User talk:Psychiatrick/Archive 1

Much thanks, P., for your wishes! Although I see a minor perspectives for my election there, I'm not disappointed in the Wikipedia in general. That is why I write here, in en-wiki — you see, the whole idea is smart, isn't it :)?

Best regards and thank you again, Cherurbino (talk) 04:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks again! Cherurbino (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Any good idea can suffer from so grave shortcomings that they can damage the implementers of the idea. The Wikipedia administrators are afraid of conflicts, disagreements, people who have different opinions and different way of thinking. The Wikipedia administrators seem to think high-quality articles can be written only in quiet environment. But I think the quiet environment will be the death of the Wikipedia, although I know it is very difficult to write articles in disquiet environment. Psychiatrick (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I've begun the review at Talk:Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union/GA1. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Replied there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the

10:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Every phrase in the article was reworded and was not copied from the source used to write the article, but the article was deleted and cannot be compared with the source anymore. It means that copyright infringement indicated in the notification cannot be proven and is too strong rebuke without strong reason. Psychiatrick (talk) 01:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The source you ask about

Hi,

journal mentioned (I’m its subscriber, by the way). Every printed issue contains a list of all the members of the editorial board, so that every issue published before 2008 can serve as a source.--Solus ipse Inc. (talk

) 16:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Hi,
  Konsultativnaya psikhologiya i psikhoterapiya, please add this information and source simultaneously. Of course, you may use any printed version of the journal, even though it is not available online. Psychiatrick (talk
  ) 17:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not really the core of my interests. I only intended to help you with expanding the article you had created.

P.S. There is a grammar error in the following sentence: “He also is a member of the council [- - -]” The adverb “also” follows the verb “to be” as well as the adverbs “always”, “sometimes” etc. So you are to choose one of the two variants: “He is also a member…” or “Also he is a member…” But: “he had also been…” instead of “he had been also…” I'm sure the sentence cited contains a typo rather than a mistake. But as you ask about sources, I prefer adducing them to my correcting your sentence. Here are the sources:

• Качалова К.Н., Израилевич Е.Е. Практическая грамматика английского языка. // Глава «Наречие» §15 «Место наречия в предложении».
• Бонк Н. Учебник английского языка, т. 1, грамматический справочник § 29.

Besides, my English is too bad to correct the style of your article. I’m merely drawing your attention to a misprint in your article.--Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I have substituted the sentence “He also is a member” for “He is also a member”, although “He also is a member” is often used by native English speakers and writers who do not consider that the only correct place of the adverb “also” is after the verb “is”. Examples are here: [1]. Psychiatrick (talk) 08:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your advice. Personally, I consider en-WP an English exercise, a supplement to English textbooks, so that your information is of much more interest to me than my own contributions here. And yet I mostly use English textbooks and guides written by professional translators. I especially like translations of H. Campbell Creighton (M.A., Oxon) who is famous for his excellent translations of Russian scholarly and scientific literature including some books by Teodor Oizerman and Igor Kon. In 1989, H. C. Creighton edited English translation of Human Physiology by Evgeni Babsky and Anatoly Zubkov. I often “consult” with Creighton’s translations when I have some problems in writing English. His translations are available on the Internet, by the way.

Besides, there are Wikipedists who work at universities and research institutes in their real life. I’ve got acquainted with some interesting people in the Polish WP while my contributions to this project are corrected by Crusio, a scientist from France. If you’re interested in psychiatry, you should certainly have a look at his page.

As for Yuri Savenko, I just know his name. I was going to publish an article on psychiatry last year. Having read some papers from his journal, I send my article there. To my surprise, I haven’t received any answer at all. It’s a strange policy of the editors' courtesy, I should say. I have heard of the person nothing more except your WP articles.--Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Any journal or magazine does not usually respond to persons whose articles it receives. Nothing strange. Psychiatrick (talk) 09:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Advice needed

Could you please tell me how to translate the title ru:Вопросы психологии into English? Should I use the definite article? To my mind, the latter of the two variants is more appropriate: “Questions of Psychology” and “The Questions of Psychology”. I think I am to use the definite article because the journal covers all the areas (the questions) of psychology. But my English is not good enough. Thanks in advance for your answer.--Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer to translate ru:Вопросы психологии into The Issues Relevant to Psychology. Questions are rather what one asks. Psychology considers issues but does not ask questions. The definite article “the” is used before the title of the journal only because the title is unique. Psychiatrick (talk) 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I’ve written this translation even though it’s a bit too cumbersome for a journal’s title, to tell the truth. You seemingly have a good sense of humor.--Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Baklava

It’s very kind of you. --Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

FAC

I don't know about good luck—you'd probably be better off thanking the person who did the GA review! All I did was add a line to a page where it was then picked up by a bot :)

As for the FAC submission, I'll be happy to help with it as well, but please note that before an article can be nominated, it should undergo a peer review. The process consists of five easy steps, and while I can certainly submit the article for peer review for you, it makes more sense if you do it yourself, because it's you who'll be the one answering the questions and addressing concerns anyway. Once the peer review is finished, the article can be moved on to FAC.

By the way, great job on expanding that article! It's a very interesting and educational read. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 11, 2011; 13:39 (UTC)

Unless you are being stalked by your opponents from ru_wiki, I don't see why you would have the same problems here, and it would be you fending off the questions which will come up during the peer review anyway. Submitting a nomination involves going through five mostly procedural (and easy) steps, but if you insist, I'll submit it for peer review next week. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 12, 2011; 19:03 (UTC)

If me nominating this article for peer review would count as moral support and help you deal with the questions better, then I will gladly do so :) I was just making sure. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 12, 2011; 21:52 (UTC)

Zemskov-Maksudov

I see you added the story about Maksudov's criticism of the Zemskov's views to the

GULAG article. However, I think it would be useful for you to read Zemskov's answer published in the same journal. From your edits I conclude that, by contrast to some other editors working in this area, you are trying to be unbiased, and you are interested to know truth. Therefore, I recommend you to read this article and to consider a possibility to reflect what it says in the GULAG article. I am somewhat busy right now, and I cannot work on this article seriously. I see some issues with your edits, however, I believe we will be able to fix them together in close future.
Good luck. --Paul Siebert (talk

) 00:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Paul Siebert. If I have time, I will try my best to fulfill your request. Psychiatrick (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Psychiatrick (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Loren Mosher and Soteria

Hi. I just posted some additional sources for the Loren Mosher and Soteria articles on their talk pages (Talk:Soteria; Talk:Loren Mosher). I don't really have time to expand the articles at the moment so I thought you might like to as you're a major contributor? FiachraByrne (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, FiachraByrne. You are right to come to me for this. Thank you for finding these sources and posting them on the talk pages. When I have time, I will expand the articles. Psychiatrick (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I might direct similar sources your way in the future if that's alright and you have the time? Incidentally, do you have any interest in writing an article on Open dialogue?FiachraByrne (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Please post similar sources, if any, on the talk pages of the articles, because posting the sources on the talk pages can help other editors write or understand these articles. Regarding the article “Open dialogue”, I need to see at least its stub to understand if I have any interest in writing it. Psychiatrick (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes of course. I'll try and get an Open dialogue stub with sources written up soon (probably about a week). When I get that done I'll post a note here so that you can see if you have any interest in the topic. Thanks again. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It is kind of you. Thanks. Psychiatrick (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Psychiatrick. You have new messages at Ezhiki's talk page.
Message added —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 1, 2011; 20:02 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Edit

Code scares people (just show a wiki n00b a reference, infobox or a table and see how quickly their desire to edit Wikipedia evaporates...). Moving as much of the reference code to the bottom makes editing the body more friendly, particularly for the new editors. Also, it allows easier sorting and standardization of reference, since all the code is now in one place and can be easily compared to one another. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

If you like the idea, you may want to help testing the script for it, see User_talk:Δ#yet_ref_script_error. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi

I reverted your edits on

WP:UNDUE etc. If you haven't already, it would be of benefit if you could read the policies and guidelines that I have wiki linked in this message. See the discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Input_requested_regarding_recent_changes_to_psychiatry_articles. Have a nice day. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k?

13:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I replied. Have a good day. --Psychiatrick (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as

Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. Yobol (talk

) 18:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion

Properly assessing the neutrality and reliability of the sources used in an article requires familiarity with and understanding of the subject matter—and in the field of psychiatry I possess neither. The best way to handle this incident is to continue the discussion on the talk page, and if that goes nowhere, there is always

WP:RSN. I am sorry, but there really isn't anything I can do, at least at this point.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?

); January 27, 2012; 19:51 (UTC)

I understand and it looks convincing, but I really can't properly assess the quality/neutrality of a source in a field I know next to nothing about. From where I stand, you might as well ask for my "expertise" in the field of astrobiology :)

The editor who removed the paragraph is an editor in good standing, so the best way to find out his reasons is by continuing the discussion on the article's talk page. Perhaps it is all a misunderstanding, but even so it should be discussed by the people who are familiar with the subject.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 27, 2012; 20:15 (UTC)

Edit war at Mental disorder‎‎

Your recent editing history at

block

.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's

Hi. I replied. --Psychiatrick (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

See here and the section above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

		The Soviet Barnstar
		For your work on Soviet articles, especially Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union, and for your Template:Soviet dissidents INeverCry 00:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I see you are working on it. Drop me a note on my talk if you want me to take a look at it. And I understand if you don't. Happy New Year.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry I am slow about working on it. I am hoping to research and help out this summer, but it's been very difficult to get the time together.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

OK.--Psychiatrick (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Psychiatry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DSM (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Authors such as Ivan Illich have noticed that far from helping to understand the medicalization of life, it merely serves to the medical monopoly over and against life. Certainly authors like Sasz have solely criticized the psychiatry and attempted to present other parts of medicine as allegedelly scientific and reasonable founded, while authors like Vicente Navarro, and Ivan Illich have criticized the medicine as a whole. Navarro for example noticed that medicine disguise the underlying causes of disease. Illich also noticed that medicine practice is an important source of damages so called iatrogenic illnesses and goes further when he notices the social effects of medical monopoly over life. Let me cite Illich: "Social iatrogenesis designates a category of etiology that encompasses many forms. It obtains when medical bureaucracy creates ill-health by increasing stress, by multiplying disabling dependence, by generating new painful needs, by lowering the levels of tolerance for discomfort or pain, by reducing the leeway that people are wont to concede to an individual when he suffers, and by abolishing even the right to self-care. Social iatrogenesis is at work when health care is turned into a standardized item, a staple; when all suffering is 'hospitalized' and homes become inhospitable to birth, sickness, and death; when the language in which people could experience their bodies is turned into bureaucratic gobbledegook; or when suffering, mourning, and healing outside the patient role are labeled a form of deviance [...] Like its clinical counterpart, social iatrogenesis can escalate from an adventitious feature into an inherent characteristic of the medical system. When the intensity of biomedical intervention crosses a critical threshold, clinical iatrogenesis turns from error, accident, or fault into an incurable perversion of medical practice. In the same way, when professional autonomy degenerates into a radical monopoly8 and people are rendered impotent to cope with their milieu, social iatrogenesis becomes the main product of the medical organization[...]Medicine is a moral enterprise and therefore inevitably gives content to good and evil. In every society, medicine, like law and religion, defines what is normal, proper, or desirable. Medicine has the authority to label one man's complaint a legitimate illness, to declare a second man sick though he himself does not complain, and to refuse a third social recognition of his pain, his disability, and even his death.22 It is medicine which stamps some pain as "merely subjective," 23 some impairment as malingering,24 and some deaths—though not others—as suicide.25 The judge determines what is legal and who is guilty.26 The priest declares what is holy and who has broken a taboo. The physician decides what is a symptom and who is sick. He is a moral entrepreneur,27 charged with inquisitorial powers to discover certain wrongs to be righted.28 Medicine, like all crusades, creates a new group of outsiders each time it makes a new diagnosis stick.29 Morality is as implicit in sickness as it is in crime or in sin.".

But PF/SPK (Huber) goes even beyond noticing that the basic ground of medicine is a war against illness which necesarily drives to a war against patients as it occurred during the so called Third Reich, you could read for example: (www.spkpfh.de/Again.htm) which I will cite here: "It is a historical fact, made public for the first time in 1970/71 by the SOCIALIST PATIENTS’ COLLECTIVE and meanwhile having become an integral part of general knowledge, that the mass murder of people, declared by medical doctors as patients, during the so-called Third Reich – at least 275,000 people killed – was carried out by medical doctors in the name of "health". The so-called eugenics movement of the medical doctors throughout the whole world had prepared the mass murder of people. That mass murder was not the doing of the Nazis but rather the medical doctors’ doing, who had found in Nazi-Germany the suitable conditions to put into practice the extermination of people they had been planning and preparing for ideologically already since the 19th century, and it was carried out in the name of "health". It was by the use of the propagandistic term "health" that they had been preparing the grounds for the programmed killing of people. And the Jews, too, were being fought and killed as patients, for instance, as "a cancerous ulcer in the people’s body". On the other hand, Jews were exempted from prosecution when they were found to have got "good, healthy blood". Thus Jewish women (!) for instance were made pregnant by SS-men in the so-called Lebensborn ("Fountain of life") institutions, in order to create "healthy" offspring. Thus, solely what the doctors had defined as "health" constituted the criteria of selection for those being allowed to live or forced to die. Hitler was but the executor and the highest henchman of this ideology, which, as a therapeutic one in its ravaging against all "unworthy life", had been common to the world and not only to the Germans, and that a long time before the Nazi era. Even so-called leftist Parties in the Prussian Landtag and Reichstag had introduced relative bills in the Parliament long before 1933. And it was not only in Germany, but also in Scandinavia, France, Switzerland, and who knows where else, that patient people were murdered in institutions, and that continued for a long time after the end by force of the so-called Third Reich. Thus the doctors’ international "health"–ideology had prepared the grounds for the murder of hundreds of thousands of patient people already long before. The medical profession as a whole had done in public calculations as to the cost the "national community" had to bear for maintaining the patient people in life, and painted with glaring brightness the threat patient people would represent for the "people’s health" according to the motto: "first of all they are expensive, and in the second place they are monsters" [Denn erstens sind sie teuer, und zweitens Ungeheuer]. The propagandistic call for slaughter "Health" ["Sieg HEIL!"] was followed by the killing as the therapy.[...] Also the sterilization laws against the so-called "hereditarily sick offspring" were not an invention of the Nazis. Already in 1907, sterilization legislation for so-called eugenic reasons had been passed in Indiana / USA. At least other 30 US-States had joined in. Compulsory sterilization was continued in the USA, as well as in the Scandinavian countries – e.g. Sweden –, till the end of the 1970s[...]The propagandistic call for slaughter "Health" ["Sieg HEIL!"] was followed by the killing as the therapy, and that by far not only in the so-called Third Reich. The parallels to nowadays cannot be ignored. Not even in the party manifesto of today’s Greens, by the way. Nowadays too, an extremely aggressive long-running HEAL-political propaganda under the sign of "health" is being pressed ahead from part of the doctors. "Health" doesn’t exist, has never existed. All the more so today: from the genetic point of view, nobody is "healthy", everybody is genetically defective, everybody is ill. And once again calculations are being spread in which patients are presented mainly as a "cost factor" that ought to be "reduced", because otherwise the national economy would collapse under the expense of illness. Through the cost-benefit accounting the lives of the single persons are being registered, summed up, are made an economic balance of it, are evaluated and devaluated. Numbers are being turned into supernumeraries, i.e. "unworthy life", nowadays as well as in the past. To give priority to aspects of profitability in the case of illness, that means in the end to practice coercive euthanasia (euthaNAZIa). Others are in for it today; you will be in for it tomorrow. So, no one takes notice. It’s because of their money that they decide who’s allowed to live and who’s going to die. Who ignores in this the ruling class of the jackers, there included your family doctor, has not reckoned with the most important thing. It’s the doctor who decides, who selects, as the Master of death and life, at the death-life selection platform in Auschwitz and everywhere where the only thing they care about are "healthy" numbers and ill ‘supernumeraries’." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.27.6.129 (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	You have been doing much good work in psychiatry-related areas and it is much appreciated. Thank you for making a difference on WP. Happy editing! Johnfos (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. I am pleased to receive this barnstar. --Psychiatrick (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Medicalization removed quotation marks from text which is almost an exact quote of a sentence in PMC1122833, to which it is sourced. This has the effect of passing off someone else's work as your own and is regarded as plagiarism, which is unacceptable on Wikipedia. I have reverted your edit. Having read your edit summary, I have no idea what issues you have with the other user, but the text was not a "paraphrase" as you seem to think; it was a copy. Please take the time to read Wikipedia:Plagiarism and take care to ensure you do not make the same mistake in future. --RexxS (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I’ve fixed this problem. --Psychiatrick (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Похоже я, вы, и Гога друг друга не поняли. Я сказал что в Википедии блокируют участников, и что в РуВики, даже через чур. Я там заблокирован бессрочно, чем и не доволен. Думал что пришел помочь хорошим людям, написал им 124 статьи... Нарушил случайно правила ВП:АП, и получил. Однако, я просил участников там, чтоб статью подправили что б она не была нарушением данного правила. Второе ваше предложение тоже не верно. Я не говорю что наставник предотвращает меня от нарушений и недоразумений. Я говорю что если после наставничества данных участников начнут опять блокировать, и блокировать не справедливо, то прошу к нам. Все участники которые в Традиции, это бывшие Википедийцы, заблокированные на РуВики. Я думаю, что я имею полное право предложить людям другой проект, для сохранения нервов. Кстати, не желаете быть моим наставником на РуВики? Если хотите, можете присоединиться в Традицию (ссылку я дал выше).--Mishae (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Let’s consider your indefinite block in ruwiki as an attempt to make you a European and let’s thank Russian admins for it.Psychiatrick (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? Is not Russia considered to be a European country?--Mishae (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Now a European mostly means a citizen of a country of the European Union.Psychiatrick (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't have a European Union citizenship. What does all this suppose to do with my indefinnite block on Russian Wikipedia??? And why should I thank Russian admins for the block? I'm Russian, I was born in Moscow (o.k, I currently live in Minnesota, USA), but it doesn't mean I give up on my Russian heritage. I have duel citizenship with Russia. By the way, are you Russian or are you Ukrainian, or from Baltic states?--Mishae (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• I’m Russian. I don’t suggest that you should give up on your Russian heritage that is available to you whether or not you have any blocks in the Russian Wikipedia. But if I were you, I would reject the Russian heritage rooted assumption that working under tutors, sanctions, or their threats is a normal practice. Psychiatrick (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

O.K, I'll try. I used to do a project filmography on the Russian Wikipedia, since the Russian movies are not common there for some reason. I wasn't blocked because I wasn't Russian in their opinion. I suspect it have something to do with a Russian Wikipedia being Semi rather then Russian. Thats maybe one reason why a lot of Ukranians, or Russian-non-Jews get blocked there. O.K, so I partially Jewish, but my excidental anti-semi remarks made them to block me, even though I apologized for a grave mistake. So, yeah, we have not Russian block, we have Russian Jewish block. I don't have anything agianst the Jews, but dew to my disability, I might get angry, and misspeak. Russians never wanted to aknowledge the fact that I do have a disability, and even though one guy did mentioned it to the admins, they ignored it, since in their opinion it violated one of their rules. Currently I am very active on the Ukranian Wikipedia, even though I don't know Ukranian. People always help me there, and I slowly learn the language. English Wikipedia interests me as well, but it have too much articles, and find the one that is not yet written is very hard.--Mishae (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines seem to be only created for so-called “healthy people” and don’t take into account that someone may have disability. So admins’ banhammers “kill” every user who makes too many mistakes. Psychiatrick (talk) 04:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is the rule that I wasn't very happy with on the Russian Wikipedia. Maybe I did violate copyvio too much on the Russian Wikipedia, but they could have just help me fix the article to the point that it doesn't violate anything. Instead, they decided to block me. I don't violate any rules because I like to violate them, I violate them because sometimes I don't understand right away what the community wants from me, and probably, same goes with other users too. As far as disability goes, keep in mind that we are people too (something that the Russian Wikipedia, or you for that matter don't want to aknowledge, altough it does says it on my user page). Like, we are here to help the project too, we just sometimes don't understand things righ away. Another thing to point out, that even though there are some users that ought to be blocked, there are some that get blocked for over reaction of the admin. In my case for example, I wasn't helped, I got over reacted, and got blocked after it. In some cases, the rules might be written so long, that you get lost at how to follow them, and which ones. For example, there are rules, yes, and there are Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, that gives you the ???. Not taking into account that someone have, or someone doesn't have a disability, is making me mad. You see, all of us are users, and we both working on a joint project, no matter what we are. But Wikipedians (The Russians especialy) need to take into consideration that there are some people that have special accomodations. Like, we need to be explained a little bit more then other users, but in the end we might get it, just not as quickly. The more users explain other users the rules (and not hiding them, like Russians did), the more chances we will follow. Banhammers sometimes "kill" good users too, like myself, of which I am not very happy about. So, I think you are getting the point what I am trying to say. By the way, if you live in Russia, why you didn't open an account on the Russian Wikipedia????--Mishae (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• I wouldn’t like to return to the Russian Wikipedia because of prolonged conflicts, which surrounded me and my articles there, and the order of its Arbcom to provide it with original paid-for copyrighted journal papers. Russian Wikipedia is only one with such conflicts. Psychiatrick (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

????? What do you mean by paid-for copyrighted journal paper? How do you know about it? Did you read it on their site?--Mishae (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• [2] Psychiatrick (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I need to talk to you, can you give me your e-mail please.--Mishae (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I can. Here is my Wikipedia e-mail. Psychiatrick (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

How about non Wikipedia e-mail?--Mishae (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• I wouldn’t like to expose my non Wikipedia e-mail here because of possible spam from other users and organizations. Psychiatrick (talk) 22:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

O.K. I sent you an e-mail via Wikipedia, I hope I didn't wrote something that I shouldn't.--Mishae (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi!

My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who make and use Wikipedia have so much to share.

I'm scouring user pages looking for inspiring, motivating and interesting stories of how Wikipedia has affected the lives of people. I'm asking questions like "How has Wikipedia changed your life?", "What's the most interesting story you have about Wikipedia?" and "Has Wikipedia ever surprised you?"

Your work on psychiatry is interesting, I'm curious why you write about it?

Last year, we used the annual fundraiser as a way to show the world who it is who actually writes Wikipedia. We featured editors from Brazil, Ukraine, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Kenya, India, United States and England. This campaign was a huge success, resulting in the most financially successful fundraising campaign ever. It was also a campaign that stayed true to the spirit of Wikipedia, educating the public that this free top-5 website is created by volunteers like you and I.

This year we want to highlight more Russian-language Wikipedia editors, so I am in the process of planning a trip to Russia to interview editors.

If you or someone you know (or have heard about) has been positively affected by Wikipedia, or have something interesting to say about Wikipedia I'd very much like to hear about it!

Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project, or if you know someone else with whom I should speak.

Of course, if you have any questions or concerns, please ask! I will answer as soon as I can. I apologize for any poor translation of this letter, I am using Google-translate. I hope it makes you laugh :)

Thank you for your time,

Victor Grigas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Victorgrigas

[email protected]

__________________________________

Привет!

Меня зовут Виктор, и я рассказчик с Wikimedia Foundation, некоммерческая организация, которая поддерживает Википедию. Я хроник вдохновляющих историй сообщества Википедии по всему миру, в том числе и читателей, редакторов и доноров. Истории совершенно необходимы для любой некоммерческой органицации, чтобы убедить людей поддержывать наш проект, и мы знаем, что у людей, которые строют и используют Википедии есть много, что рассказать!

Я ищу вдохновляющие страницы пользователей, и интересных историй о том, как Википедия влияют на жизнь людей. Я задавал вопросы вроде "Как Википедия изменила Вашу жизнь?", "Какая самая интересная история у Вас есть о Википедии?" и "Википедия ли когда-нибудь Вас удивило?"

В прошлом году мы использовали ежегодный сбор средств как способ показать миру, кто на самом деле пишет Википедия. Мы показывали редакторов из Бразилии, Украины, Аргентины, Саудовской Аравии, Кении, Индии, США и Англии. Этот метод имел огромный успех, в результате чего у нас была наиболее финансово успешная кампании по сбору средств в историе организации. Кроме того, мы остались верны духу Википедии, просвещение общественности, что это бесплатно ТОП-5 Сайт создан добровольцами, как Ви и я.

В этом году мы хотим выделить еще редакторов Википедии на русском языке, так что я нахожусь в процессе планирования поездки в Россию и интервью с редакторами.

Если Википедия положительно повлеяла на Вас или на кого-то из Ваших знакомых, или у Вас есть что-то интересное сказать о Википедии, я бы очень хотел услышать об этом!

Пожалуйста, дайте мне знать, если Ви бы хотели участвовать в проекте Истории Википедии, или если вы знаете кого-то еще, с кем я должен поговорить.

Конечно, если у Вас есть какие-либо вопросы или сомнения, пожалуйста, обращайтесь! Я отвечу, как только смогу. Извините за плохой перевод этого письма, я использую Google-перевод. Я надеюсь, что заставляет вас смеяться :)

Спасибо за Ваше время,

Victor Grigas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Victorgrigas

[email protected]

Victor Grigas (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kuibyshev (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry, but it was incorrect to move this page, as neither the journal cover nor its website include "the" in its name. I'll request to move the page back (because of the double redirects, it cannot just be moved back any more). --Randykitty (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

PS: the move of this journal does not seem to be justified either. --Randykitty (talk) 12:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. It’s my fault. You are right to move the pages back. But you can make redirect pages with the definite article “the” before the names of the journals, because I have a lot of research articles in which the names of the journals begin with the definite article “the.”--Psychiatrick (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.