User talk:Christopher James Dubey

Welcome!

Hello, Christopher James Dubey, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

— Nathan ^(talk) _{/ 19:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Frankenstein

Hi. I removed your addition of a link to your personal essay on Frankenstein because Wikipedia is not the place to publicise your original work. Please have a look at our guidelines on original research, external links, and reliable sources (livejournal generally isn't one.) I hope you don't take this personally and I hope you decide to keep contributing to Wikipedia. Cheers. Robin Johnson 16:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your polite reply - it's always a pity if new users take offence at these things. By "personal essay" I just meant that you wrote it, really. By the way, the easy way to sign your edits to talk pages is by typing four tildes: ~~~~ . Robin Johnson 16:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with the page Electroconvulsive therapy on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Jumping cheese ^Contact 02:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ECT edits

Hello. You're quite right - I regretted putting "unreferenced" in as soon as I re-read it, and it was entirely incorrect of me to say it was. Your material was perfectly well-referenced, and I apologise for that. Regarding the sources, I don't mean to suggest either of them is de facto a poor source or ill-qualified to judge the nature of ECT, but rather that I have a real problem with Wikipedia citing websites rather than published (and preferably peer-reviewed) work in articles for which the latter exists. There's a huge body of work on ECT, both in the conventional scientific science, and in terms of published literature on the subject. I've dug up Breeding's book on Amazon after getting your message, anyway, and hadn't appreciated that it existed in book form rather than merely as a webpage.

With that in mind, I apologise - my edit was more sweeping than your material deserved it to be, and I'll reinstate the material in a shortened form if that's okay - if not, feel free to reinstate more of it than I put back and we can go from there.

Briefly, I agree with some of your reservations about the use of the term "scientific". However, while it certainly doesn't mean "free from bias", it is innately less biased than subjective opinions of the effect of the practice from those who've undergone it. Inevitably, the people who don't feel the treatment has worked for them will shout louder than those who feel it has, and there is no peer-review process for people who want to use deeply emotionally charged language to describe a process which can have startlingly positive effects on an individual's sense of self and ability to interact with the world.

Anyway, apologies again for missing that Breeding was published, and thanks for taking me to task in a message rather than an angry revert war.

Nick. Nmg20 14:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent post on my talk page, Chris - I reckon we probably do disagree on some points, but I always found you a pleasure to work with on articles; you're excellent at the stage in disputes people tend to overlook (myself very much included!) which is the stepping back for a bit. Anyway - I'm not on wikipedia for a couple of months now, so I hope the ECT article gets sorted out. What annoys me about the current debate is that the main protagonists have posted articles they plainly haven't read, and have then refused to respond to me when I have taken the time to read them - but there we go. Take care - Nmg20 00:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Chris - as ever, even though we disagree on some of the fundamentals about ECT, it's a pleasure being able to discuss things with you. I do completely understand where you're coming from regarding your friend's experience. My impression is that legally she should pursue avenues other than the rape option, as my (lay) understanding of the law is that rape is a quite specific thing and that involuntary ECT would not cover it and indeed might bias a jury against the rest of her claims.

In terms of the latest reference you've added, I have reservations about its suitability. I would be surprised if student newspapers were deemed reliable sources on anything except their university, and that might even be hit-and-miss - but you've explained where you're coming from and I'm happy to leave the ref in pending other editors' (hopefully more than just Scuro!) opinions. Best, Nmg20 (talk) 06:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear

I hope I didn't drive you away, Chris. It's really nothing personal...certainly dissenters are needed to keep a skeptical eye on the rest of us. But with a topic as acrimonious as ECT (are practitioners saving lives or destroying them?) a certain amount (i.e., high) of give and go goes with the territory.

Sorry to lose you, --zenohockey 02:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sources

Hi Chris,

As you see I am back...

I've read your copyedits in the Anti-psychiatry article. I would recommend to source the new sentences you place in articles. Szasz for example has written a lot about drapetomania.

Cheers and all the best for 2008!

—Cesar Tort 18:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dysaethesia Aethiopica and Drapetomania

Hi. I noticed that you changed the descriptions of Dysaethesia Aethiopica and Drapetomania from psychiatric diseases to mental illnesses. I was wondering why.

As an individual with no special knowledge of psychiatry or psychology I don't know if there's any difference between the two, but the source specifically describes both "ailments" as "psychiatric diseases".

Thanks. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your reply. I don't have a preference for one phrase over the other, I was just wondering if there was a difference. At one point, an editor who will remain nameless was fighting to remove the word "psychiatry" from the articles because she insisted that there was nothing psychiatric about either "disease", which is why another editor and I looked for a source that specifically used the phrase "psychiatric disease". But your edit is fine. Thanks again. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alia Sabur

I'm sorry, but I've had to revert your edits to the above article, because, as a biography of a living person, policy requires us to use reliable sources for its content. I do appreciate your contribution. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've Earned the Philosophy Barnstar!

		The Philosophy Barnstar
		For excellent work finding sources on the Appeal to Authority Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 04:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you. Chris Dubey (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]