User talk:Mark v1.0

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, Mark v1.0, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  RJFJR 19:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation in Music-Thanatology[edit]

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Music-Thanatology, by Axlq, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Music-Thanatology is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Music-Thanatology, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Music-Thanatology itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 05:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Dealing_with_disruptive_editors You have been invited to discuss issues on the ECT talk page but have declined that invitation. Consensus instead of unilateral editing is the process that one is to follow on Wikipedia. Your contribution on the talk page would be welcome.--15:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a last invitation to follow Wikipedian guidelines. A well supported sentence, that ECT does not cause brain damage, has been deleted 3 times by you. This has been done without proper citations, as requested, to back up your claim that ECT causes brain damage. Recently you are placed a citation request several times on this same sentence and again offer no support for the request. This goes against WP:VERIFY and this repeated action is seen by editors as disruptive editing. I'd ask you kindly to change your behaviour now.--scuro 03:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No I dropped my claim to brain damage. After another editor (different from scuro) reverted it. I had agreed in talk to another party. I had stopped deleting the sentence once another editor arrived. I switched to "who", after some other person put "who" in. I said it needs to say psychiatrists(who) beleive it doesn't cause brain damage. In talk under the title you created with my name in it I listed the names of outspoken activists who do NOT accept ECT is not damageing. Therefore you/wiki have to change the sentence to specify who is accepting that ECT causes no brain damage.--Mark v1.0 06:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

my VERIFY ? is a list of outspoken activists [List at bottom]who claim ECT damages the brain. They do not accept, so the sentence has to specify who it is accepted by.--Mark v1.0 06:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

With due respect for your viewpoint, while the reverting has changed you are still targeting the same sentence with unreasonable edits. First you attempted to delete the whole sentence, then you attempted to ask for a citation for the same sentence even though a paragraph of excellent citations and reasoning was provided for you. Now you want to qualify the sentence and that request is also unreasonable. See ECT talk page. Your actions are different but the pattern of behaviour is predictable. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Now might be the time to take a long hard look into the mirror. You are passionate and intelligent and have much to offer, it would be wikipedia's loss if you were eventually banned over your instance that the sentence can not stand as is.--scuro 20:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for the multiple deleting of the sentence initially, it was done through ignorance. I believe the sentence false and misleading. Again, I state I dropped my claim of deletion when a second editor arrived to the scene. As we agreed upon in Talk:ECT.
2nd thing,I did not start the citation asking for sources.
your 3rd allegation of "qualify the sentence", THAT IS WHAT I MEANT BY "WHO" IN YOUR SECOND ALLEGATION. not to site sources, but to clarify the sentence as to who is doing the accepting.


Image copyright problem with Image:Graphsmi sm.GIF[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Graphsmi sm.GIF. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wiki flaw[edit]

Hi Mark,

I have seen your archived discussion on brain damage caused by electroshock. Your arguments impressed me. Alas, there's a Wikipedia flaw in its system, as you can see in my user page.

Big Pharma sponsors psychiatry, which means that they have, literally, billions of dollars to promote a pseudoscience. The massive data of peer-reviewed journals advocating biopsychiatry are as pseudo-scientific as the tons of peer-reviewed parapsychology journals which purport to demonstrate the paranormal. While Wikipedia is able to deal with paranormal crank theories, once a pseudoscience reaches the academia, like the use of psychiatry against political dissidents in the former Soviet Union, there's little to do except to destroy the commie system. In our case it'll be a little harder to destroy the Therapeutic State since, with the exception of Slovenia, all states approve electroshock.

This is a huge subject. I've read Thomas Szasz, Peter Breggin, Robert Whitaker, Jeffrey Masson, Elliot Valenstein and many more critics. But they're still a minority and, though they're right, Wikipedia cannot recognize it because of its rules. If you want to discuss this in a more private way, just e-mail me.

Cesar Tort 06:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thomas Szasz edit[edit]

Might I suggest that you move the information you just added to, perhaps, the references section so it serves more as a source of information... I do not think that its current location as the very first line in his main arguments section is the appropriate place. In any event, I expect that another editor will soon delete it or move it somewhere else in the article if you do nothing with it. κaτaʟavenoTC 14:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

ok I will move it elsewhere, I was a bit emotional at the time from reading yet another persons enterpritation of what Szasz means when he says that mental illness is not a disease, people understand it as mental illness doesn't exist.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 03:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rapides du Cheval Blanc[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Rapides du Cheval Blanc has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No proof of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Philip.t.day talk 20:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Substantial capacity[edit]

Hi Mark,

Apologies for my ignorance with respect to Wiki protocol—I am new. I will add my explanation (below) to the discussion section of the page My edit is correct, though, so I'm changing it back.

The substantial capacity test is the American Law Institute model. The American Law Institute (ALI) published the Model Penal Code (MPC) in 1962. With reference to insanity, the MPC says that "a person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law."

The phrase "substantial capacity" comes directly from the ALI's definition of insanity in the MPC, which is why there is no need to have two sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apfg (talkcontribs) 05:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Insanity defense[edit]

Mark, I'm the editor who closed your DRN request. Rather than just letting you hang out in the cold, I've looked at the Haines article and the Yoder article and I'm afraid that I have to agree with Doc insanity that they're not appropriate, but let me see if I can do a better job of explaining why. The section in Insanity_defense#Psychiatric_treatments in which they appear is about the situation in which a person is charged with a crime, is found not guilty by reason of insanity, and then is involuntarily committed as a part of that same legal process. The assertion to which you are appending the references says, "Authorities making this decision tend to be cautious, and as a result, defendants can often be institutionalized for longer than they would have been incarcerated in prison." The problem is that according to the articles neither Haines nor Yoder were found guilty by reason of insanity. Yoder was directly involuntarily committed in a case in which his alleged crimes were used as evidence, but he was not committed as a result of his acquittal for those crimes and the length of his commitment has nothing to do with the length of sentences which he might have received had he been committed for them. Haines is a much closer case, but he was committed after being pleading guilty (and presumably being found guilty) and the article does not make it clear whether his commitment under UK law was merely after that conviction or somehow grew out of it. (It may be that a plea of "Guilty but Mentally Ill" is possible in the UK and that he plead that, but the article does not say that's what happened.) Either way, however, these cases do not illustrate the idea that a person can be found not guilty (or Guilty but Mentally Ill) but still serve a period of incarceration longer than the sentence that would have ordinarily resulted had they been found guilty of the crime with which they were charged. I hope this helps. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

TransporterMan, I still don't understand. You wrote "the length of his commitment has nothing to do with the length of sentences which he (they) might have received had he been committed for them". I am looking at the subject of the length of the commitment. Incarceration is incarceration wither it be jail or "hospital"
The length of the psychiatric commitment has EVERYTHING to do with the insanity plea. Doctors determine what sanity is, and it is arbitrary. One doctor can find a person sane, where another doctor would find insanity. There is no way to prove or disprove sanity. If a mentally ill person commits a crime, the psychiatrist can be held liable for releasing them to the public. It is then in the psychiatrist interests to keep innocent OR guilty people behind bars for a longer period of time. Haines and Yoder served more time behind bars than what a sane person would have received found innocent or guilty. The punishment (psychiatric commitment) is Cruel_and_unusual_punishment as it is unlimited in time. This all comes from having the idea of "sanity" the (insanity defense and psychiatry) as a higher value than the process of the judicial system where FACTS of evidence judge the case.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Mark and TransporterMan, actually to resolve this dispute to Mark's satisfaction a bit better, Haines WAS detained as a result of his crimes (but his continuing detention is under the Mental Health Act so civil), so maybe this example should be allowed with a suitable explanation. It certainly illustrates the point about the caution of mental health tribunals quite well so I will reinstate it, if that's OK TransporterMan. Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid I disagree, and the problem is that this article is about the insanity defense. Yoder did not, as far as I can tell from the article, use the insanity defense and that's what the article is about. He was convicted of the criminal charges, then a separate commitment proceeding was filed in a wholly separate and voluntary (on the part of the people who filed it) legal process, unlike the process that necessarily follows a successful insanity defense. The article about Haines is vague about what actually happened, procedurally, in his case and that's the reason it is inappropriate for this article. If these cases were being used in the article about Involuntary commitment to support a notion that involuntary commitments can be, in effect, life sentences they might be apropos (though the Haines article might still be iffy because of its vagueness). If there were an article about people being convicted of crimes then subsequently being involuntarily committed in a separate process, the articles might also be apropos. But the point of the section where they are being used is, in its essence, the dilemma one faces in making the insanity plea and neither of these guys did that insofar as can be determined from the cited articles. The current sentence in the article, "This also applies when the defendant although convicted is detained in a secure hospital and detained under civil committal powers, as the recent appeal to a mental health tribunal by Albert Haines in the UK demonstrates," is similarly inappropriate because it does not have anything to do with the insanity defense. Let me close by noting that I was merely responding to Mark's request at DRN for an independent, neutral evaluation of the citations; I'm offering that just for what it's worth and do not wish, myself, to become involved in editing the article (so as to better retain my neutrality). It's just my opinion and you are both free to accept it or reject it as you see fit. I'm particularly glad to see you beginning to work towards consensus as that is, at the end of the day, what is best for the article and for Wikipedia as a whole. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
regarding "Yoder did not, as far as I can tell from the article, use the insanity defense". Yoder WANTED to go to jail. The Psychiatrist of Yoder figuratively used the insanity defense. The power of a psychiatrist to take away a person freedom is directly linked to the insanity defense. When medically insane we are not legally responsible for our actions. --Mark v1.0 (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

TransporterMan - yes, I agree. I was perhaps trying too hard to be conciliatory. Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Quick how-to[edit]

Please don't take this as a criticism as I certainly do not mean it to be that, but instead just a quick note of advice and help. It's not necessary to leave a response to someone's comments in more than one place as you did above and on my talk page. If you're leaving a note on an article talk page or a talk page of some administrative forum or page, it's always expected that the person you're addressing will respond to you there. If you're leaving a note on a user talk page, most experienced users will have an indication on their talk page or, sometimes, on their user page about how they normally carry on conversations. At the top of my user talk page, for example, you'll find a banner that says:

  • If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page - it will be on my watchlist for at least a few days, so I will see your response
  • If you leave me a message: I will answer on this talk page - please watchlist it so you'll know that I've answered.

(and that, in my experience is the most common way that it is done, so that you don't have to switch back and forth between pages to follow a conversation). If you want to make absolutely sure that the person you're addressing sees your message, you can use the {{talkback}} template (which is most easily accessed by the "tb" tab at the top of your screen that you'll get if you enable Twinkle in the "Gadgets" tab in your user preferences), or simply leaving a note on their user talk page that says, "I've left you a note at [[page link]]. — ~~~~". But doing either of those things is not normally needed and is better reserved for the situation where you leave a note in the most obvious place and don't get a reply within a day or two. Good editing and best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Refs[edit]

Hey Mark. Refs for medical content need to be either review articles or medical textbooks per WP:MEDRS. Thanks and happy editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me what I need.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Cucciolo gatto Bibo.jpg

thanks ;)

Eash 22 (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Hershey Rosen[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Hershey Rosen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. TheLongTone (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I just read on TheeLongTone he put a "watch" on this page. So that means I shouldn't have written on his page? I don't know the etiquette.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

cut and pasted from TheLongTone[edit]

I don't know if I should write here on your talk page or mine, so I choose yours as you will definitely see this (my) response. You stated I could contest the deletion of the article Hershey Rosen, but I did not see the place you indicated to click on to file the contestation. The person named Hershey Rosen is important enough for an article because of the significant amount of money he has defrauded people (several million) . In the short article I included two references, one to a newspaper article of 1977 and one of 2010. The person named Hershey Rosen is also named in another Wikipedia article on fraud. The article I wrote was incompletely made due to my inexperience.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Make your assetion of notability on the article talk page. I would look at the notability guidelines though: it did not seem to me that he was sufficiently notable to qualify.TheLongTone (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
The article doesn't exist anymore to my knowledge, but I write on the talk page? YES/NO .The Wikipedia notability guide for crime says "execution of the crime is unusual" this is subjective, and I say defrauding people of millions of dollars once in 1977 significant, then today in 2009 defrauding people of almost a million again, is unusual.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
It may be unusual, but we live in a world where it does not seem to have attracted much in the way of media attention. And in fraud terms, a million is pretty small potatoes: a few more noughts are needed on the end. It's a wicked world we live in. Since the article has now gone, you could try contacting the admin who deleted it putting your case & asking for it to be reinstated.TheLongTone (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your help and advice.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Ways to improve Thomas Ray Lippert[edit]

Hi, I'm Carriearchdale. Mark v1.0, thanks for creating Thomas Ray Lippert!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add some links from within the article. Thanks!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Carriearchdale (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Removal of watermarks/timestamps[edit]

Hi Mark, i normally use the tool "inpaint" (http://www.theinpaint.com) for my removal work, it is not freeware but saves lots of time in most cases because it is much faster than manual cloning. It gives good results in randomly patterned areas, areas with regular geometrical structures and areas of more or less uniform structure. It has some limitations in certain cases where important image information is really lost and cannot be restored without using human intelligence (eg. restoring a lost window of a building by copying another window into the affected area. In many cases the watermark/timestamp seem just to "disappear". I have a license, so if you have some watermarks to remove feel free to ask.

For difficult cases I use Gimp for manual cloning (i think any other better editor with a "cloning stamp" function would do.) Takes some 10-100 times much time depending on the situation. - Andy king50 (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Carl Hans Heinze Sennhenn[edit]

Thanks for catching this. After some checking, the page is actually a composite. The facts stated in the article refer to Hans Heinze, who has a very long article in the deWP, which I will translate part of. There seems also to be a physician named Carl Hansheinze Sennhenn involved in some way with the Nazis, apparently in chemical warfare. I do not have enough information yet to write about him--he seems quite obscure by comparison. The relative dates make it possible that he is the younger relative of the other, thus accounting in some manner for the name.

BTW, when you tag an article for deletion, it's required to say so in the edit summary. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Terminal Man, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brain stimulation (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) 08:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes it was meant to go to the disambiguation page, otherwise the link it was going to was wrong, so no link at all is the only other alternative.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 11:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)