User talk:Ss06470

Welcome

Hello Ss06470, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to join the community. Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log so we can meet you and help you get started. If you need editing help, visit Wikipedia:How to edit a page. For format questions, visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Newcomers' Village pump. And of course, feel free to talk with me or ask questions on my talk page. Enjoy! --Crampy20 14:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Simon, Further to my comments on the ADHD page, you may find it useful to read Wikipedia's policy on reliabile sources. Generally speaking, it is also considered somewhat poor form to link to your own work or write from you clinical experience, despite it sometimes being the best course of action. It has been a source of frustration for numerous specialists before you, and I note that you have already been reverted with referencing your own websites on chemical imbalance theory. The policy is, of course, not perfect, but it may serve a useful check. It is also helpful to sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~.

--Limegreen 00:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Limegreen, I'm not sure what four tildes are but please note I am willing to sign with my real name. Frankly, I don't understand "user names" when it comes to intellectual discussions. As to it being poor form to link to my work that is a bit absurd. I am not leaving links all through Wikipedia but to issues that my works address. There are all kind of nutty references in the ADHD article and somehow they are remaining intact. Are they better form because someone links to a scientology site? I also am inviting you to actually read the article and if you have objections about content please address those. I will be happy to engage in a discussion of that! Quite frankly that is the potential beauty of the internet. We can argue in a contemporaneuous fashion and hopefully improve our thinking about a given subject

A tilde is this squiggle (~), usually located in the top left corner of the keyboard. Writing four of them inserts your username and a datestamp on comments.

Consider your username in the same vein that you consider your reputation in academic circles. By publishing good papers, and attending conferences etc., we can accrue a certain standing. For better or worse, this standing means very little here. I'm not disputing that you are who you say you are, but the reality is that you could be anyone, as could I. For that reason, some contributing academics choose not to associate their username with their academic reputation.

Now, I don't dispute that your work is relevant to the pages in question, however, there is, I believe, a convention that people do not edit pages about themselves, and that generally speaking, you shouldn't reference your own work. I didn't make this rule. I also don't believe that I have deleted any of your references (see below). I'm just explaining it to you, so that you understand others' responses. However, if you do wish to reference your own work, it is best kept to reliable sources such as journal articles. Despite your expertise in the field, as an attempt at an encyclopedia, cutting edge research is generally not included.

Next, I assume that you haven't read my response at Talk:Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, where I addressed your other key bugbear. Assuming you don't occasionally publish under the name J. Breakey, I didn't delete a reference to your paper [1] but I may have deleted some of your text which was not referenced. Thus, I can't actually read any article, because there was no reference to an article.

I would welcome the identification and removal of poor links. I don't have a great deal of interest in ADHD, and am merely trying to keep it moderately clean.

Please review this change by following that link. I really don't believe that I have deleted any reference to you, and as noted in ADHD talk, I wasn't referring to your work as flakey. I'm really just trying to help.

--Limegreen 05:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Doc!

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia and enjoy! There is a place where the medically minded people hang out: WikiProject "Clinical Medicine". You are invited to join. The doctors' mess is here. Nephron  T|C 16:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

ADHD article

Hi! I've spent the past couple of days rewriting the ADHD article because it had become long, rambling, and disorganized. In doing so I took a real chunk out of the "Views on Parenting" section. I did not remove the link to your webpage. I simply changed the format to the one that is used throughout the entire article.

I truly appreciate you correcting the numerous typoes that I made. But I would like to remove the significant addition that you made to the "Parental Role" section, because of its rant-like quality. The question addressed by that section is, "Is ADHD caused by bad parenting". And the answer is, "No, even children of good, responsible, parents can have ADHD."

*Kat* 01:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The answer to whether ADHD can be caused by "bad" parenting is most certainly not "no" Raising children to do well in classrooms and follow through in homework is a challenge to even the best intentioned and highly principled and loving parent. Sometimes we fail with even the best effort. The factors that cause children not to go along with expectations are complex, but that does not mean the explanation must be biological. One of the main issues addressed in my article is what I have written in this "rant" Namely ADHD is the way children will behave when they are not engaged in the sit still in school, do your homework, wait your turn, work hard even when bored or feeling unconfident or the many factors that make children start to act like they are in the school yard rather than the classroom. This is the natural behavior of children especially when faced with drudgery. This has been known for centuries. The challenge has always been how to engage them. In America's inner cities "ADHD" is rampant. In Kyoto (judged by my visit there) a conservative traditional city in Japan, children are extremely disciplined, motivated, and totally lacking in spontaneity. One of the key issue I am also raising is the the sciency paradigm that is ruled by "experts." I say sciency because it is not true science but rather a style. Those quotes from Castellanos about now little is known were put there by me. True scientists do not present themselves as "experts" They focus on what is not known and how they can go about finding answers. The reason for this "expert paradigm is, I am sad to say, not a conspiracy, but certainly a very focused attempt to spend literally billions of dollars to win the hearts and minds and if necessary to intimidate practitioners into this point of view. The editor of the New England Journal wrote an editorial "Is Academia for Sale?" The editor of the Lancet wrote similarly about conferences being controlled by drug companies. I know this sounds like ranting, but those anxious to tidy up this article should acquaint themselves with these issues. If you will take the time to review my article you will find plentiful citations substantiating what must seem like wild statements here.

After reading through my comments I realized I could simply paste the abstract to my article. As the faint hearted among you will quickly realize there is no way any peer reviewed reputable journal would publish this article. Nevertheless, I stand by its content and fortunately do not have an academic job or reputation to protect. I should point out that many academicians have sought me out privately to encourage me and have told me that they admire my "courage" Actually, that is the beauty of no longer being part of academia. ( I spent the first three years of my career teaching at Albert Einstein Medical School before realizing it was not for me.) Anyway, it does not take courage to argue controversial points of views when there is no pressure on you to conform. So ironically there is more academic freedom outside of the academies than inside. I realize may academicians are forced to keep their job by necessity so I don't want to be too much of a big shot, but fortunately for me, my career as a psychiatrist in private practice allows me the luxury of financial independence from group pressures.

here is the abstract

Abstract

A case is made that the symptoms of ADHD describe what happens to children when they are bored, unmotivated, and trapped in a situation or place they don’t want to be. Unable to escape, they become easily distracted, basically unable to stay with the program, even with good intentions. Those who fear the consequences of making a disturbance, drift off into daydreams, or look around the room for almost anything that might entertain them. Those who tend to act rather than think, can’t sit still and make a lot of noise. Children have always acted this way. The challenge of how to motivate this type of child has been with educators and parents for as long as children have been forced to go to school, certainly long before this problem was labeled an illness and doctors stepped forward with a “cure” declaring themselves “experts” with a scientific explanation for the phenomenon.

A variety of problems can lead to this situation, not least of which is the fact that getting any child motivated is always a challenge. Perhaps, a small number of those labeled ADHD do, in fact, have something physically wrong with their brains. An example, at the extreme, is mentally retarded or brain damaged children, who, for obvious reasons, have great difficulties sitting still and staying on task. Some (but very few!) children labelled ADHD may conceivably have a still undetectable genetic or biological problem, but the research supporting this point of view is sparse or ridiculously exaggerated. Questions are raised about the motivation behind this distortion of what is known by people who regularly describe themselves as "experts."

The vast majority of these children usually have no difficulty keeping their attention focused on activities that are fun. The cure for their inability to confront drudgery is stimulants, which have a long history of working pretty well for this purpose. Most of the drugs work similarly to cocaine, which in the 19th century was the most popular miracle drug in the world, regularly used and extolled by the likes of President McKinley, Queen Victoria, Pope Leo Xlll, Robert Lewis Stevenson, Ibsen , Anatole France and a host of other renowned members of society. Sigmund Freud wrote the following about it “You perceive an increase of self-control and possess more vitality and capacity for work.” According to the Sears, Roebuck and Co. Consumers' Guide (1900), their extraordinary Peruvian Wine of Coca..."...sustains and refreshes both the body and brain....It may be taken at any time with perfect safety...it has been effectually proven that in the same space of time more than double the amount of work could be undergone when Peruvian Wine of Coca was used, and positively no fatigue experienced.

Freud realized he had made a big mistake advocating the use of cocaine when he witnessed the horrible effects it had on some of his friends. The downside of this miracle drug was also well described by Robert Lewis Stevenson who wrote Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde during seven days and nights while he was high on cocaine. Stephen King wrote all of his novels while high on stimulants. He has said that the Kathy Bates character in his "Misery" (a nurse who has literally imprisoned him) represented that habit. (It should be noted that he has written little since he stopped drugs and recently described himself as a "TV slut," which I take to mean that he is no longer willing, after his car accident, to buy into a Faustian bargain and would prefer others to provide the excitement) It should be noted that few stimulant driven artists are capable of writing warm tender pieces, ditto for the behavior of those living their lives on them.

Besides ADHD diagnosed children, and their friends who sometimes borrow their meds when they have chores to do that they dread, stimulants, according to David Wells, and more recently Mike Schmidt, have also long been part of the professional athletes’ equipment, helping them to step up to the plate with confidence, to change their psychological position from a passive reactive back on their heels position to a take charge proactive stance. Or as one basketball player put it, “Give me the ball. I can make the shot.” This taking charge, "I can do it," state of mind when approaching tasks, is a key element in most people's perception of whether they are up to a challenge. There are reports of high functioning students utilizing their performance enhancing qualities in order to take their SATs

The use of medication is not dismissed out of hand. But the propaganda surrounding its use, generated by the "expert" industry is criticized as lacking intellectual integrity. In particular, there is a lengthy discussion of who sponsors research in this area. This sponsorship would ordinarily disqualify those being paid to do the research from claiming to speak objectively. Despite strong criticism of the influence of pharmaceutical companies on intellectual issues by, among others, the former, and more recently, the present editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, and the editor of the British equivalent of the NEJM, the Lancet, recusing themselves has not been pursued by "experts." Indeed, the opposite has been the case. They churn out article after article placing pressure on non-experts to follow their "guidelines." Thus, unfortunately most doctors (including some very nice, well meaning psychiatrists, family doctors and pediatricians) are very willing to follow experts unthinkingly, given that they hold prestigious positions in many fine universities in the United States. There is also a problem with DSM IV, which was meant to define and categorize clusters of symptoms, but has become much more than that. Understandably, doctors, educators, and parents are looking for a "diagnosis" that will explain the problem. The net result can be invalid conclusions.

As a way of illustrating the relevant issues the article contains a discussion of my childhood (and I imagine many others like mine) and how we were motivated by our parents to do well in school. There is no single way for parents to accomplish this, but I believe my memories (and speculations!) may be helpful as a contrast to current very different perspectives about how parents approach their children. One thing is clear. The problems that ADHD imply will not go away with a change in diet, tough love, soft love or any other bit of magic, even magic offered by experts claiming to speak in the name of science. For those primarily interested in the scientific issues, the first part of this article can be skimmed.

Personal attacks

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. -- Ned Scott 11:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I've already warned you once about personal attacks. Saying that I am "brainwashed" is not only insulting, ignorant, and rude, it's also something that we have no tolerance for here on Wikipedia. If you continue you will be blocked from editing. -- Ned Scott 06:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

ADHD

As far as your question goes, what do I know about ADHD. Oh, not much, other than living with it as a child and now as an adult, still medicated, for about 15 years. A diagnosis that was concluded by multiple doctors, as well. I continue to read and research about it and alternative treatments, and so on, even now. I can tell you, as an adult, that I require medication to maintain proper long term attention and to get daily tasks done. Not that, with your complete and utter rudeness, you deserve an explanation from me.

That being said, your edits were still removed for violating policy on Wikipedia, not because I disagree with you. If all you can do is resort to personal attacks, trolling, and taunts, then you will be asked to leave. -- Ned Scott 12:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been taking a look at Special:Contributions/Ss06470 to see what edits exactly you are talking about. From what I can see the only edits that you added that were removed are edits that cite your own article. Citing yourself is very much frowned upon on Wikipedia, no matter who you are or what your position is on a topic. It also presents a conflict of interest via the WP:NPOV policy. My advice to you is to not be so over-dramatic about this on the talk page. It won't get you sympathy and just makes you look... annoying. If you really want to make lasting edits then you need better sources, other than yourself. Attacking other editors and "preaching" on the talk page will do nothing for content on the article itself (other than alienating editors who might otherwise be willing to help you, even if they don't agree with you..) Maybe you could point me to a specific edit you felt was unfairly removed? -- Ned Scott 06:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm really getting tired of playing games with you. Even if everyone agreed with how you feel on this topic that still would not qualify your edits for inclusion per WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. "Preaching" endlessly like you've done in the past on that same talk page does nothing. Wikipedia is not a soapbox: "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article." -- Ned Scott 11:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

So you are getting tired "playing games" And don't like rudeness. Why don't you review some of your recent interactions with several others writing on this page besides myself. You might not like what you see in the mirror. You cannot be reached by anyone other than those who agree with your narrow point of view. Everyone else is a propagandist or not neutral. I will not bother to reason with you again. You are pathetic most of all because you see yourself as objective and fair minded which makes you closed to all argument. Once again. As I have repeatedly asked you to do, you might take a chance and take a look at my article rather than repeatedly dismiss it. Here, by the way, is a comment by the editor in chief of Medical Hypothesis, Bruce Charlton, Reader in Evolutionary Psychiatry School of Biology and Psychology Henry Wellcome Building Newcastle University regarding this very piece of propaganda that you see as my "favorite views "Thanks very much for the new links - I read your epic essay on ADHD over a few days - it really is an excellent piece. I feel as if my thinking has moved forward because of it...Your descriptions of the subjective effects of SSRIs and psychostimulants are superb - I havent seen anything as good anywhere else. Have you ever written about anti-psychotics in this way? or a different email "I hope you can get round to writing something for Medical Hypotheses sometime. Just drop me a line if you have something ready. If you preferred you might be able to publish an Editorial of more generalinterest, rather than a 'paper'.

But then Ned you wouldn't know much about this kind of thing. May I again remind you that this little piece of opinion is also being included as chapter in a book coming out in 2007. A different professor came across the article and wanted me to write a shorter version I believe I mentioned that but I guess you have a little bit of difficulty concentrating when you are displeased. --Ss06470 03:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Before I reply: Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. -- Ned Scott 06:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to really have the wrong idea here, and the wrong idea about me. This is not a debate. We are not in a debate. I have read your article already. If I understand correctly, you are saying that your article has not been published yet, but will be published in 2007? This whole time I thought your article had been published, but now I see it fails Wikipedia's no original research and verifiability policies even more than it did before. Thank you for clearing that up for me.

I'm not calling your work propaganda, rather, I quoted part of the policy from WP:NOT, which said "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind." I am not questioning the credibility of your work, I don't have to question it because it has failed the requirements for inclusion on Wikipedia. (requirements that were made long before I joined). It doesn't matter if you convince me or not, because you haven't met the requirements.

You know nothing about me other than what little I've replied to you in this little conflict. Probably because I don't use Wikipedia write about how I feel on things in detail. Wikipedia is not the place for such things. I even offered to help you in my last response on your talk page and this is how you act. I'm trying to tell you that if you really want your information included then you can't behave like this. Point me to the edits that were made that you disagree with and I will explain to you why they were removed and what you can do to over-come that. -- Ned Scott 06:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Shell ^babelfish 18:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Wanted to provide some insight....

Hi Doc, I saw this quote from your article on the ADHD talk page, and I thought I might shed some light on it: The quote was, “Katherinen Plyshevsky, 21, a junior from New Milford NJ majoring in marketing at NYU said she used Ritaline obtained from a friend with ADD to get through her midterms “It was actually fun to do the work,” she said." I experienced the same thing when I first started taking medication, and after thinking about it for sometime I decided that it wasn't the studying that was so much fun, it was the being able to focus that made the activity enjoyable. The feeling of having put effort in, and getting something back in return. same with doing things like cleaning up my room. It is so nice to just be do something, and then to stand back and look at the final product and think, now that was a nice piece of work.--*Kat* 22:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, teaching chilren how to behave can be difficult. But ADHD is more than just a behavioral thing. For me, at least, it also affects my physical capabilities. Specifically my fine motor control. For example, with medication, I am able to type faster, with fewer mistakes than I can without the medication. I'm not as accident proned either. I like to juggle and some of the tricks I do are pretty impressive, but without the medication, I can find it difficult to do the three ball cascade. And that remains the case even when I don't realize that the medication have worn off. The same holds true with my handwriting.

And while what you said about athletes and home field advantage is true, ADHD isn't something that a person suffers from sporatically. Sure there might be good moments (i.e. interesting subjects) but even my all time favorite teacher had trouble with me. One time, when we were talking about how long it took me to finish a test, she said to me, "Katherine, I've watched you. You'll work on it for a little while, but then you just start to stare off into space, lost in your own world." That was before I was diagnosed, but during a time when I was doing pretty well (comparatively speaking) and in a class that I loved, doing work that I enjoyed.

In closing, I think we agree on a lot of what ADHD is, but we disagree about its cause. You seem to believe, if I understand you correctly, that ADHD does exist, that it is a problem, but that it is psychological in origin? Is that right?

Regarding your request to publish what I said on the discussion page, I'm not sure I want to say yes, because I don't know if we are really on the same page, yet.

--*Kat* 01:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The ADHD scandal in Wikiland

Thanks for your comments, which I moved and responded in my talk page. ―Cesar Tort 06:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

ADHD pseudoscientific article

In total desperation, 68.35.248.242 once asked for help, as you can see here.[2] Alas, since he’s a newbie he didn’t get any.

What we guys completely missed, including us and 68.35.248.242, is to ask for help in the right place: Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention.

It's a real pity that the editors who gave a gallant fight last month disappeared mysteriously. I guess they became disillusioned with the amount of time and energy that the article’s gatekeepers are willing to spend to push their pov.

Mediation is the only way, and if that doesn’t work the next step according to the wiki laws should be taken. But I would like that at least one of the other editors is back. Perhaps we may try to reach User:Jkhamlin by email. User:68.35.248.242 was just very knowledgeable. I wonder who he is.

Anyway, we can study his posts (I guess he is male) and use them in the mediation process. The present incarnation of the article looks more like big pharma publicity than to what the most responsible psychiatrists are saying about ADHD.

Thoughts?

—Cesar Tort 17:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I erroneously posted this on your user page, moving it to here--Jkhamlin 19:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC):

Dr. Sobo, I am glad to see a new voice of reason and science on here. With even the admins vandalizing articles, we need experts on here to stand up to the zealots. Thank you for your comments on my page and your work in the field of psychiatry. Jkhamlin 03:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

More on ADHD / controversy

Hi, I saw your point on the ADHD controversy talk page (here) and whilst I can understand what Scuro is saying about the citation, that we must wait for publication, I also note you have had probs editing both articles generally in the past. So have we. I've tried to support another user: Clockback in getting a clear statement of doubt/controversy about ADHD and it's treatment in the introduction, a place I firmly believe it should be. We've made some progress and the link to the controversy article is now there, but I'm concerned about the language in both articles and that an ordinary person would find the most pertinent info accesible early on, before being put off by big words and medical detail, which understandably must follow. Your web page was so well written I wondered if you would like to consider helping with that, your suggestions would be most welcome. Regards, Miamomimi (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

warning, no personal attacks

I have asked on the talk page for you to stop your personal attacks. Now I formally ask you to stop. I ask that you focus on content and not other editors WP:NPA. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia". Further personal attacks will be met with WP:DR--scuro (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on Talk:Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: controversies on 22:45, 29 February 2008

I removed your comment left on Talk:Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: controversies. The archival of past threads by User:Miamomimi on the ADHD controversy discussion page was appropriate because the page was becoming extremely long. The talk page of the article is supposed to be used to discuss the content of an article and how it may be improved. There is no precedent for warning other users about a particular user on the article's talk page. If you have an issue with User:Scuro, you should consider looking at the various options presented under Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Sifaka ^talk 22:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

second warning, no personal attacks

Once again I ask that you focus on content and not other editors. This is wikipolicy. WP:NPA. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia". Further personal attacks will be met with WP:DR The specific passage that I am making reference to is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder:_controversies&curid=4833604&diff=195152698&oldid=195118302 Thank you, --scuro (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Scuro has frequently called any attention drawn to his edit history (which could be sufficient, if he actually tries to pursue dispute resolution, to have his editing privileges restricted, in my opinion) as "personal attack." Having said that, he's correct, you crossed the boundary, violating WP:AGF which I urge you read. You can remedy this. Once you understand where the boundary is, go back and use strikeout to remove anything inappropriate. Don't edit it out, use strikeout. You do that by framing the text to be struck out with

<s>text to be struck out</s>

which looks like this when you save the edit:

text to be struck out

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]

by the way, you asked elsewhere how you could contact a user off-wiki. You have "email this user" enabled in your preferences; if the user has that as well, you can click on the link on the left panel to do so, when you are looking at a user page or user Talk. This will send an email from Wikipedia to the user. If it's not enabled, all you can do is to request, in user Talk, that the user email you.

I still hope we can meet some day, I live in Western Massachusetts, Northampton.

--Abd (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Talk:Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't vandalize. I corrected a section written by me--Ss06470 (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If you need any assistance with this, let me know. It looks like Aitias is an anti-vandal activist and mistook your edit for vandalism. If I'm correct and it is as you said, don't worry about it, and it has nothing to do with your disputes mentioned above. If I'd gotten to it sooner, I'd have reverted the reversion of Aitias, but it looks like you may have done so yourself, which is why I didn't try to go ahead. --Abd (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

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) 11:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Just want to make sure everything is OK

I should have been a little more careful with my editing behavior. I hope that we can still be on good terms because I definitely want to work with you on that section you were drafting on the ADHD controversy talk page. Sifaka ^talk 05:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Final warning

Enough already. This is totally unacceptable. Abd (talk · contribs) informed you of how to refactor prior personal attacks with a strike out and apology. That does not give you license to issue more, struck out or otherwise. You will not be warned again. Wikipedia works by the assumption of good faith and by commenting on the content, not the motivation of other editors. If you feel unable to work with Scuro in a civil manner, I suggest you either seek dispute resolution or else take a break from this article. Because if you continue in this manner, you will be restricted from editing the page. Now, this is not a comment on the contents of the page, your grievances may well have foundation. I don't know. However, there are mechanisms through which that should be worked out, and attacking other editors in not one of those mechanisms. Rockpocket 18:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

He's correct, Dr. Sobo. I know it is frustrating, and his intervention here, you will note, does not deny that. Scuro is starting to actually complain to administrators, so what is happening is, suddenly, subject to more intervention. Don't worry about it, nothing will happen to you, I predict, based on what you did. But don't do it again, all bets are off if you do. And if you have any questions, please ask. You can email me and I may be emailing you. I don't completely agree with Rockpocket, it can be appropriate sometimes to comment on apparent intentions, but it's tricky. As they say, don't try this at home. From my point of view, you have long been a target of incivility and abuse, and that has to stop as well. But if you do it back, as you have done to some degree, you might be the first to be blocked or restricted. Instead, there is, as he described above, dispute resolution, or taking a wikibreak. The world will not end if the article goes completely down the tubes. Whatever they break can be repaired, and, in fact, I believe it can be efficiently maintained as well. And that is for another day, I've got kids to feed.--Abd (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been asked, by Scuro, to have a look at that talk page again. And having read your recent exchanges let me give you some frank advice. I have some experience of the problems of dealing with psychiatric "illnesses" on Wikipedia. I appreciate how frustrating it is then one is on the opposing side of the pharmaceutical industry that has been entirely successful in colluding with science, medicine, media, government and God knows who else in to establish the current establishment position on psychiatric illness. But you know what? Rightly or wrongly, its not Wikipedia's job to counter that view. Quite the opposite, it is our job to reflect it. That not to say that we can't report on the alternative, significant minority views. We can, and should, but we need to reflect them as a significant minority, even if that means we are propagating a myth.

So I understand your position. But here is the rub. In trying to tackle what you see as someone "policing" an article, you are completely undermining your position. Wikipedians have the right to anonymity. Its one of the few rights we are afforded around here. Scuro could be a 10yr old child or a eminent professor of psychiatric studies, it doesn't matter. Likewise, his motivations are completely irrelevant so long as his contributions are policy compliant. Wikipedia can only work when people work on the basis the we comment on the edits, not the editor. From your recent comments, you appear to have transferred your frustration at Scuro's edits, to Scuro the editor.

In expressing this you may allay your frustrations, but the consequences are not going to be favorable. If you continue with these sorts of comments, I will remove them and restrict your from that talk-page. I don't want to do that, because its important that editors from different perspectives work together on articles like this. However, there can be no collaboration when you are casting aspirations at each other.

I don't really want to get involved in another psychiatry issue, but if you concern is that Scuro out muscling other opinions to make a skewed article by sheer time spent editing, then I will spend some time myself looking over the article and mediating the issues under dispute. However, I will do this on two conditions. One, that you cease the personal comments about Scuro, focus entirely in the content of the edits rather than the person behind them. Two, that you understand the our job is not to give both "sides" of the argument equal attention, but that our job is to reflect the mainstream opinion as that, and the minority opinion as that.

I hope you will agree to this because the alternative, if there are more comments like those of the last few days, is that I will take administrative action to stop it. Rockpocket 01:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I see your extensive edit to the Controversies article

While some or much of this may be taken out, I'll work on it to see what can go back in, if that happens. --Abd (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hit and run

I've noticed a recent pattern. You take potshots at me and then disappear, only to take potshots again after several weeks when you reappear. You have been formally warned to desist abusing fellow contributors. This behaviour will not be tolerated and you will be reported with the next incident.--scuro (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

ADHD

Any interest in returning to edit the page on ADHD? Could use some further balance from the medical profession.

Doc James (talk) 07:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Be careful... Experts can get short shrift on Wikipedia. Stay out of trouble, but be patient and persistent; ask me if anything is at all doubtful. If someone says something really stupid, sit on it. Don't say the obvious. Just stick with facts. In Talk, you can report from your own knowledge; probably a fairly good idea to avoid direct article edits, unless you expect that they won't be controversial. I've been starting to advise experts in general this way. If you can't convince the community of editors of something, no matter how expert you are and how well you know the topic, it's hopeless. But if you really do know something, and it's not just your own isolated opinion, even if it's The Truth(TM), then you'll be able to convince others if you are patient and know how to proceed with the more arcane aspects of Wikipedia process. Yes, welcome back. Let me know if you need help.

One more point. If you are going to edit articles, as you have started to do again, use edit summaries, briefly explain what each edit is about. It's an important part of collaboration here. *Never* leave an edit summary blank. If I'm just fixing spelling, I'll write "sp" and mark "This is a minor edit." But never mark as a minor edit something that is possibly controversial, and especially if anything you do might be controversial, the edit summary is very important, it's a courtesy to those who might disagree with you, and that courtesy is essential. Whether they are idiots or not. --Abd (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

A question for you

see Talk:Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder_controversies#Problems_with_Original_Research_in_the_ADHD_as_a_biological_illness_section --Abd (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom

Hello, your name has been mentioned by myself and others in an ArbCom regarding user scuro's conduct on wikipedia. You may want to clarify or refute allegations made. The issue is whether scuro needs topic banned from ADHD related articles or not. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Workshop and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Evidence. You don't have to get involved in the arbcom as enough evidence has been gathered but just letting you know incase you wanted to respond to comments or submit evidence.

Also I replied to your comments on the talk page. Talk:Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies I would like to add the book citation to the article. I think that it would be a helpful addition to wikipedia. As this is our first time meeting, i would like to welcome you back to wikipedia and say I am sorry about how other editors have treated you on wikipedia.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcome. At this point I only occasionally visit here since I spent many hours in the past that got me nowhere. Today I changed the link to my article because geocities is closing down. You might me interested in my web page, which is a bit unorthodox, but if you read the comments of others in my field, [3]you will see that I am considered "an expert" by them, although I think that term is absurd, given how tentative much of our information is in psychiatry --Ss06470 (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The last word.

Dr. Sobo, you are an expert. As an expert, your duty is to advise us, and your advice is valuable. Please be careful about wandering close to the edges of no personal attacks or using Wikipedia for advocacy, but, on the other hand, your considerations may be valuable for background. I have placed a subhead above your comment, which actually brings it out, but then deleted the comment itself, and what followed, replacing all that with a pointer to history, the result being that it is accessible for easy reading with one click. We have our cake now, in layers, and anyone may eat whatever part they prefer.

Please let Hyperion "have the last word." Last words are sometimes famous. Don't let your comments become the same. And thanks for your contributions, we need more experts, and I'm trying to find ways to integrate expert opinion into the Wikipedia process. Generally the best experts will have a conflict of interest, and I'm thinking that we might consider anyone who claims expertise to have such a conflict, which then opens up the possibility of encouraging experts to contribute to Talk pages and developing procedures to deal with the inevitable "violations" of policy that result. Experts are highly opinionated, right? Experts can easily become impatient with repeated and insistent comment by those ignorant of the topic, right? We need to accept this, and, for the benefit of the encyclopedia, frame it and channel it.

Using experts on Talk and requiring edits to be made by non-experts follows the Montesquiean advice to separate the power of judgment (advice) from the executive power (decision on the article), forcing experts to convince the non-expert community, which they can do for established expertise, because this will be found in reliable source. As to what is beyond that, the cutting edge, the clinical knowledge that has not been reduced to publication, that can be useful for background but, of course, doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article. This also parallels standard practice, where peer-reviewers, for example, criticize an article, but actual final decisions are made by a publisher, and the actual editors aren't experts, typically, they are ... editors! Who are arranging an article so that it is comprehensible by the readership, which, for Wikipedia, is a general readership, not an expert one.

Thanks again. --Abd (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I would have preferred that you would have left my comments there, since ultimately the issues are one of content not form. It isn't the actual page, there's plenty of room, and some of the editors might learn something about the issues being raised by critics such as myself and it might help them in their decisions

As for the "expert" label, if you have read some of my articles, I compare it to the Wizard of Oz. The term is used so often because there is so little that we truly understand. So turning to AUTHORITY is a pathetic substitute. I hate the world and would much prefer, the true spirit of science which is a process, a forum of opposing ideas, which hopefully leads to some consensus based on solid evidence. As I noted in the writing you deleted, "evidence based medicine" particularly as defended by Hyperion is an ideology, an attempt to claim the prestige of science when the evidence does not support the monopoly it tries to impose. Supporters are very fond of group opinions, expert consensus positions, and the like, believing this will substitute for the lacking evidence. When phenomena are truly understood there is no need for this politicizing. The evidence speaks for itself. I am only claiming to be an "expert" because it seems to carry so much weight on your page, and because Hyperion's tone was so comtemptuous. I very much know I am not in step with the reigning pronouncements of official psychiatry, but one would hope the controversy page would be a good place to air all of this out. I appreciate your fair minded communications with me, but once again I would like my comments to appear in the discussion section for educational purposes. . You might want to even consider putting the discussion here on that page for educational background for your editors to consider when they slash and cut. As has been the case in the past, this little interchange will have to do for now as far as Wikepedia is concerned. Though I enjoy a lively debate, I simply don't have the time to keep checking in on the page. I will be back from time to time, and will probably be drawn in to some little debate, but afterwards I always regret the amount of time it took. By the way is Scuro gone? You can email me with an answer to that at ss06470@yahoo.com. Or if you want my opinion on some topic I will be happy to add my two cents.--Ss06470 (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy to see you editing again. I have had little time unfortunately to deal with some of these issues. Will look at things more this coming fall. Hyperion and Scuro are WP:SPA and seem to know each other from online bulliten boards.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Those links

Hello. I wanted to let you know I reverted your addition to Gibbons v. Ogden, and I see you made similar additions to other articles, which other editors have removed. Please take a few minutes and read the guidelines on external links, spam, and conflict of interest. Thanks. Rivertorch (talk) 07:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not happy about not being able to use Wikepedia to promote Commodore. While I see it violates the self promotion rule I genuinely believe it will be of interest to readers of the articles on Vanderbilt, Ogden Vs. Gibbons etc. How can it be included legitimately? Thanks

Linking to an Amazon page selling a book you wrote is pretty much a textbook example of self-promotion, and I don't see any way at all that you can do that "legitimately". I guess that if someone unconnected with you decided to list it in the "Further reading" section, that might be all right, but it would be better if the content were available freely or there was a print edition available so that there was a market for used copies and free availability to library patrons. It's also a bit early in the game. I confess to being always suspicious when a new book is mentioned in a Wikipedia article (unless the article is about the book's notable author, of course). Unless its release has generated considerable attention from reliable sources, it cannot yet be verified that such a book has received critical acclaim or proved to be noteworthy. My opinion, for what it's worth. Rivertorch (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I do have a free web page that offers the 1st five chapters for free (but does have a link to amazon where it is for sale. The book is not being part of the article per se merely mentioned as an external link. You ought to take a look at a few pages to establish that it is high quality and would be of interest to readers looking for further material in the articles where it was placed

Let me put it another way. While I hope your book will be an unqualified success, Wikipedia should play no role whatsoever in making that happen. Second opinion? Post a query at the noticeboard of your choice or the Village Pump. Btw, talk page comments are signed by typing four consecutive tildes (~~~~). Replies in threaded discussions are usually indented; see this help page for an illustration of that. Rivertorch (talk) 06:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)