User talk:Scuro/Archive 1

antipsych is NOT scientology

I see you have been editing psychiatry-related, controversial articles. I wonder if you know that the views of secular critics of psychichiatry are VERY DIFFERENT to the views of religious or fringe groups. Our Weltanschauung is wholly different.

I will give you a couple of examples. Scientologists maintain that World War II, the Bosnia war and even September 11 were caused by psychiatrists; and that evil psychiatrists caused the universe’s mess trillions of years ago (see e.g., Space opera in Scientology doctrine). NOBODY I know in the psychiatric survivor movement, or in the critical literature by professionals that I have read, hold such views.

Please read the Antipsychiatry article and compare it with the Scientology and psychiatry and Psychiatry: An Industry of Death to see the big difference! 189.140.202.203 17:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two groups do have different beliefs, but do they not share the same roots and hold very similar beliefs about mental disorders? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scuro (talk • contribs)

Hi Scuro: You posted a message in the wrong place, my main user page. I just moved it to the right one.

As to your questions, the roots are different. Classic antipsychiatrists like David Cooper and Ronald Laing had ties with the political left of the 1960s. Scientology on the other hand started as a mix of Aleister Crowley’s magic, Freud’s abreaction therapy and science-fiction fantasies.

The beliefs are also different. Scientologists are religiously committed to never take psychiatric drugs. Not even the most radical and prolific critic of psychiatry, Thomas Szasz, holds such commitment. Szasz even published a book about the right of adults to take illegal drugs. Personally, though I’m active in debunking involuntary psychiatry, once in a while I take Valium to get some sleep. A scientologist would never do that on principle.

Another major difference is the total rejection of psychology by scientologists. No antipsychiatry activist I know reaches that extreme! I could go on and on to mention more differences. But the above gives you the picture.

I see you are a newcomer to Wikipedia. Have fun! :) 189.140.202.203 23:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I moved your post here so that you may respond to my posts here.

So I guess if I post here you can read it. Can others read it also? What if someone else sends me a message. Does it all stay on this page?

Thanks for that information by the way, there should be a Wiki article on the difference between Scientology and Antipsychiatry. It gets confusing. Szasz helped found the CCHR, did he not? I'm assuming he was a scientologist, has he broken from Scientology now?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Scuro (talk • contribs)

Wikipedians discuss issues in their talk pages; some of them prefer to do it in a single talk page in order not to break the arguments in twain. If you continue to edit in WP you may receive here messages from other editors on other topics.

Szasz never was a scientologist, as you can read in the WP article and here. He is only a nominal “founder” of CCHR. In real life Szasz has never had any power whatsoever in an organization ruled by faithful scientologists. In fact, many of Szasz’ views are pretty heretical (e.g., “our right to drugs”) and even evil for the church’s dogmas (e.g., his belief that there is no post-mortem survival for the human psyche). But he has not broken with CCHR and probably never will.

Strange bedfellows… 189.140.202.203 01:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

they eat at the same table

When you talk of the ICSPP, Szasz, Scientology, Breggin, Baughman, Mindfreedom et al,...really you can say they are all different, and they are. Szasz denies he ever was a scientologist while Baughman works for them. Breggin may have been but not since the 70's. ICSPP is not linked with Scientology yet the CCHR is. One thing for certain, the message is basically the same when it comes to Psychology or Psychiatry. One may be more extreme but they all speak with the same voice. More interestingly, one creates content for the other, and the other broadcast it. It doesn't matter if the broadcaster or the content creator are affiliated to scientology or not. They share. They work together. They go to protests together. They show up at the same awards nights and fight the same battles. DO SSRI's make people commit suicide? You know which side the antipsychs and scientology are always going to be on...and that is the same side.

--Scuro 05:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breggin

Hi Scuro. I sense (and share) you frustration with Ombudsman's unilateral editing style on the Peter Breggin article. Unfortunately Ombudsman has a history in tendacious editing on subjects critical to medicine and psychiatry. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others. I urge you to continue to edit in a collaborative manner and do not resort to edit warring, instead leave me to deal with him. He is on an indefinate probations and "may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article concerning a medical subject which he disrupts by tendentious editing". He is well on his way towards that. and if he continues along these lines I will invoke that ruling.

In the meantime, would you mind considering reworking the new section on Columbine. As it is, I don't really understand the direct relevence to Breggin. The "infamous Colombine trial" is not sufficient to inform a non expert in the subject as to what you are talking about. The quote from the judge appear to me to be completely unrelated to Breggin. We also have to be careful of due balance in a WP:BLP, as the article is growing to the extent that the majority of it is examples of criticism of his credibility. While its important that these issues are mentioned, its also imperative that we don't pile on by listing every example of criticism. Thanks Rockpocket 21:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have been a little frustrated by his editing. But I guess that is to be expected. When one takes the time to carefully word and edit something and then someone changes it so that it's meaning has been significantly altered, frustration sets in. So at that point I thought it was important to let history and the courts show us who Breggin is. How can one edit that? In court he has failed both the Frye and Daubert standard which are scientific standards.

The Columbine case was remarkable because it looks like Breggin hadn't even made an effort to look at any of the evidence. The killers had made videos and there was all sorts of other evidence yet Breggin simply made his report ignoring this evidence. Is that important to know? I think it is when Breggin is cited as an expert witness. How should I handle that Colombine section?

--Scuro 23:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, I agree the criticism of his credibility is notable, its just that we should be concise and to the point; long quotes from judges or scene setting isn't really directly relevent to the simple fact that his testimony failed legal standards. Whats more, the more simple and to the point you can make it, the more difficult it becomes for supporters to justify removing it. So, something along the lines of "In the a case relating to the Columbine High School massacre (it would be better of you could be more specific about what the case was about, I don't know which case it actually was), Breggin's evidence was criticized by the judge for failing the Frye Standard. (ref) appropriate links provides the reader with the context they need to understand the details without us expanding on them here. Rockpocket 09:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PeterBreggin on Peter Breggin

Peter Breggin responding: I still have no idea how to work in the system, but it is ridiculous to think that an expert like me would not attempt to obtain every bit of evidence possible in a case. In fact, I open every dialogue with an attorney with a request for everything. The lawyers in the Columbine case arrived late, were unable to obtain the discover, and I didn't even find out there was a roomful of evidence until I was asked about it by the defense in the deposition. Experts live at the mercy of the integrity and ability of the attorneys that hire us. I should be allowed to respond to each of the legal attacks on my own bio page. Meanwhile, I am unsure about how to communicate with you. Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterBreggin (talk • contribs) 21:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter,

You are communicating with me! Up at the top of your Wiki page you will see "my watchlist". It will show you recent edits on every page you visit including this one. I look at it first when I go on Wikipedia. I am just a contributor on Wikipedia. I did alert admin and hopefully someone will contact you soon. If not, contact me again. The best place to talk about issues about the Peter Breggin article, is that talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peter_Breggin Many editors of all stripes watch that page so you will be heard. Although I am the first person you have contacted on Wikipedia, and I will do my best to be fair to you, pragmatically speaking, you should probably seek the help of an administrator or someone else more supportive your viewpoint.

Regards,

--scuro (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QW

Thanks for your contribution over at QW. Any new eyes looking over the discussion are appriciated. Shot info 08:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have put a lot of work into that. Sometimes it's nice when others see and recognize your efforts. The other guy is way off base. --Scuro 17:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would seem that my discussions have fallen on deaf ears over in QW there as the proponents of "Cannot change" have reverted my changes. Unfortunately I will be off the air for a couple of weeks due to some issues out in the real world (tm). If you could take the time to comment over there, I know other editors would appriciate the fresh eyes. Thanks Shot info 05:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

me a Scientologist?

Seems like you are doing some good things around WP. I do wonder if you are a Scientologist with an ax to grind, however, I think you're contributions are overall helpful. Yeago 02:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I try to keep my posts very honest and add good things to Wiki. I have an extensive background in dealing with ADHD and hope to share some of that knowledge over time. Sure I have slant...a bias, and as you guessed I'm no fan of the Scientology or the Anti-Psych stance on ADHD. I couldn't care less about their religion. For the record, I've never had anything to do with Scientology. The trick for me is to get good information posted without inserting my bias. It's hard sometimes, because people get so emotional on this issue and other issues related to it, and your natural tendency is to respond in kind.

--Scuro 03:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's me, Larry R. Holmgren. I started on Wikipedia on December 30, 2006. I found you on the Gary Null biography. I had thought that you were an old adept. I think I wrote about 65% of the article!

After reading your talk page I have a Scientologist story to share with you. About 26 years ago I decided to visit ten religious institutions to compare their practices, symbols, and beliefs. I was a student at UCLA Graduate School at the time, on summer vacation. I went to a Temple, some Christian churches, a Mormon (LDS) church, a Scientology Center, and a talk by J. Krishnamurti.

Once some visitors at a house in Van Nuys in which I rented a room, as I found out later, were Scientologists. Surprisingly, I saw them about a month later when I visited the Scientology Center in Hollywood, California during a Friday night Open House, member recruitment event. I looked at their books. They called be into the office and quized me. I remember them asking if I felt "blocked." I said no. Later, as I sat in the big room, this woman I recognized, bursts out of a side room and announces to the room, "Hot damn, we made our quota." I didn't laugh. I never went back. Larry R. Holmgren 04:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Larry, Yes I believe you wrote even more then 65% of the Null article. I have been very impressed by your output and more impressed with it's thoroughness. You have taken a lot of time to research all that information and you have added to the article in an unbiased way, kudos to you! I unfortunately have no scientologist story to share, I've never met one. I'm new to Wiki too, I joined around the same time you did.

--scuro 04:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friend, IN RE, the Gary Null article. Please explain how you can infer that Gary Null is like Mr. Clean? Apparently, when Gary's writing strays into politics and physics (magnetic fields being confused with gravity)he can be wrong. Larry R. Holmgren 04:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Larry, ....no I did not want to infer that Gary was like Mr. Clean. Rather that some editors have "cleaned" up the article in attempt to make him squeaky clean. Gary is not a "pastel" type of person. He is opinionated and his opinions can be forceful. I'm not judging his opinions but rather the tone of the article is being muted, and that just isn't right because that is not Gary. --scuro 16:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Methylphenidate

I'd like to get your opinion on the drug if you don't mind. I enjoy your posts about it. I am not a huge wikipedia person and am not on it much. I was wondering if you are ever on AIM or yahoo or anything. Let me know. Thanks man, Rjkd12 15:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have yahoo but don't really use it. Generally from reading the literature and personal observation I can confidently say that Ritalin/Contcerta works very well for those who have or had the hyperactive type of ADHD. Adderall does too but may also work a little better for those who are the "spacey" type of inattentive of ADHDers. It doesn't decrease all of your symptoms but generally helps you do better on tasks and have better focus. It won't make you smarter. Unfortunatly I don't know a lot about medication and you should ask your Dr. about this if you have ADHD.

--Scuro 22:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your recent deletions

Re your recent deletions in Antipsychiatry article, before editing again that section I recommend your reading of the many Scientology articles in Wikipedia. The citations don’t have to be external. Follow the internal WP links (and the others in the box at the right here) and you will find all the scientological doctrines referred to in the CCHR section.

—Cesar Tort 08:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar, you added the material and some points seemed pretty far fetched to me. It's you responsibility to provide the citations if requested. If all of those facts are mentioned in Wikipedia, shouldn't you provide the reference to the proper Wiki page? Should we as editors be looking for a needle in a haystack? The citations were requested by someone else about a month or two ago. If no citations are provided, why should the material not be deleted?

--scuro 20:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of Wikipedia

You went a little bit over the top on the Breggin discussion page. As Wikians do we not have a common purpose?

--scuro 03:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not place your personal communications in main user pages.

If you want to post a personal message for me or any other WP user, do it in the talk pages (such as this one).

Thankyouverymuch!

—Cesar Tort 05:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting concept Cesar, you would do well to follow your own advice.

--scuro 05:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t misunderstand me. This is your User:Talk page; not your user main page. Wikipedians don’t post messages on user main pages. User talk pages are like the article’s talk pages: they’re the place to communicate. You wouldn’t like to see another wikipedian messing in your user page, say, below the line: “My father was BiPolar, as was my grandmother and aunt….”. ―Cesar Tort 08:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My error, I'm still learning the ropes to the structure of Wikipedia. My apologies to you. --scuro 15:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. No problem. I also made a few mistakes when I discovered WP less than a year ago.—Cesar Tort 17:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User page

Love your userpage; did you see Little Miss Sunshine? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I will have to watch it now! --scuro 17:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for your link to Russell Barkley's lecture on ADHD. Very interesting. Lova Falk 17:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, his lecture style is conversational but loaded with information. --scuro 17:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I award you a barnstar for your hard work with sites on subjects like ADHD, SCT, mental illness, etc. These are all difficult subjects, because they easily give rise to controversy and personal opinions clouding the information, but I find you conscientious and friendly when dealing with this controversy. I really appreciate it! Lova Falk 08:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: Marking disputed edits as minor

Please remember to mark your edits, as you did to Dextroamphetamine as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. It should not be used to un-do another person's edits as part of a content dispute. I have brought this to your attention before, when you removed disputed content and marked it as a minor change.[1] KonradG 16:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification Konrad. I will not make that mistake again. --scuro 04:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal

There is a case that has you listed as one of the parties. It has recently been opened for discussion. Jac_roe 19:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Violation

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Amphetamine. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. KonradG 22:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get your knickers in a knot once more Konrad. Simply use discussion per Wiki policy and that would solve this problem. --scuro 22:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've had over a month of discussion over 3 disputed sentences, and it hasn't solved anything. This is just to let you know that I've reported your reverts on the noticeboard. KonradG 03:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Way to go on the reporting Konrad, make sure you report yourself also!:D Now that we have nothing further to discuss are you going to find someone else to play with? --scuro 03:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ECT article

Thank you, Scuro - that's extremely kind! Thanks for your work on the article, too - I think some good stuff's coming out of the current sparring on the talk page. Nmg20 15:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like you to please take note that there has been a new post in the ECT discussion area-right at the beginning as a matter of fact- reflecting another editor's intent to do a "major edit" of the ECT article, to reflect a "more realistic worldview".

I did not want to begin another editing war on here, however, it seemed to be in your best interest to have a head's up of coming attractions. I stumbled upon the info simply because I was reading about Hemingway's ECT treatment, and wanted to know more about ECT. Brattysoul (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to let you know

that i am not a scientologist, far from it. im feeling a bit of a vibe on the talk page, and i wanted to clear that up. if you thought i was, i understand your paranoia.

that said, i *am* skeptical of psychiatry in general, and that is my POV. i consider ETC to be barbaric and haphazard, and while i refrain from interjecting such personal opinions into any of the articles i am involved in, please keep in mind that NPOV on controversial articles is achieved through the collaboration of opposing POVs. the line linking to shock therapy is relevant. i am not interested in pursuing an in-depth analysis of the very real controversy surrounding ECT, but a prominent, direct link to the article which details the history of these treaments is by no means unreasonable. --PopeFauveXXIII 03:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, collaboration is the key. Defence of the inclusion of the history of shock therapy ( in the intro ) belongs on the talk page of ECT. I am open to what you have to say no matter what opinions we share or don't share.--scuro 05:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i have plenty of dialogue about this issue on the talk page. what i dont understand is why ive had to fight you so hard over one short, simple, relevant, interesting and well-written (IMHO) statement of fact. the article has been sterilized regarding negative attitudes and controversy surrounding the procedure's use, and i have to fight tooth and nail to fit in a quick reference that is not even intrinsically negative? while im willing to fight for the reference in question, i cant completely understand why i should have to. im not assuming bad faith, i brought the discussion here to clear the air in this regard, and in case there were any misunderstandings. --PopeFauveXXIII 08:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the intro buddy. It is a well written but it's the intro. Is it worthy bit of info for the intro? As noted before this tidbit is already in the history section. When I write for Wiki or edit for Wiki I try come to it detached of emotions and think of each piece, each bit, for the merit of info given and where it is placed. It's not about this slant being equalled by that slant, controversy, or what have you. It's about the merit.--scuro 02:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the very fact that 15 words have created several paragraphs of discussion are indicative of their importance, which basically nullifies your argument that they arent. You are one person. I have at least one supporter of my primary argument for inclusion. Who made you the king of the ECT article anyway? --PopeFauveXXIII 01:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PF, please keep this discussion formal and watch the personal comments. Wikipedia is not a democracy WP:DEMOCRACY, it's not I have the "votes" so I'm right kind of deal. The ECT article is unstable and because of this has attracted several good editors. If they thought the points made were clearly wrong they would be commenting. The article and discussion are progressing as they should. Lots of give and take, and as you can see I can compromise.--scuro 11:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ECT Mediation

Almost... done... Jac_roe^Blank 21:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the old mediation request has been closed down - I didn't see that a lot came of it, and regardless it didn't cover the current problems. I'm off to West Africa to do some paediatrics on Sunday, and won't be back until October - so perhaps you'd like to list the ECT article for mediation again, so that the person raising it is around while it's going on? Nmg20 03:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a good trip. I still have a bit of vacation time left this summer and will be on and off the page. I had nearly given up Wikipedia for the summer and ...."just when I thought I was out, they pulled me back in". I'm happy with the POV on the section. If they try to pull that off or do other stupid stuff I'll start with the MC. Otherwise I'd rather focus on the article and improve it. It still has major flaws in my eyes.--scuro 04:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ECT

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For his tireless resilience and contributions that have prevented scientific studies and articles from being misrepresented in electroconvulsive therapy, Scuro is hereby awarded the Barnstar of Diligence.Loodog 02:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementation and treatment of deficiencies should not be confused

Hi Scuro,

Let me tell you first that I appreciated your politeness after I told you that your suppression of my edit was "rude". After all, you had provided explanations. With your second edit your propose a neutral POV, a consensus and this, also, is appreciated. Concerning your point that Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder treatments is actually a more proper place, the point is well taken. However, I'd like to find the common denominator between our two edits and provide the explanations I did not provide in the first place; I think that some aspects of your editing, while not erroneous, are not neutral. But I don't want to start any long discussion on this, since I agree that it is not the place (the ADHD article) for that; I agree that Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder treatments is the place where such discussions should take place, if necessary.

But as it is, the ADHD article slightly misrepresents the scientific consensus on magnesium and omega-3 fatty acids in ADHD. You propose:

Certain supplements such as magnesium and omega-3 fatty acids have increasingly become popular and have recently been shown in a few studies to have some benefits with regards to ADHD symptoms.

It is true that supplements are gaining in popularity in the population (in non-specialists) and it is also true that magnesium and omega-3 fatty acids are especially popular. However, concerning those two nutrients (well, n-3 FAs are a class of nutrients, to be accurate) and only those two (for others, there might be a lack of consensus, I don't know), there is incontrovertible evidence that they are below normals in people with ADHD. You might have scientists who have an opinion on this and others who don't, but you won't find a scientist who questions that people who suffer from ADHD also lack magnesium and n-3 class fatty acids. Well, if somebody does find a scientist questioning these facts, it would be important to change the remarks on Mg and n-3 FAs in the “causes” section and remove the references, because that’s what they say.

By mentioning popularity, you (perhaps inadvertently) lead the reader to think that Mg and n-3 FAs may or may not be lacking in the brains of people with ADHD, and that it is a matter of personal choice on the part of lay persons to choose whether they should follow the popular trend or not, because science has nothing definitive to say about that. This might be true for other supplements, but it is not true of Mg and n-3 FAs.

Hence, popularity is not really relevant here. Could you perhaps rephrase your edit? I suggest :

It is increasingly recognized that n-3 fatty acids and magnesium are low in people with ADHD. Treatment was shown to have benefits with regards to ADHD symptoms.

You might wonder if my removing of “few” and “some” reveals a non-neutral point of view (“few studies ... some benefits with regards ...”).

When one says “x has benefits”, one’s not saying that it is a cure or the treatment of choice. There is no need to further emphasize this: in addition, consider the results with Mg (see reference, in the article), this is quite a good deal of improvement, although it is clearly not an invitation to Mg monotherapy! But I propose not to argue on this and just say “has benefits”, instead of “some benefits” vs, say, “remarkable benefits”. Concerning “few studies”, well, first, this might not be true, we’d have to check that (I can, my pleasure); second, a great number of studies can mean various things (uncertainty about the results, dose ranging research, search for interactions and side effects, or simply advertisement, attention-getting (a common complaint voiced by doctors, who say they are inundated by “new studies” that show little or no real improvements over other less expensive medications).

Typically, in the case of basic biochemical abnormalities, such as in this case, there is no need to prove more than once that normal levels are better than abnormal levels. Think about glucose in diabetes (TII) or potassium in dehydration-induced hypokalemia: we know that glucose and potassium are not causes, but part effects, part causes of some complications, IOW, part of the pathophysiology, but doctors and patients do try to manage these aspects of the problem (with a proper diet and, eventually, supplements)! In a similar manner, if Mg and n-3 FAs have physiological roles in glucose metabolism (Mg) and dopamine transmission (n-3 FAs), (clinical evidence will appear, if it’s not already there, in the ADHD treatment page) and if those factors are demonstrated aspects of the pathophysiology of ADHD (see the “causes” section), then, well, all that remains is to quantify the improvements, explain further in what manner it is relevant to therapy, how the treatment of the deficiency potentiates other useful therapies such as stimulants or psychotherapy or how it addresses comorbidities (such as obesity and drug abuse, which also benefit from Mg and n-3 FAs).

With all this said, if we consider my earlier version:

Since people with ADHD lack magnesium and omega-3 fatty acids, and considering the role of magnesium and omega-3 fatty acids in neural function, the treatment of those deficiencies is warranted.[43][44][47]

For my personal benefit, I’d welcome more specific criticisms. I am convinced that you’re not alone feeling that there’s something wrong. But what?

I’ll certainly award you a second diligence medal if you do that!

Your colleague, Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 01:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that RCTs for supplements are not always available; supplements do not necessarily behave like medications; results can be interpreted in different ways, methodological issues may arise and the quality of studies may vary. Where I disagree is when you say "I try not to interpret".

At least concerning the effects of Mg or n-3 FAs or zinc, each contributes in its own way to neurological function, therapeutic effects may be open to interpretation, etc, but what is essential is to answer the question: are Mg, or n-3 FAs, or zinc deficient in people with ADHD?

This lends to no interpretation. Answers should look like "between 95 and 100% of people with ADHD have low magnesium". I am not the only one to present the studies like I do: is it okay if I provide, in addition, journal articles also citing these articles?

I was a little bit afraid when I saw you saying that WP favours a certain kind of sources:

secondary sources such as the Surgeon General, Chadd, NIMH etc. If say the New York Times states that ADHDers have nutrient deficencies then I would accept that.

Are you really sure that, according to WP, those sources are preferable to, say, an article in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition, where one can read:

Controlled double-blind studies of Mg therapy, compared with such treatment as methylphenidate or atomoxetin, are critical, since, as previously shown in a few open studies [6,7,9], hyperexcitable children (ADHD) have exhibited low Mg levels. We have shown that ERC-Mg concentrations of ADHD children were below a critical value of 2.2 mmol/L (normal levels being in the range [2.456 B 0.72] mmol/L).

Journal of the American College of Nutrition, Vol. 23, No. 5, 545S-548S (2004)

Published by the American College of Nutrition

Magnesium VitB6 Intake Reduces Central Nervous System Hyperexcitability in Children

http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/23/5/545S

You see the tone of the authors, in this authoritative, peer-reviewed, journal: they state, as I say, the facts; they use show that rather than the well-known suggest that. The reason: this evidence cannot be questioned. Reviewers from the JACN let "show that"; they did not require "suggest that" because this would have been an understatement (and a lack of neutrality). Can we question whether magnesium is better than Ritalin? Sure we can, until the million of dollars are provided by the NIH or an independent body to evaluate it vs Ritalin! But we cannot question that a deficiency is there and that it must be corrected.

Do you agree that this is alright, neutral, not a generalization?

I might have given the impression that I believe that Mg should beat Ritalin, but that evil private interests won't let it happen, and that we should march in the streets and protest or rob banks to pay for top quality RCTs ourselves. (see the EBM page for the affordability of RCTs). Perhaps we should do that, but ultimately, the problem is that there are other nutrient deficiencies, biochemical abnormalities & excesses; AHDH <>(is different from) Mg deficiency; AHDH <> n-3 FA deficiency; ADHD <> Zn deficiency; ADHD <> excess lead; ADHD <> from reactions to some additives; ADHD is not even dopamine deficiency! It's a combination of all this, to varying degrees, and more, and genetic predispositions... So a proper RCT, and there are much criticisms of EBM and RCTs revolving around this, should address biological complexity. It should be:

Identification of all the possible, relevant, biochemical alterations associated with ADHD + their correction, validated through follow-up tests, VERSUS Ritalin.

The EBM article is messy right now, and I couldn't provide all the references I wanted about this type of criticism, but I can tell that new types of clinical trials are being developped. And there is an increasing number of critics of EBM.

To sum up:

Is the secundary reference I provided of the right type?

Did I explain well why the type of clinical studies you are looking for are not the only reliable sources one can look for in WP?

Do you agree that a deficiency (by definition : known to be adverse to proper functioning) ought to be corrected, regardless of the precise role of this deficiency in the disorder to which it was shown to be associated?

Those are important issues, because science finds out a good deal of relevant data of this kind about diseases, such as ADHD. It's not as simple to report as a Cochrane metanalysis, but at least it is not as simplistic! (regarding biological systems) This is stuff for an encyclopedia, like WP, no doubt. Isn't it?

Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 06:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Underdiscussion

Hi Scuro! The Underdiscussion tag isn't to be used in the main namespace, on actual encyclopedia articles. It's only meant for behind the scenes articles, like on Wikipedia policies, and such, when those articles are under discussion for changes or improvements. Take care, justen 02:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel words in Causes of mental illness

You tagged Causes of mental illness with one of the Weasel tags incorrectly. I'm presuming you mean to tag the section as a whole. If you meant to tag the article use {{weasel|date=August 2007}}; if the words inline with the text, use {{weasel-inline}}. Hope that helps ... happy editing! David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dextroamphetamine

Hi Scuro. Sorry it took so long to get back to you. I was away from my computer for a few days.

My problem with the Dextroamphetamine discussion is that I have absolutely no idea what the paragraph means. My second problem is that I can't make out what the difference is between what KonradG is saying and what you are saying. I am a Biochemist, not a Pharmacolgist, but I would expect to be able to read a paragraph like that and understand the point that is being made. I don't. I suggest you completely re-write the paragraph, and put it on the talk page first, along the lines of "a and b say that giving dextroamphetamine long-term is bad because x, while c and d say it's okay because y." Then at least we'll know what the problem is and we can work together to find a consensus view.

You can respond to me here if you want. I'll be watching. Scolaire 08:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you get right down to it I'm not really sure what the paragraph means either. I get lost in single sentences. It doesn't make logical sense, the terms are not defined, and I believe this could be classified by Wikipedia as new research WP:SYN. He takes info from drug abuse studies and transfers that info into this article which is about a prescription drug. He won't let me change a word which goes against WP:OWNERSHIP, he simply gets into a revert war if I attempt it. Logic doesn't work and he gets personal, it got heated in the past and I am not going down that road again. I can live with the tag that is on the section presently.

As an example take a look at the first concept in the first sentence: "While continuous dosing with amphetamine causes tolerance...". I read the passage as stating regular prescription use of the drug dex causes tolerance. If so this should be stated clearly: "Regular prescription use of dextroamphetamine causes tolerance..." But that statement can't be supported or would have to be further qualified because we have hundreds of thousands of people taking this drug on a daily basis who don't have the typical drug tolerance reaction that is meant by the word tolerance. By using the word amphetamine and continuous dosing the idea can be supported. Very large continuous doses do cause tolerance and many studies support this.

Try changing the first segment, you will see what I mean. I have thought of the possibility that he wants the passage to be nebulous because then it can be supported and secondly it sounds "scary". Perhaps the intention is simply to scare users who read this article. Bottom line, it should understandable to the lay reader, and it isn't.--scuro 12:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you understood me. I have absolutely no idea what it is about. The more often I read Konrad's text, or your alternatives, the less sense it makes to me. "Scare the users"? How can it scare us when we don't have the first idea what it's saying? You and Konrad have been warring over this for months now. Surely you can explain to me in plain English what the dispute is? Is one of you promoting use of the drug, and the other opposing it? If so, which is which? To put it another way, why does it matter if "the sensitization is induced more quickly, and persists far longer than withdrawal-related effects"? Only when you're able to state the problem in plain English can there be any hope of writing the disputed paragraph in plain English. Scolaire 17:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute in plain english is that the passage doesn't make sense to the lay reader, and probably doesn't make sense to any reader. I have no idea what Konrad's take on this is because he won't explain the passage in plain english. To me it matters that anything to do with mental health is factual and clearly stated. I don't care if people take this drug or if good effects or bad side effects are weighted more heavily. I simply want readers not to be misled or confused by the wiki article. I'll give you my take on the passage.

Chronic use - webster's defines chronic this way:"always present or encountered; especially : constantly vexing, weakening, or troubling". The title would suggest negative outcomes associated with the daily abuse of this drug. The medication has many positive results for those prescribed dex.

While continuous dosing with amphetamine causes tolerance... - I believe this sentence is stating that taking amphetamines constantly causes drug tolerance. It doesn't suggest at what dosage but the title would lead one to believe we are talking about drug abuse. Tolerance means it takes more of the drug to create the same effect while side effects may get worse at a higher dosage. The definition of drug tolerance isn't exact. But it is usually referred to in a negative manner with escalating side effects such as irritability. The term is also used with regards to drug abuse/ addiction. Drug tolerance is not an issue for most who use prescription drugs properly. The dosages are so small that tolerance never builds in. You can have kids on the same dose for years and only see a need for higher dosages as the body changes in their teenage years.

...intermittent use produces "reverse tolerance" or sensitization to its psychological effects. - I believe reverse tolerance or sensitization means that you don't have this established reaction to a drug that one sees with tolerance, in fact the body can be more sensitive to the drug. That is because addiction or drug abuse is required first so that the body is altered in some way before these "intermittent" effects can happen. I also believe that this hasn't been firmly established in humans.

As a result, regular use commonly results in a quick decrease of unwanted side effects, but without an equivalent loss of its stimulant properties. - This sentence seems to be stating that regular use, such as a prescription drug use, will decrease side effects such as irritability but not decrease the positive side effects such as greater focus. It doesn't mesh at all with the previous segments or the title.

Notably, the sensitization is induced more quickly, and persists far longer than withdrawal-related effects... - This segment seems to suggest that regular use causes reverse tolerance to occur...and that reverse tolerance stays as a reaction to the drug a lot longer then withdrawal. This seems to contradict the first sentence. Again, these concepts don't mesh with what was previously stated. It does not flow in a logical way. What is he talking about, where is he going with this?

...suggesting a phenomenon more complex than a simple tolerance-induced withdrawal syndrome. - Simply stating that reverse tolerance is a more complicated reaction to the drug then withdrawal.

If he is talking about prescription drug use it should be clearly stated. If this is about drug abuse it should also be clearly stated. If he is talking about both that should be stated. How the drug interacts at different levels in the body is completely different. There is no way that prescription drug use and drug abuse cause all of the same reactions in the body. His ideas should be fleshed out and properly supported. He shouldn't draw his own conclusions from different bits of info from seperate studies. That is called original research. Also a secondary source should back up what is stated or a researcher should clearly state what reverse tolerance is in humans and how it is caused. If he introduces the term, there should be no doubt what the term means.--scuro 19:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I've suggested a way forward based on the foregoing. Can I tactfully suggest that you focus on the text for the moment, and try not to concentrate on what he is doing, or what he should be doing? Scolaire 09:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have given it a go. May I suggest that you be a task master. What will matter to me is progress and not discussion. The subsection sucks and has stayed in that form the entire time I have communicated with Konrad. Improvement of the text will be my yardstick of whether this endeavor is at all useful.--scuro 13:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, if you think the passage means nothing, why you now want to improve it. If it means nothing, there is nothing to improve on. You say you want me to be task master, and then you cut the ground from under me. The passage shouldn't be there. It is an eyesore. But the two of you fighting, day after day for four months, arguing over the meaning of one word at a time, is a bigger eyesore. I have said my piece, and I'm certainly not going to waste my precious time arguing with the two of you. Good luck, and happy editing. Scolaire 21:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychiatry

Dear Scuro, please do not delete such large sections of referenced text without discussing it on the Talk page. I appreciate that you mentioned WP:UNDUE in the edit summary, but this guideline often requires some degree of interpretation and discussion. Of course, I'm hopeful that you are approaching your bold edit as a WP:BRD and will readily shift to discussion. Thanks muchly, HG | Talk 03:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I set up a section in Talk:Psychiatry to open a dialogue on your concerns. Thanks! HG | Talk 03:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Accidentally clicked "minor" on my last reply, sorry. Ciao! HG | Talk 16:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi scuro. You asked about why the Psychiatric abuse article is up again. There was a process to review the deletion. WP:DRV. They decided to restore it and put it up again for another AfD. HG | Talk 23:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Not sure if you'd mind advice from me. Anyway, I'd suggest not spending time on the psychiatric abuse article right now, since there's a chance it will be deleted again. Up to you, of course. HG | Talk 02:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Warning

Scuro, you are technically in breach of the three revert rule (having reverted chemical imbalance 4 times), and if you continue to edit in this manner, you could be blocked from editing by an administrator. This message serves as a warning to you. --Limegreen 13:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were different edits..you are wrong in your assertion.--scuro 15:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see 4 reverts in ~24 hours, or anything close for that matter. Voice-of-All 20:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical imbalance

The page is now protected until disputes are resolved on the talk page. Voice-of-All 20:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Convulsive therapy

AfD nomination of Convulsive therapy

An article that you have been involved in editing, Convulsive therapy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Convulsive therapy. Thank you. Nmg20 (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Please don't insult the vandals – [2]. Thank you for your contributions and happy editing! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical imbalance

Hi, as you have reverted my attempt at separating what I believe are overlapping but distinct terms, could please explain why you dont think they are distinct enough to warrant separate pages. See Talk:Chemical_imbalance#converted_to_dab_page. John Vandenberg (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scuro. Sorry about the delay getting back to you. As far as I can tell the POV fork has been nixed by another admin. I have redirected the page back to chemical imbalance. I'll keep an eye on it. Rockpocket 09:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need your opinion

Hey sir. I know you've had an opinion before on the existence of a controversy section over at Psychiatry. Even after the article rewrite and integration of certain points, an editor has expressed interest in reintroducing this section into the article. I would really appreciate it if you could let me know your thoughts as to whether it should or shouldn't be included as the article is written now. Let me know at Talk:Psychiatry#Should we reintroduce "Controversy" section?. Thanks so much for your time. Chupper (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dex

I added a Withdrawal section to Dextroamphetamines, I see you have indicated a layout for this page (as required by a pharmaceutical template). I may be able to help you re-organise this page if you wish, under the given guidelines. Are you sure this is the intended layout? I see that you did notice some crucial missing areas of interest that need to be addressed (withdrawal probably being the key area). I will check other pharmaceutical pages for confirmation of your suggestions. --TeChNoWC (talk) 13:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. I have responded in the talk section of the article. --scuro (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'ADHD'

Majority or minority have nothing to do with this. I have restored the edits you removed from the 'ADHD' entry. Scientific truth is established through objective experimentation, repeatable results reviewed by peers, and through the ability to predict accurately, not by a majority vote, always assuming any such vote had ever been taken, which it hasn't. At present, no objective scientific proof exists of the existence of 'ADHD', and no objective test is made in its diagnosis. 'ADHD' has many scientific and medical critics. It is deeply misleading for an encyclopaedia entry to present such a contentious diagnosis as if it were established fact. The reader must be allowed to make his or her own mind up. Please do not revert these edits. I have not deleted anything or destroyed anything, merely altered the language to ensure that the reader is aware of the controversy. To delete this is censorship of an important fact. Peter Hitchens signed in as Clockback (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Majority viewpoint has everything to do with your edits. Please look at WP:UNDUE. You misunderstand what majority viewpoint means, more on the talk page of ADHD. --scuro (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Scuro - when I referred to 'utter nonsense' I didn't mean your comment and didn't want to revert a revert and get into a mess, just wanted you to know that. I am going to 'step away from the computer though' so best luck in sorting things out, even though we don't always agree! Miamomimi (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biopsychiatry controversy

Hey, would you have a look at the discussion there? Thanks. Voice-of-All 03:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mistaken revert in ADHD

I reverted your reversion to remove that paragraph. It was out of place in treatments so I copied it to a section above but forgot to delete it where it came from. My last edit which you reverted was to delete the original. Sifaka ^talk 02:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of arguments... so maybe I can help?

There seems to be a lot of debate on validity or terms concerning ADHD. I would highly recommend looking at publications by the American Psychiatric Association and its subgroup the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. I found a recent July 2007 publication which basically sums up the consensus on ADH and treatments. The APA and the AACAP are the proverbial 800 lb gorillas and represent the mainstream view. If something comes into direct conflict with what they say, I would be very hesitant about it. They link lots of good studies (and use the term "neurobiological" to describe ADHD). While it won't prevent the fringe elements from adding unwarranted support for non-mainstream beliefs, the article it gives an extremely convenient source to check if they are going against mainstream thought on the matter and if so then revert with confidence.

The problem with scientific papers in such an well studied topic is that you get a lot off poorly designed, conflicted-interest research that goes against mainstream and a whole bunch of salesmen looking to make a buck who disseminate flawed or fabricated results. Most people (including major news outlets too) can't tell the difference between a hack paper and an excellent, well researched paper. The APA and AACAP wade through all the garbage and only use the best designed experiments to report only the best supported findings. Hope my mini rant helps... Sifaka ^talk 02:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ADHD

I've been a bit stretched in other areas of Wikipedia and haven't been able to be as active as I would like on the ADHD talk pages. Aside from Peter and what's-his-name popping up every few months, are there any particular concerns I should be aware of? -- Ned Scott 07:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At some point the controversy issue will be put to bed. Keep an eye on the page, your input when that time comes would be appreciated.--scuro (talk) 05:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for ADHD

Hi Scuro, just popped by to say I've got some citations together that I hope will be of some use but I've a bit more reading to do so please bear with me, I haven't forgotton. Regards, Miamomimi (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update, take your time and get the best citations. --scuro (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning, see WP:HUSH

Scuro, I responded to all your comments on my Talk page, but I have now deleted them, as I realized that repeatedly posting warnings without specificity was harassment, per WP:HUSH, particularly the whole latest example, "Don't be a dick." Be advised, do not continue it, or you could be blocked. --Abd (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an impressive little warning you created there Abd. To bad it has nothing to do with reality. If you need to block me, go for it. If you need to delete my warnings off of your talk page, be my guest. Sense a bitter tone? Guess who is the cause. All if forgiven if you can play the nice way as per Wiki guidelines. Continue with your negative feedback and what may be the start of stalking behaviour, and I will take the time to document everything.--scuro (talk) 11:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to block you. Blocking, if done, would be done by someone else, at their discretion. Bitter? I didn't cause it. Stalking? You edit a narrow range of articles that happen to coincide with specific interests of mine, very real and very present interests, since I do have ADHD and am taking some otherwise very illegal drugs for it. Some of the articles you edit were not on my watchlist before. So? Now that I have a better idea of your behavior, and what you've been doing to Wikipedia, I find it more important to pay attention to your activity. Again, you implied that my behavior already indicated stalking. For me to edit three articles, already linked, which then causes me to have them -- automatically -- on my watchlist, so I see your edits routinely, and, in the minority of cases, I see them as inappropriate and revert them or edit them ... this isn't even *close* to stalking. Wikistalking isn't merely watching another editor -- read the guidelines! -- it is watching and *harassing*. Like going around and simply reverting everything an editor does, with or without some excuse. Enough time wasted.... --Abd (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, look I hope you don't mind my comment here Scuro, I just popped back to see an answer to my msg, but as I understand it deleting comments like that is frowned upon in Wiki, Abd should leave them on his talk page. Sorry if I've butted in. Miamomimi (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like to stir up trouble? No problem with "butting in," but a problem with giving bad information about policy and guidelines. Users are free to delete anything -- even administrative warnings for serious offenses -- on their Talk pages and this is very explicit. In fact, a user can do what would otherwise violate WP:3RR on a Talk page, and, if someone were to revert it back *once*, they could possibly be blocked for it. Depends. Beginners can get away with a lot.... (For a user to delete a warning proves that the user saw it!, and anyone can see the action and the content in History.) When I go to the trouble of providing a wikilink like WP:HUSH, I do it for a reason. It's not to intimidate, it's to inform. Perhaps you should read it before offering an opinion in direct contradiction to it? --Abd (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Miamomimi and I both would appreciate it if you stopped with the negative feedback and followed Wiki guidelines. You seemed to have side stepped that point of my last reply. I do enjoy reading a well crafted response but in this instance, I'd simply prefer a tactful change in behaviour. That would be much appreciated, happy editing.--scuro (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second warning, Don't restore removed comments.

Well, time for one more warning. Scuro, you restored content to my Talk page which I had removed, in violation of policy. Don't edit war on a user talk page, it will get you blocked. If you need to refer to such content, use diffs. From WP:HUSH, "Placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing 'suspected sockpuppet' and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a common form of harassment." There is an essay which repeats this more explicitly: Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments. --Abd (talk) 04:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted on the grounds that I didn't cite my complaints. I provided them with restored text. Apparently you were not really interested in the citations because you deleted them also. The deleted text from your talk page is below. --scuro (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this is what Abd deleted from his talk page and I assume he wants no one to see

Fourth warning and citations from removed first warning -(title to new post) Once again Abd you make talk personal. You are supposed to stick to content but nearly every post strays onto the topic of me. Here is the cited text from today.

"However, I must conclude, based on this and other behavior, that there is an agenda here to exclude all cogently critical material about the controversy, thus supporting, in appearance, claims which have been inserted into this article attempting to associate the controversy with Scientology and fringe theorists and "social critics"; alternatively, perhaps there is some personal animus regarding Dr. Sobo. That would be unfortunate, but .... [[User:Scuro is an single-purpose account. I have seen that fact used to block a contentious user, though, more normally, SPAs are welcome, and many editors start out that way. For convenience, here is his contribution record: Special:Contributions/Scuro".--Abd (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC) From The thread, Abd are you really admin?: Talk:Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: controversies

please stop - (title and content of first removed thread from Abd talk page)

You are framing other editors content into your own subjective perceptions of their motivational actions and commenting on this. I have twice expressed this concern previously on the ADHD talk page and yet the practice continues. Please stop this inflammatory practice. --scuro (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As they say in legalese, without acknowledging the validity of the complaint, okay. Do note, however, that I did and continue to Assume good faith. Best wishes. --Abd (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Newly added citations to support claim, are added below)

"What I find problematic about Scuro's expressed position is that it seems to be attempting to convince us or Clockback that there there is no sense in even trying. I'd rather wait for response from Clockback or others, and then see what to make of it. Otherwise it becomes a version of "Don't bother me with facts, my mind is made up." Clockback, Scuro does not control the article". ~~ from the "Request for an article re-write to achieve balance/NPV" on the ADHD talk page --Abd (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"But, it's true. You did not ask me for advice. Suit yourself."~~ from the "Request for an article re-write to achieve balance/NPV" on the ADHD talk page--Abd (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

--scuro (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: Do not delete Talk material from other users

This is *highly* offensive if the material is not vandalism or the like. From Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments: Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission. (emphasis from the original). This is with reference to your edits [3] [4]. --Abd (talk) 05:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, enough with the warnings. Things are just heated right now, and it's best if we just keep in mind that when things are that way.. we aren't at our bests. -- Ned Scott 06:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abd, I have every right to remove your talk posts that cut mine posts in half. Especially if you repeatedly do this and also ignore that I have clearly stated the faulty action in my edit summary. You may post the deleted material below my posts. I will continue delete any post that cuts my post in half, so if you have an issue with this, report me now. --scuro (talk) 11:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request

The definitive way is to check the list at Special:Listusers/sysop, but I can tell you that he is not an administrator. Administrators are expected to be role models, so not to fall into the do as I say, not as I do problem. Therefore they are generally held to a higher standard. However, since they are also asked to deal with problematic behaviour, sometimes they need to comment on the contributor.

I have had a look at the talk pages you mentioned and what I see is two editors, both of whom appear to have the interests of the project at heart, but have got drawn into a battle of words that has got a little too personal. I think you both need to take a step back and look at each other's points about content with fresh eyes. Have a read of WP:JACK and see if you can follow that dictum. If you feel that the situation is too personalised then WP:MEDCAB or WP:MEDIATION might be a option to consider. Rockpocket 22:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good questions. I don't know the answers, I'm afraid. I had some discussions on a similar problem at Talk:biopsychiatry controversy (see specifically, here). My personal feeling is the WP:UNDUE still applies but within the context of the controversy, rather than the subject. For example, while critical group X is a barely notable voice about controversial subject A, they are much more notable in an article on the controversy over subject A. A controversy itself is almost always a product of a minority view (the majority view doesn't see it as a controversy), therefore minority views are the subject. Some people see that as a POV fork, and to some extent it is, but as long as we are describing the POV, and the controversy itself is notable enough, then I don't have a problem with it. Its also important that we ensure that it is clear that the controversy is a minority view, but having done that I don't believe we need to extensively restate the consensus opinion to ensure that it gets due majority coverage as one would in the article about the subject. Consider WP:UNDUE:

"Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view."

I see "appropriate reference" to mean that the majority viewpoint be mentioned as that whenever a minority viewpoint is "spelled out in great detail", not that the majority viewpoint is also spelled out in great detail!

Thats just my interpretation, though, and others disagree with that. I'm not aware if the community has discussed this at length, the only (not very) helpful page I can find is Wikipedia:CONTROVERSY#Describe the controversy. I think different interpretations on this are fine, and can be worked through, but what is important is to retain good faith that other editors have good intentions, even if they see things very differently to you. Mediation may help, at the very least, to get an independent perspective on this. Rockpocket 00:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Help with the concept of controversy

I once wrote a "personaly policy", if you will, regarding criticism or controversy sections. It hasn't been updated for awhile, and remember, although it discuss Wiki policies, it isn't policy in and of it self. Hope it is what you were looking for. Let me know if you have any questions.

Chupper (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to you

Hi Scuro, sorry I couldn't get back to you this morning my net link went down. I hear what you're saying re: Abd and agree that I've had some difficulty myself. I am generally reluctant to proceed to formal complaint, but realise this is sometimes necessary. However I would much rather resolve issues amicably and I wonder if you are still having problems? Miamomimi (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scuro, I noticed the request to participate in a discussion below and would tell you that I concur with your comments. Miamomimi (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Abd 2

Please take part at this discussion. Yellowbeard (talk) 10:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Abd 2

Hi. I saw your comment and I left a request/query in response. --A. B. ^(talk) 15:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

/patience

Scuro - I have SO had enough of Abd and his guesses as what motivates my every move on Wikipedia. Basically I'm between leaving and formal complaint. Have you seen his comments here? I so wish I hadn't had anything to do with that discussion; anything involving Abd eventually ends in this incredibly insulting irritation. I can only agree with one contributor in the discussion who coined it:

Rudeness seems to be the key word here. I don't know ANYWHERE that people want themselves and their motives publicly analyzed, criticized and judged. And it seems online communication makes this mistake blindingly easy, so I have to look back at my own behavior as I judge yours! Meanwhile I'm judging you here on your invitation. I don't believe in Socks and Meatpuppets or whatever shit you like to see. I accept COI exists, but it is the problem of each of us ourselves to face. You come across as an asshole, and ever time I step away from the computer long enough to have some compassion, I return to find your rudeness in my face again. I don't think you should leave Wikipedia. Your work is often helpful, but don't expect happy co-contributors around you. I know lonely people can appreciate negative attention. Maybe it makes you feel better to be judged badly, to imagine how many people you annoy daily. I know as always, must look at my own failures as well to communicate kindly. Tom Ruen (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Is your offer to do this still open as I've had enough? See my comments on the discussion page, if he responds I want to proceed to formal complaint. Miamomimi (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ss06470

Ss06470 has tried our patience, and I was thinking about leaving a note on WP:AN/I about him after reading his response to me tonight. However, lumping Abd in with him really isn't a good idea. Abd is just trying to be objective, and I don't think it was ever his intention to help Ss06470 make personal attacks, but rather tell him out to retract them. I really don't want to see this dispute between you and Abd get any more heated, and little good will come from this. -- Ned Scott 05:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a lot of misunderstanding is occurring between you and Abd. I'm still confused at why you two are mad at each other. I've been reviewing several of your past conversations with him and most of it seems like things were just said in a heated moment that got piled up. -- Ned Scott 06:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell he always believed he has the right to "personally correct" contributors by pointing out their failings and of restraining contributors. I made a point of stating how this was wrong during his Rfa application which failed. I believe he has no intention of changing..so why put up with continued abuse? Enough is enough.--scuro (talk) 06:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still think most of this is a misunderstanding, but the best way to make your complaint would be with a User Request for Comment. -- Ned Scott 06:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lodge complaint section removed

This section was not relevant to the the discussion page so I removed and and pasted it here. The talk page of the article is supposed to be used to discuss the content of an article and how it may be improved, not to debate potential dispute interventions. As a personal opinion, this may create a lot more controversy than it's worth. Sifaka ^talk 06:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: posted Ned's response. I will be logging off WP after this so you will have to wait until later (i.e. 24 hours+) to get a response. Sifaka ^talk 06:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it time to make a complaint against user Abd and user Ss06470?

I like many of you have a life. I have a job, kids, and a wife. I edit Wikipedia in my free time and I don't like to be abused when I do so. Contrary to popular belief, I do not get paid to do anything on Wikipedia. But enough about me.

Ss064707 has been warned four times not to personally abuse contributors on Wiki by three different editors.

He has clearly been told why this is not appropriate yet he continues to do so. Today he posted this.

Great Ned. You belong here guarding this site from the likes of me and them. Oh is that insulting? My apologies. Where are you Scuro? ~~Or have you taken on a few user names~~ Whoops My apologies

User Abd, has in fact, instructed Ss064707 how to personally attack me and others. Here he gives an example of how to do it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ss06470#second_warning.2C_no_personal_attacks

":In the edit summary, put an apology for (if that's accurate) failing to AGF (assume good faith). Or you can add an apology insertion right after the struck out text. Like this:

~~Scuro has evil intent, obviously in the pay of the drug companies~~ [I apologize, I was having difficulty understanding his motives]"

User Abd refuses to let bygones be bygones even though the olive branch has been extended by several users many times. He actively tries to control other editors. Abd has been warned countless times to focus on content.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ss06470#Your_comment_on_Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder:_controversies_on_22:45.2C_29_February_2008

Dr. Sobo, you are correct that there has been long-term biased push on these articles, and Wikipedia is vulnerable to such efforts. Short-term push can be dealt with, but long-term, persistent warping of an article by someone really determined to do so can be very effective. However, be careful. Thinking of Wikipedia as a battleground can lead you into some serious mistakes, such as that here. Archiving of Talk is essential. If it is done incorrectly, it can be fixed. History remains for all of it. Nothing is lost. But the goal here is the article, not Talk. I've been distracted elsewhere, or I'd have been more active restraining the particular editor who is tangling with you. Abd (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The question I have for your folks is why must we take this night after night? If I lodge a complaint now, will you publicly support it? Please respond to this post if you will. ~~----

Scuro, I still think this dispute between you and Abd is some sort of misunderstanding and/or both of you over-reacting to each other. And I certainly don't believe that Abd's advice to Ss064707 was to help him make personal attacks, but was only instructing him on how to retract ones already made. That in itself is a prime example of the misunderstandings I speak of.

As for Ss064707, yes, I too have gotten tired of his soapboxing rants and personal attacks, but that's an issue that can be easily dealt with via a report to WP:AN/I, if it gets that far. -- Ned Scott 06:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ned. I have given Ss064707 a firm warning about how not to conduct discussions here at Wikipedia. Time will tell whether he heeds it. If not, then I can and will take further action to stop such personal attacks from continuing. As I said to Ss064707, though, Wikipedia works best when editors assume good faith. AGF works both ways, Scuro. I understand how one could infer mischief from Abd's advice to Ss064707, but I can also see no reason to assume that he was attempting to give good advice (which Ss064707 misinterpreted.)

When editing relationships are cloaked in such mutual mistrust, its very difficult to get back on track. I don't really know what to such other than some sort of formal or informal mediation. Rockpocket 19:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scuro - crikey I turn my back for a bit and.... ! I hope it was just a blip and things have calmed down. You know, when it was just us two for a while there were no problems, we focused on content and things seemed really constructive. I have no problem with you at all! I'm sorry 'real life' demanded my attention and it's took a while to get back to you, and the bad news is I am beyond patience with Abd - I only mention something that can be seen in history on your user talk page and a short time later Abd is on it and using the edit summary to draw attention to my (faulty?) editing. Even if I did make a mistake there was no need for that, he could have helped without that comment. You're right Scuro it does feel like stalking and it's wierd. I just don't need this, sorry. Hope all well with you, Regards, Mimi ^(yack) 12:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with you 100% Rockpocket, except consider the billions and billions of possible examples that Abd could have used to illustrate his point. He chooses a personal one that was an attack directly on me and very much like waving a red flag in front of Ss064707. (~~Scuro has evil intent, obviously in the pay of the drug companies~~ [I apologize, I was having difficulty understanding his motives]". Is it any wonder he responded the way he did? Abd was the root cause of the whole incident and I have received no apology from him.--scuro (talk) 09:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? you quote an apology and then say you have received no apology? That was a comment on Ss064707's Talk page, and the first part was sarcastic. I.e., what was struck out was an exaggerated, blatantly ridiculous statement, showing him how he could deal with such hasty, improper statements, made in frustration and anger, in context, and, in fact, showing how this really happens. Read the apology part. Scuro, try reading WP:AGF and following it. It's actually policy, and failure to do so can get you blocked. Usually, not, unfortunately, and you have been a victim of this as much as a perpetrator. But stop, you'll be happier. If not, don't say I never told you.--Abd (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is no personal apology to me. It's an example of how to make an apology and in doing so you slight me. You call it sarcastic, I call it a personal insult. Your choice of examples had no other purpose than to take a personal dig at me. You could have literally used billions and billions of other examples and not mentioned me by name. Instead of lecturing people and trying to "restrain" them you would do well to treat people civilly. If you do insult someone at least make things right afterwards instead of trying to weasel out of blame. --scuro (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scuro. Sorry for taking so long to address your request. Lots going on at the moment. However, I have now had a look at the diffs and agree that the tone and subject of Ss064707's comments and not compatible with collaborative editing. However, I do understand his annoyance. It is extremely frustrating for people who hold strong anti-establishment views to edit Wikipedia on their subject of interest, because Wikipedia is set up to value establishment views, and hence its policies doesn't always give every POV a fair roll of the dice from a truly neutral perspective. Then, those individuals who work within the policies, which is all we can do, are often the target of ire. That is what I think is going on here.

How to address it? Well, I have offered to mediate disputed issues, but only on the condition that the sort of comments we have seen over the last few days stops. If it continues, I will take administrative action to stop it myself. Rockpocket 01:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I'm principled and reasonable, especially if not always attacked personally. If the attacks stop much could be done. He has a pattern of making a few nasty remarks for a couple of days and then submerging for several weeks. I'll let you know the next time he surfaces.--scuro (talk) 04:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for input

For some time I have thought that the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas article is not neutral, mainly because it gives undue weight to human emissions, and neglects to mention virtually any information about natural sources of GHGs. I attempted some edits, which are as expected being resisted by the articles authors. The problem is that I am stuck in a ridiculous situation where the authors refuse to acknowledge that the dispute about neutrality even exists, repeatedly removing the POV tag from the article despite the fact that I am obviously disputing it. Another editor has reinserted the POV tag, also to have it removed, and a third editor has raised the same issues as I am basing my POV dispute on but the authors of the page still refuse to have the tag on it.

Repeatedly linking to wiki policy on NPOV disputes and quoting sections about not removing the POV tag simply because you disagree with it hasn't helped. I am being threatened with the 3RR if I add the tag again. I am not asking for you to put the tag back up for me (unless you also think that the article is not neutral) but have come to you for an outsiders input after reading the dispute resolution page. I am trying to keep the argument about the addition/removal of the POV tag, rather than being drawn into arguments about global warming. Restepc (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I had the time but don't. I can't keep up with the few articles that I actively edit. Have you tried http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution ? --scuro (talk) 08:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I ended up here, you were to be a 3rd opinion....actually now that I think about it you were to be the 5th opinion, the 3rd and 4th agreeing with me but it not making any difference, an Admin has turned up on the page now and hopefully it'll get sorted so no worries, thanks for your reply Restepc (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not admin so if you got one on your page you have more then I could ever give you. If things look entirely hopeless and you have exhausted every avenue I can give you what little support I can offer.--scuro (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salutation

Hello. So, we know a little about each other. But I'd like to talk more informally.

I know from your user page that you have experience with people with mental illness. You also seem to have a positive outcome bias, a type of confirmation bias, in favor of electroshock. I know I'm not free of bias either. I have a negative outcome bias about the subject. I want to talk about our opinions about ECT.

All I know about your experience is what you wrote on your talk page. My experience is that a friend of mine received over 10 involuntary electroshocks at a public hospital in 2006. She was twenty something. She told the staff that after only the first shock, it felt like rape. Her side effects included amnesia, a headache, and a jawache. She forgot the names of some of the staff. However, they continued to shock her, as if stupefying her would make her happy or as if control of her behavior was most important. At one point, she tried to stop the next shock by eating before the shock, because it is unsafe to have swallowed food before the sedation. The staff watched her swallow part of a napkin. They shocked her anyway. Afterward, she was taken to the emergency room because her breathing was abnormal. Being smart, she finally manipulated the confirmation bias of the staff, pretended to get happier, even though she felt assaulted, and they let her go. Now she has posttraumatic stress disorder as a consequence of the treatment.

Since then, I have heard from many people with similar experience with electroshock. Perhaps it helped some people in the short term, but there are harrowing long term effects. I believe there is a better solution than electroshock. I have also heard of a lawsuit being planned about one of the cases.

I don't claim that mental illnesses are unreal. But involuntary psychiatric treatment often makes people's conditions worse. There is even evidence that it contributes to school shootings.

Also, if a patient wants electroshock, I approve. But the fact that it causes people cognitive detriments, such as even just short term amnesia, implies that it is causing harm to the nervous system. For comparison, I think people have the right to smoke in open areas, but I think it's unsafe. And just because doctors say electroshock is safe doesn't prove it. Back in the 1940s, doctors told pregnant women and soldiers that they should smoke to relax themselves. Smoking is unsafe and the doctors were incorrect in their evaluation of it. I feel that the medical mainstream is also wrong about electroshock. I believe that in the future people will discover proof of its unsafety.

So, I'd like to know your thoughts and, if you are willing, more about your experience with the mentally ill.

Chris Dubey (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Chris,

A cousin who I rarely see had it and I know of a family friend of my mother who had it. From what I have heard, it was a positive experience for both but then again, I've never asked either one personal questions about it. There is a lot of personal testimony describing ECT, Kitty Dukakis comes to mind. Personal stories are interesting but of little use for articles like this one in Wikipedia.

The article was a mess before with many instances of blatant bias, and really that is how I got involved. I can't stand misinformation, in the end I had to research this topic extensively. As long as this article confirms to majority or minority viewpoint I have no problem to changes. Make sure you use good sources...also be careful with your assumptions. For example, do all patients experience cognitive detriments?...and do all all forms of ECT cause cognitive detriments? Also is involuntary ECT ALWAYS a bad thing? I'm don't feel that strongly about the issue but I can tell you it is not a black and white issue. The best thing wikipedia can do for it's readers is to offer good info with excellent citations.--scuro (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be good to talk more with those people you know who had electroshock, to find out more. Perhaps you'll even find what you expected.

I don't assume that all patients experience cognitive detriments...but I believe that is a risk only the patient should decide to take. Is involuntary electroshock always bad? I don't know, but I do know the risks it causes and, if I was a psychiatrist, I wouldn't endanger someone like that against their volition. ...I might get murdered after. (Half joking.) I know descriptions of the dangers can be sensational, but the dangers exist. I wouldn't endager someone like that against their will. Especially when there are other treatments available. I have a friend who recovered from multiple personality disorder, in which one of her alter egos tried to kill her and almost succeeded. She recovered through voluntary psychotherapy and without psychotropics. Not everyone can do that, but her story shows that electroshock is not the only effective last resort for people with mental illness. Chris Dubey (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Sure, I agree with you. It's not a magic bullet and for the most part informed consent should be gotten. It's a tool that works well for some and it should be left in the hands of skilled practitioners. There are risks and all of that should be weighed out.--scuro (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, good sources are still needed. Also, it is quite possible that the staff at that hospital was just incompetent and not representative of the larger psychiatric establishment. Voice-of-All 21:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breggin journal

Proposed deletion of Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Nmg20 (talk) 10:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

proper ref style

Adding wed pages is not sufficient. See the talk page were I have outlined proper ways to formate your references.

Talk:Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder

Doc James (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You jest, are you telling me that the Mayo Clinic webpage citation is not a good enough reference. Explain in detail. --scuro (talk) 10:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues. One is reference style and the other is reference source.

Wikipedia has specific style guidelines for medical pages. If you look at any of the featured articles in medicine you will notice a consistent formating style for references. {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}}, etc.

The second issue is with respect to the source. We want to us peer reviewed sources over none peer reviewed ones. So added a url to the mayo clinic web page is not sufficient and I am not even one of the more picky editors when it comes to ref style.

Doc James (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pace of change

Hi Scuro - saw your note on ADHD talk. I've already asked that editor to slow down - see [[5]] and related reply [[6]]. I for one can't keep up with the pace of edits so will just wait for him to stop and then go back over the page to check that it is still looking reasonable at a later point. The notion of collaborative editing does not seem to be valued highly at this point. --Vannin (talk) 05:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

recent change to amphtamine article

I disagree with your latest change to the amphetamine article. Mostly I disagree on the point that the version prior to your edit was more POV-prone than your own edit. The withdrawal effects in question can be experienced from both use (as determined by physician) and abuse (e.g. exceeding physician prescribed amount or other illicit use). When a person that is unfamiliar with the topic reads that sentence, he or she may interpret "abuse" as the popular characterization of usage that leads to absolutely uncontrollable dependence. This person may then think, "Okay. So long as I don't go overboard I will not experience this"; or "so long as I take as much as my physician prescribed I will not experience these things". "Abuse" is a far more subjective term than is "use" when applying popular definitions as used in more casual contexts. I would prefer it if you would reconsider your edit.

Also, I would like to ask you something peripherally related. A few weeks ago I found a study where chimpanzees were given doses of pharmaceutical amphetamine (e.g. Adderall) over 4 weeks, 6 days/week, at .1 to 1 mg per kg body weight. The study concluded that permanent cognitive damage was caused from this short-term administration of low doses of amphetamine. Have you maybe come across this study or similar ones where the short-term low dosage effects were studied? Thanks. XJeanLuc (talk) 02:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you. The term abuse clearly defines what causes the reaction, and takes therapeutic use out of the picture. If you have some citations that prove otherwise I would be interested in seeing them. With regards to the monkey studies, I have read a number of these studies. Most often they are looking at the effects of drug abuse. The key here is that the drug is injected. You certainly can't compare injected doses with oral doses, both as equal in dosage and equal in outcome. Injected drugs make it to the brain at maximum dosage in seconds. Compare that to ingesting. The ingested drug reaches peak levels after 1/2 an hour and stay near that level for about 21/2 hours. The injected drug wears off quickly and a crash occurs. Therapeutic drugs find the right dosage for benefit and stay there. Injected drugs find the right high..which needs to be constantly increased.--scuro (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply and explanation. I won't contest the term "abuse" further as I'm basing my view largely on personal observation of how the term is typically used and not on specific literature. That and your reasoning/explanation is not unreasonable. About the studies on chimpanzees. The one study that I did view had exclusively oral administration of amphetamine. So, in this study the focus was not on abuse, but rather it was focusing on therapeutic levels orally administered. That is what I found so interesting about it. The fact that it was replicating doses that would be typically given to humans (e.g. beginning at 7 mg dosage level for a 70kg person). I really would love to find this one study. I've been googling for it for a while, but I cannot seem to find it again. Anyways, if it rings a bell or if you happen to come across such a study in the future, please do let me know. Thank you. XJeanLuc (talk) 06:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A study like that would have caught my eye! Let me know if you find it. --scuro (talk) 11:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

possibly inappropriate question

Hi Scuro. I posted on your talk page before (under my normal user name) and have gone through some of your older posts. I think that you probably would be able to answer a very personal and specific question that I have about amphetamine use. I do not have a knowledgeable person that I can turn to for this - even my physician could not give me a straight answer. I would greatly appreciate it if you would let me ask you my question. I can post it here or onto an email account. If you don't want to answer it here, I could email save it in a yahoo email account, give you the account password, and then you could answer it there. I really need help in trying to make sense of my situation. Thanks. Ytrewqxqwerty (talk) 10:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It really would be easy for people to figure out who I am if I posted here directly. So please can we do the email thing? The address is ytrewqxqwerty@ymail.com and the password is wikipedia. I'll email from that address to that address and you could do the same. The self-addressed email is not yet showing up in the inbox but it is visible in the "sent" folder. Thank you.Ytrewqxqwerty (talk) 10:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yt, a possibly inappropriate question?...hmm. I'm going to direct you to forum where a lot smarter people then me hang out. Some of them have impressive letters behind their names. You can post directly, I've seen all sorts of questions asked and you will get the viewpoint of several people. This forum is a caring forum. http://www.addforums.com/forums/index.php --scuro (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a pretty good source of data based on a preliminary scan through the topics. I'll give it a try. Thank you. Ytrewqxqwerty (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't posted my personal question, but just based on a few prior posts I'm approaching a conclusion. There's a lot of studies personally-relevant that I've come across. So, again thank you. Ytrewqxqwerty (talk) 04:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. Do post, there are a few people on that board that are highly intelligent and can offer great advice. --scuro (talk) 10:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ADHD

Hey Scuro

I can give you a one month access to uptodate and lexi drugs. Both these programs are continually updated and will give you access to the stuff I gave you. All I need is an email address. They have some great pages on ADHD and every other medical disorder you can think of. The pages are all extensively referenced to the literature and written by world renowned experts in the fields.

It is not good form to ref directly to Uptodate though as the general public doesn't have good access to it. But you can use it to find good references to other literature.

--Doc James (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'd rather not. I prefer the anonimity, tend to just do edits here and there on whatever article I happen to read, only got drawn into this because the controversy article is in such a poor state I think even a non-expert like me can help a lot. Sometimes I think it'd be better if no-one had accounts, would cut down on the personal vendettas/attacking the person not the content/judging content by who is submitting it rather than by it's own merits etc92.0.130.10 (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editor

Hey Scuro

You are a disruptive editor. And as it says on the ANI you need to have a close eye kept on you. I recommend you stop your disruptive behavior and stop pushing you fringe point of view. You do not seem to have any true desire to discuss the issues at hand or work together. This has been sited by a number of editors not just myself. You are trying to control the content and POV of the article.

--Doc James (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have been looking at the above comments. Seems like lots of other editors have been having similar problems with your edits on many other pages. Seems like you are trying to control a whole bunch of pages.

--Doc James (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James, you can frame it any way you want, but anyone who looks seriously at this issue will not agree with you. No editor of any standing is backing your ANI complaint, or your viewpoint on the village pump, which was that webpages can't be a source of info to be cited. Speaking of control, editors should look at the edit history on the ADHD. Clearly there is an editor trying to control everything, resorting to edit warring, and it ain't me.

Finally I do stick with a few pages and usually they are controversial mental health issues. These pages come under frequent attack and they take up all of my time here on Wikipedia. I am very proud that in the end these pages usually stay balanced. I welcome you to assume good faith and to build consensus. Any time that you are ready, we can begin. I will note that I am no longer going to tolerate personal attacks such as your post above. Times up, you have been given plenty of chances to follow wiki policy on behaviour.--scuro (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you would stop directing me to various wikipedia policies, firstly there's the whole 'don't tag the regulars' thing, secondly I don't accept that any of your accusations against me are remotely true. I no longer have any interest in conversing with you, I intend to continue my normal pattern of editing as I have been doing for longer than your account has been here, with the addition of working on the adhd controversies article specifically, hopefully until it is of good article quality. I intend then to continue checking on the article every few months and if I ever should find that anyone has once again been abusing wikipedia to push their personal POV I will do my best to have them banned. Please note that what I have written here doesn't violate any of the guidelines except possibly the ideal spirit of CIV. Repeat: I have no desire to discuss anything with you or respond to anything you say. Have a nice life. 92.3.129.125 (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If my "accusations" have no merit, you have no worries. I have no idea who you are since your #, has no history or talk page. I assume you are someone who I have warned in the past. Be sure if you are abusive I'll report you.--scuro (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ADHD

This is a NICE guideline that speaks extensively about the ADHD controversy aswell as every other aspect of ADHD. http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/CG72FullGuideline.pdf

It is current Sept 2008. It is published by a major group of medical scientists and physicians at all the best academic centers in the UK, and has strong backing from the UK government.

I think as you said above that we can finally put this controversy to rest. Happy editing.

--Doc James (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hi there Scuro!
	Please accept this invite to join the Good Article Collaboration Center, a project aimed at improving articles to GA status while working with other users. We hope to see you there!

I'd love to. But too many pages are being modified in a major ways, in an uncolaborative manner. My time here is sucked up by such people. When "order" is a top priority at Wikiland, editors like myself would have more free time. I've made a request for a medcab on the ADHD page. 6 days later and no mediator has stepped forward.--scuro (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warring

Hey Scuro Any interest in a truce? Not sure if that is possible and even though this continuing warring is fun it can get a bit tiresome at time. I would prefer to concentrate on content rather then this.

I however will not let this article become completely unbalanced as it was before I arrived. I think we can all agree that the controversy is real as it is backed up by many very good references. If you think that enough positive assertions about ADHD and its treatment are missing then I recommend you add more well reference source.

Doc James (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James, you seem to be an intelligent and concerned contributor who knows how to find information and assess information. Your just the type of contributor that wikipeida is looking for, although up to date, the behaviour needs significant improvement. Truce would have to come on terms that I have been asking for all along. Make that offer on the med cab and I'll certainly consider it and do it totally in good faith. I will continue to go "up the ladder" until this is resolved so if you do want to reach a truce I'd suggest that we work on that in an urgent manner. An immediate sign of good faith would be to place the POV tag that was recently stripped three times, back on the article.--scuro (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scuro this was discussed during two separate occasions and it was agreed that we would not have them.

Feel free to go "up the ladder". Wikipedia does not it seems have much for reprimanding people. I tried with you and didn't have any luck. But maybe with your presistance you will manage to get one of use banded. It does however look like just you and I with the odd third editor from time to time. I think the mediation cabal has given up.

I think the page is looking fairly balance though. What about you?

Doc James (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James, simply because you have a conversation with one editor, doesn't me any issue related to that topic is resolved. There are a number of problems with the page, but with no means to keep my edits on the page, I've really given up on attempting to making changes until all editors follow policy. You do know that you are not following policy on a number of different fronts?--scuro (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Please be advised that continued edit warring may result in being blocked from editing on Wikipedia. You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Doc James (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC) 16:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see my attempt to simply put a POV tag on a single word, as edit warring. After your four reverts, I stopped. The might is right approach to keeping content on the page is not appropriate for Wikipedia. James, I welcome dialogue on this issue.--scuro (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

I think all efforts have been made and the attitude still has not changed. The RFC sure makes sense. I do not have experience with the process either, but will do whatever I can. --Vannin (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a lot more to add beyond what you have been seeing/reading from me in this issue up to this point in time. Despite the fact that I am a WP:admin, by choice I have no experience with RFC. Having retired from a high pressure job, as much as I can now, I find myself wanting to not have to deal with conflicts. Rather, I have tried to focus my WP energies on other areas. From my contributions list, you may quickly see that I work in a wide area of many articles. In doing so, my contact with contributors has been similarly very diverse. However, this is one of the more flagrant instances of an editor pursuing conflicts and what I label the "ownership" and "my way" behaviors I have come across. As I see it, with regards to our new editor, the "ownership" and "my way" approach he persists in using is in serious conflict with the the spirit of WP collaboration under which we ALL should be operating, whatever our professional or amateur credentials may be. I believe a major aspect of Wikipedia is our many and diverse, joint efforts. However, I think he dismisses that completely, and instead, seems to be thriving on the conflicts. Despite many suggestions, often presented very diplomatically, I see no improvements from him in that regard, none. This is probably because he doesn't feel that there is anything wrong with his approach. As long he is factually correct or not on any particular point, it is fairly clear that nothing else really matters to him. That makes him, in my opinion, unbalanced in an aspect which is essential to be a good Wikipedian. Sadly, I do not foresee any easy resolution. Vaoverland (talk) 08:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the specifics of each reference you guys have had conflicts over and so forth, I haven't followed that part closely enough to be credible. However, the point I feel so strongly about isn't that, anyway. Not to be repetitive, what I find even of more serious concern at least to me is an editing style which rolls right over anyone else, and tosses verbal and functional snowballs while doing so. I think the record pretty clearly shows that, as well as lack of response to gentle nudges and even not so gentle nudges from many of us who have hoped to resolve this diplomatically. You aren't always right, of course. But I believe you, like most Wikipedians, are working in good faith, including demonstrating reasonable consideration of the feelings and interaction of others. I see that lacking, perhaps deliberately, in the editor we are so frustrated with. I am willing to participate in that regard, although it isn't hard to see, which I believe is why others who have attempted to mediate are also not having any success. Thanks goodness this sort of thing is rare (at least in my experience) on Wikipedia. Vaoverland (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lower-case all "OWN WORDS" will help. Also, sock accusations are pretty big, so I suggest you add it more as a footnote ("some concern"). Xavexgoem (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice, much appreciated.--scuro (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added my name. Thank-you for all your work on this Scuro. It is a big step but has just got to the point where it is necessary.--Vannin (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: [7]

I added my name as well. --*Kat* (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vaoverland

A few things, very brief, I am at work and busy. My job is so pesky when I'd rather spend time on WP. <gr>

1. Thanks for the second wake-up call heads-up, somehow missed your message 1st time.
2. Seems well written and kept brief, goals you mention.
3. You may have to keep me alerted like you just did if I should do something.
4. This guy could actually bring a lot to Wikipedia if he would be a team player. I also think he is enjoying tweaking your nose, and if he enjoys that type of "fun", he should seek it outside Wikipedia.
5. Lastly, if all this continues to be finding no resolution, you may want to consider backing off for a while, put your energies into something else on WP. It is likely your conflict is currently fueling him. No fun fighting alone, maybe he will lose interest and/or grow up, and we can all work to fix stuff as needed later. You may have noticed I am limiting how much of my time I spend on this single article/conflict, look at my contributions if you want to see what I mean. But, I always watch ones I step back from, and often revisit later. I shouldn't speak for others, but I beleive KAT also uses such a philosophy, and gets good long-term results.
6. BONUS: If you like my TALK box (see my page) I a can easily make one for you and put it on Your talk page, really help me keep my new messages moving to where they belong on my talk page. (It was a a gift to me from a fellow Wikipedian a while back. I am just offering to share that gesture of friendship and convenience with you). Its real easy for me to do.

Good luck on all this. That's all for now, gotta get back to work on my paying job. PS I copy stuff like this onto my talk page for archive purposes. Vaoverland (talk) 11:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

new talk box

This is the first message. All I did upon arriving at your page was click the option to "Leave me a new message" . Hope it works well for you.

Mark in Williamsburg Vaoverland (talk) 10:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, I have to admit I don't really know what this box does besides allow you to post a new thread without opening up the whole page and go to the bottom to post. --scuro (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Hi Scuro,

I would second Vaoverland's suggestion to partially step back with JMH. He is hitting out and getting nasty at the moment, and others will see this for what it is. Rebutting the things that he is saying will be coming down to his level. If the RFC does not work then there are other things that can be done, and these can be explored later. --Vannin (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scuro, I'd recommend that you withdraw the RfC. Unless I've missed something, the mediation did not look to me like a good faith attempt to resolve a dispute, i.e., to find consensus, but rather to win, to establish the "rightness" of your own position and the wrongness and bad faith of his, and you seem to have been the one who rejected the mediation, in the end. In any case, there is plenty in that RfC that could rebound to your harm, particularly if this should go before ArbComm. Word to the wise? --Abd (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abd, Thanks for that recent kick in the pants in the ANI. That shows me you have my best interest at heart. :) There is some irony that you now contact me again to give me friendly advice, but regardless, I have considered what you state earnestly.

This is not just my complaint and this is not just a problem that I have encountered. Jhm649 has yet to come to the table in good faith. I am ready at any time to have an earnest conversation with him and start afresh. That offer has been made to him many times and he has never accepted my offer or even acknowledged it. No one can edit on the ADHD article, there are too many ownership issues with Jhm.

You may be right that I have presented this more as a win/lose case but heck I am new at this, I gave it my best shot. That doesn't mean that at all times I haven't been open to mediation. And again you are probably right that I am not perfect and that there can be blow-back for me. But, I always work in good faith and if any outsider takes the time to actually look at what went on, they will see that this just might be a case that is more black and white, then gray. I think the odds are good there. If Jhm continues to ignore all the attempts we have made to mediate, that is up to Jhm. Since you are talking to him, you might suggest that now might be the time act in good faith. My door is always open.--scuro (talk) 04:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scuro, I don't know what you are talking about with AN/I. I can assure you that if I wrote there, my purpose was to benefit the project, it's not personal. I was aware that you might not be terribly responsive to my suggestion, but it was sincere in two respects: one, I really believe that you'll be better off if you drop it, while pursuing less disruptive means of finding consensus. RfC is the last stop before ArbComm, and, if this does go to ArbComm, as if, for example, the RfC turns out unfavorably to Doc James, and he appeals a sanction, your comments in the RfC will not serve you. The other aspect is that RfCs, not to mention ArbComm filings, can consume large amounts of editor time, time that would be better spent working on articles. I consider that Doc James has some legitimate complaints about your behavior, and that you have some legitimate complaints about his. However, as it stands, there is an RfC filed only complaining about him. That's imbalanced. I've seen an RfC come up with a conclusion that the subject editor had misbehaved, but that other editors were also guilty of misbehavior, that the subject editor wasn't necessarily the worst, but that the RfC wasn't about the others, so sanctions were applied only to him. Hence an obvious necessity, given what I've written, is that others involved also be the subject of an RfC. An ArbComm case, if filed, would consider and, if necessary, might sanction all involved. I would personally rather not waste my time, which is precious to me, collecting evidence and writing comments for an RfC, either the present one or another.

There are means of dispute resolution short of RfC that have not been tried. I'm not quite sure why Vannin and Vaoverland certified the RfC, in my view the measures taken were inadequate to justify an RfC, and especially one that is imbalanced. Vaoverland wrote that he had not encouraged you to initiate an RfC.[8]. Certifying an RfC has the effect that the RfC goes forward. He's noted that he has little or no prior experience with a user RfC, in spite of being a long-time administrator. He may have thought that he was simply stating what was true, i.e., he'd tried to resolve the matter. As to the mediation, while I haven't read it all -- and I'd really rather not -- the impression I got was that it was closed because of your unresponsiveness. I'd love to be wrong about that, and if you simply stick with that open door, and pay attention to all that walks through it, such as all the advice you've been getting to back off, I'm sure you'll be fine. And we can all go back to editing the encyclopedia. As to Doc James, you can read the advice I've been giving him on my Talk page. It's extensive. It's designed to be sympathetic to his criticisms of you, without confirming that his conduct has been appropriate, and you will see, there, my criticism of his behavior. The sympathetic part is necessary for me to have sufficient credibility with him that he may listen, as it seems he is. I'd rather, really, not dredge up your past, nor go over what you wrote in the RfC or elsewhere to present evidence in another one. I'd rather see you contributing to editorial consensus, as I've seen you do.

If both of you continue to gratuitously offend each other, and both fail to seek consensus (to disengage if nothing else) you will both be blocked, I predict, or at least topic banned. If you stop and he continues, well, he'll be blocked or banned and you won't. The reverse is also true.

He did "hold out an olive branch" to you not long ago. And what you did with that was use it as a piece of evidence to make it seem that he enjoys edit warring. That was very, very rude, Scuro. He was, quite likely, being colloquially sarcastic, as well as referring to the adrenaline rush that comes from battling other editors. The central message was that he'd rather not do that, but you, failing to assume good faith, took it and used it to mean the exact opposite. I'd suggest you apologize and, at least, redact that part of the RfC, if you don't withdraw the whole thing, which is still easy, since it has not attracted significant comment. I don't think anyone involved would object to closing it if you consent. --Abd (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abd, I appreciate it if you avoided all contact with me. Thanks.--scuro (talk) 07:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comments about Rfc

I hope the new Talk box is working out for you. Please read the recent additions on my talk page, so you can stay up to date on where I stand. Best wishes, Vaoverland (talk) 06:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insults

Both you and Vannin talk about not getting personal then you insult my academic institution and my friends which is they same as insulting me.

For example in the last day you imply stuff such as "we all know better" "any one with a basic understanding of scientific methodology would understand all of this". This is not dealing with content. You then comment on my talk page: "You are new, we are forgiving." I do not need to be patronized

How is this not insulting? You have continued with these petty insults all trough out the ANI, the mediation, and now the RfC. I was very accommodating to your questions when we started but this has become very frustrated.

I was and am open to mediation but the real issues which is content and what is considered a reasonable reference has never been dealt with or addressed

Doc James (talk) 06:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The offer I made to you of compromise was truly genuine, and it still is. I have no problem dealing with the issues of content and references. Would it be a fair compromise that we also deal with the issue of conduct at the same time? If so we could make real progress. Xavexgoem may help us if we both come to the table in good faith. Let me know if you find this acceptable. Sincerely, --scuro (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would help a lot if both of you, Doc James and scuro, would address the contribution, not the contributor. It would help almost as much if just one of you would do so. It takes two to play tit-for-tat. I think that, if possible, it helps to separate content disputes from user behavior disputes. So both of you please step back and consider those issues separately. Is the content dispute so severe that it needs an RFC or mediation (informal or formal)? Is the user behavior so bad that it needs an RFC/U on either or both of you? --Una Smith (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe the editing/ talk process is dysfunctional and see no way that it can be resolved without some form of mediation. If both parties would agree to do this with mutual respect and good faith, a lot could be accomplished. If this one issue were to be resolved I believe many other issues would disappear or take care of themselves. I'm open to moving forward in good faith and with mutual respect. --scuro (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have always been happy to compromise and discuss. And have made this clear a number of times. Doc James (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Informal mediation has already been tried, so the next step would be Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. This would concern article content, not user behavior. Meanwhile, how about suspending the issue of user behavior? There is no deadline and either of you (or anyone else) can address that issue later, if you wish. --Una Smith (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Una, I would like you to make your suggestion on the RFC. I would appreciate it if what you propose would be explained in more detail. Several of us involved in this RFC are new to this process. As I understand it mediation can happen at any point so why start a new process outside of the RFC? Could you also explain the reasoning behind the 90 degree change in focus of mediation from contributor to content. What advantages does this have? Finally could you tell us a little about yourself and why you got involved. Thanks,--scuro (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re

don't worry about future steps until they're at your front door (pun totally intended)

:-)

Xavexgoem (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kill them with kindness :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forwards

Scuro I completely agree that we need to deal with content. I would also prefer that insult of my institution are not made without proper references. When one claims something like "the TI is an antipharm group" one should reference it to a credible source. Other wise it is not really dealing with content. It is making insults of people that some of us here know. When I added info that Dr. Barkleys takes money from pharmaceutical companies I referenced this.

Also as I mentioned to your freind ICBSeverywhere if you want to disagree with the comments of the TI then find resources that say the safety of stimulants has been determined by randomized controlled trials for what ever lenght your source say, then reference the source. Or write that a case study of 200 kids or whatever it was didn't find any safety concerns up to five years. This is how scientific discourse takes place. One deals with content rather then insulting the authors of papers.

Hope we can make progress on these issues. --Doc James (talk) 06:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the most recent review of safety other then the TI that I could find.

Here is a 2001 study Schachter HM, Pham B, King J, Langford S, Moher D (2001). "How efficacious and safe is short-acting methylphenidate for the treatment of attention-deficit disorder in children and adolescents? A meta-analysis". CMAJ. 165 (11): 1475–88. PMC 81663. PMID 11762571. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

The NICE guildlines touch on it aswell.

--Doc James (talk) 06:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

antipsych is NOT scientology

they eat at the same table

Breggin

PeterBreggin on Peter Breggin

QW

me a Scientologist?

Methylphenidate

your recent deletions

In the spirit of Wikipedia

User page

Thank you!

Barnstar

Warning: Marking disputed edits as minor

Mediation Cabal

3RR Violation

The ECT article

I wanted to let you know

ECT Mediation

ECT

Supplementation and treatment of deficiencies should not be confused

Underdiscussion

Weasel words in Causes of mental illness

Dextroamphetamine

Psychiatry

3RR Warning

Chemical imbalance

Convulsive therapy

AfD nomination of Convulsive therapy

Hello

Chemical imbalance

Need your opinion

Dex

'ADHD'

Biopsychiatry controversy

mistaken revert in ADHD

Lots of arguments... so maybe I can help?

ADHD

Citations for ADHD

Warning, see WP:HUSH

Second warning, Don't restore removed comments.

this is what Abd deleted from his talk page and I assume he wants no one to see

Warning: Do not delete Talk material from other users

Your request

Re: Help with the concept of controversy

Getting back to you

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Abd 2

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Abd 2

/patience

Recent comments by User:ShadowCreatorII on Talk:Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: controversies

Ss06470

Lodge complaint section removed

Is it time to make a complaint against user Abd and user Ss06470?

Request for input

Salutation

Breggin journal

Proposed deletion of Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry

proper ref style

pace of change

recent change to amphtamine article

possibly inappropriate question

ADHD

Disruptive editor

ADHD

Notice

Warring

Edit warring

RFC

Vaoverland

new talk box

RFC

comments about Rfc

Insults

re

Moving forwards

Here is the most recent review of safety other then the TI that I could find.