2011!

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]