User talk:Durwoodie

Comments Sought on My Edit to the Devil in Miss Jones Page

Please see user page for details and reply here. Durwoodie (talk) 07:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Ramage

Per WP:Headings. RandySavageFTW (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psychiatry Edit

[1] Psychologists can't prescribe medication; go see one of them (or tell whoever is treated only through medication to). Some psychologists are also clinical, so your health care should cover that. If medication has proven completely ineffective, refuse medication from your doctors and demand to see a psychologist. They can't legally treat you without the consent of whoever has power of attorney. Self-help books or other suggested ways of treating oneself are also useful.

Also, that edit did not cite a reliable source, and so it was reverted. MichaelExe (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate it when shills for Big Pharma pollute my talk page with unsolicited and inappropriate medical advice. In my jurisdiction psychologists and psychotherapists are NOT covered by public health care; only psychiatrists are. Telling someone to refuse medication is like telling him to get locked up for "non-compliance." Durwoodie (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psychiatrists ARE psychotherapists. That's a very vague term, and it means even they can legally treat someone through talk therapies, whether they choose to is up to them; they're the doctors. Also, medication, however much you (and even I) disagree with it, is the quickest and often the only form of treatment necessary. Natural remedies like exercise (which is a better treatment for depression, if the depressed can motivate themselves to do it) and changing one's diet can also be used. Talk therapies become necessary when patients are harder to treat, but medication is often used alongside these therapies.

Personally, I went through a depression (due to anxiety from school, among other things), and I went to see a psychologist (albeit for one session, because he was very cold, and I started to feel better before I saw him, being the end of the school year). No, it was not covered by my Canadian health care, but he had a private practice, which most, but not all, psychologists have.

It's usually up to the outpatient to choose how to receive treatment (inpatients may not have this privilege, but they also receive treatment through talk and group therapies).

Finally, your edits to psychiatry do not cite reliable sources. If you still want to contribute to wikipedia on this topic, do so where relevant (i.e. the biopsychiatry controversy article), but anything you write should be paraphrased from someone with an MD or PhD. You may want to go through Wikedia's content policies: WP:VERIFY, WP:RELIABLE, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR. It doesn't really matter if you don't, though, as long as you stop persisting with the same edits that get reverted. Someone will always go over your work, and anything that is not properly sourced or is not an improvement to the article - will be removed. MichaelExe (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You either don't know what you're talking about or are lying. I have yet to meet an indigent psychiatric patient who was offered any treatment other than five-minute med checks and the prescription of bare medication. And I strongly disagree with your biased opinion that medication "is often the only treatment necessary." Medication is almost always unhelpful as a treatment and, taken in isolation, often does more harm than good. Ever heard of tardive dyskinesia? That is CAUSED by psychiatric medication. So is restless leg syndrome. The ways in which psychiatric drugs damage the human brain and body without doing the tiniest bit of good are well-known to precisely the self-interested Big Pharma shills that cover it up. Durwoodie (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If medication didn't work, why would we used it?

And just because you or some people you know have had a bad experience with psychiatrists, does not mean that all psychiatrists are like this. All talk therapy does is point out the obvious and try to motivate you. It doesn't teach anything about yourself that you shouldn't already know (but one might deny certain events in their life, consciously or unconsciously). It does not fix your problems; it helps you cope with and manage them.

Tell the people you know to go see a psychologist. My cousin was on antidepressants for a while; eventually, things got worse and she was hospitalized. I can guarantee that she was receiving talk therapy there. My parents have gone to psychologists and counsellors time and time again. Ultimately, the decision is up to the individual; they have to take it upon themselves to choose what treatment best suits them. MichaelExe (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durwoodie, I actually have some sympathy for your point. There's a reasonable case that neuroleptic drugs often just suppress behavior without affecting the underlying disease, and it's clear that they are very unpleasant to many people who are forced to take them. Nevertheless, material in Wikipedia articles needs to be attributable to reputable published sources -- there is no way this material will survive in the article if it is framed as your own personal opinion unsupported by sources. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that you should read WP:AGF. Accusing other editors of lying is certainly in violation of that. As for the efficacy of medications, I have a good friend who does not respond well to antidepressants. I have another friend whose life was completely changed (for the better) once he got antidepressant treatment and who would state that he was "healed", as long as he kept taking his meds. He was so happy about this that he donated large sums of money to establish a research institute and an endowed chair to the University of Massachusetts Medical School (see here). All I want to say is, things are not black and white, medication often works, but not always. As other editors here have pointed out, you need good reliabel and independent sources for your statements and if you don't have those, you can post them on a blog, but not on WP. --Crusio (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did provide a notable source for the references I was providing--a book written by a respected journalist from a patient's perspective. I created a separate article for it, with tons of references, and merely put a reference to it under See Also. You deleted even that because it's allegedly an "obscure anti-psychiatry book." The fact is that you are biased because you have vested interests to protect. It is people like you who make sure the truth never becomes known because it would endanger your pocketbook. Durwoodie (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

The "three-revert rule" ("3RR") is a bright-line rule concerning blatant overuse of reverting, a common kind of edit war behavior. It states that a user who makes more than three revert actions (of any kind) on any one page within a 24-hour period, may be considered to be edit warring, and blocked appropriately, usually for a 24-hour period for a first incident. 3RR draws a line where edit warring via reverts is clearly beyond a reasonable level and action will be taken if it has not already been. As such it does not apply in a few narrowly defined situations where there is no edit war (listed below).

Note that any administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report warring behaviors rather than retaliate, whether or not 3RR has been breached.

Now that you're aware of the rules, if you continue, you will not have an excuse. MichaelExe (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too late. I already reverted already. But I'll unrevert now. Durwoodie (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Psychiatry. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Crusio (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Alert warning

Let me be totally and utterly clear: you must stop adding material without sources or talk page discussion. If you make one more edit of this sort, I will request your account to be blocked from editing. This is a final warning! Looie496 (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at User talk:Crusio, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please refrain from posting further personal attacks on my talk page. Thanks. Crusio (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of administrator intervention request

Hello, Durwoodie. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Crusio (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for violating Wikipedia's policy of no personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tan | 39 23:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Durwoodie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

see my last entry under Biopsychiatry controversy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Biopsychiatry_controversy

Decline reason:

Noted. That further justifies your block, then. We assume good faith with other editors around here. Next time, address the reasons behind your block. MuZemike 00:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{unblock|I misread the article and thought my edit had been reverted instead of being merely modified, as it was. In view of that my comments referred to above were inappropriate. I would extend Crusio a full apology if I were able to edit again. If you review my contribution history you'll see that I've made some inexperienced but good-quality contributions to Wikipedia in the short time I've been here. Again, I'm really sorry. If you choose not to remove the block I shan't bother you again.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I have reduced your block to 'time served', so you should be able to edit again. You would do well to assume good faith in future conflicts and remember to stay cool when the editing gets hot.

Request handled by: –xeno^talk 14:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Articles for deletion nomination of Loose Cannon (novel)

I have nominated Loose Cannon (novel), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loose Cannon (novel). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 13:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Durwoodie. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Peer review/Time After Time (Alexander novel).
Message added 16:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

PrincessofLlyr (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]