User talk:209.122.225.245

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and 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. Thanks. KeithD (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DIRECT WARNING

This is Thor from the Counter Vandalism Unit of Wikipedia. Someone on this IP has been noted to have been in possible violation of the Wikipedia 3 Revert Rule which basically states that you cannot revert an article more than 3 times before discussion of your changes are made, or an administrator is alerted. Whoever is editing the article on Electroconvulsive Therapy, you are instructed directly now to CEASE editing, unless you discuss your edits prior to doing them, on the article's talk page. I am alerting an administrator to this action on your part, and they will be dealing with the matter from here onwards. Do NOT edit the article again without discussing what you intend to do first. Thor Malmjursson 03:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC) Talk with me (Politely) - Wikipedia Counter Vandalism Unit

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks.

[edit] Electroconvulsive therapy

To annon user User:209.122.225.245, you stated in your message to User:Tmalmjursson that you are new to wikipedia, so welcome ! We try to assume good faith by all editors and hope we don't bite the newcomers. So appologies if you failled to understand the revertion by several people of your edits and why your x6 reverts yesterday then caused you to be blocked under the Three revert rule. You clearly have detailled knowledge of this subject & the background medical literature and thus hopefully can contribute some well informed edits to this article. Some thoughts to help you get along:

  • Please 'sign' at the end of any comment you add in a talk page with 4 tilde characters ~~~~ so that your name and date of contribution are added in for you. You are encouraged to sign up and so use a username, but of course you may choose to remain an annonymous editor (its just harder to hold conversations with you if your URL address does not remain static).
  • ECT has had associated controversy for a long time, so there are differnt Points of view that can & should be included in this article.
  • Where agreement can not be found about different POVs, then discussion within an article's talk page should be held to try and reach a consensus on further edits. Your ignorance as a newcomer of how to determine this page's past history & discussion meant of course that you were unaware that your edits prompted a request to engage in discussion for a consensus and hence the reverts applied to your edits. We got increasingly irritated at your failure to engage, you obviously got increasing irritated at revertions you failled to understand...
  • Wikipedia is not about writing about the "absolute truth" (see Scientific point of view), but about NPOV. Hence description of the Earth will be about it being a sphere, but WP recognises the historical and socio-political important of 'Flat earth' view even though most would now feel this view was incorrect. Similarly benefit of vaccination is a majority view, that it is harmful has been a well publicised minority view, but any view that it an attempt by aliens to control our minds would be seen as trivial view not worthy of inclusion.
  • As an encylopedia, NPOV results therefore that the major discussion is explaining the majority view on a topic and to a (somewhat) lesser extent significant minority views (trivial minority views ignored). Long arguements against the majority view are seen as POV or original research (which may also include the use of a huge number of references as might be found in a scientific paper) and will, within a general encyclopedia, get deleted/reverted, whatever ones own opinion as to their truthfullness. Hence an article on "Jehovah's Witness beliefs re blood transfusions" is mostly about that belief, with the opposing views & interactions with the law a lesser part of that article even though that would be the opinion of the majority of non-Jehovah's witnesses. Likewise the article on "Blood transfusions" is mostly about the majority accepting view with in thi scase the Jehovah's Witness view seen as a minority view within this article. So please do not be upset if you find a majority disagree with you however 'valid' your feel your own assessment is :-)
    • I should also point out that as a general encyclopedia, wikipedia can not disuss topics in the detail of a research paper nor with the weight of huge number of references. A basic to middle-level discussion is required giving understanding to a non-specialist of the fundamentals of a subject area. General editors (rightly) accuse wikipedians who are professionals of writing articles as if they were an undergraduate textbook, and in turn most wikipedian professionals tend accuse specialists of adding information as if it was a PhD thesis. So arguments agreeing or disagreeing with ECT need to be curtailled in length and number of references (there is always Google or PubMed to go doing further news articles & literature searches).
  • In contrast the major medical consensus is that ECT is acceptable. Of course even within the majority view there is debate as to the appropriate past or current selection of patients, mental conditions, methodology and of course consent. Even if one disagrees with any of these aspects, the majority medical & legilature POV is still one that is positive towards ECT.
  • Your edits are clearly from the differing POV that ECT is currently unwarrented/harmful. The controversy surrounding ECT is obviously not just your own opinion nor of a trivial minority, but is a significant minority opinion and I agree must be included within the overal article.
    • Hence I hope you would agree that the edits you recently inserted are not of the view held by the majority and so is de facto currently thought, wrongly or rightly, to be a minority view. Of course depending upon whom one asks, this minority view can be seen as either wrong, misguided, of partial validity or the truth (likewise the same spectrum of opinion can be applied to the majority view).
  • You will see in the page's previous talk section that there has been considerble previous discussion about the ECT article. I'm sure you can appreciate that when major edits of a different POV are added to certain articles (eg Vaccination, Conrtraception, Abortion, Pro-life, Pro-choice, SSRIs, etc) it may be seen by the majority of editors at best as an attempt to apply a POV to the article, or at worse as a possible attempt at vandalising the article. Edits will therefore tend to get reverted if controversal, with a request made in the edit-comment that discussion be held prior to further edits.
  • Now, as a newcomer, I appreciate you will not have been aware how to view the Page History or the Talk page and so continued to edit in ignorance of various editors' attempts to engage in discussion.

We all undergo a learning curve on joining wikipedia and hopefully don't get involved in disputes, content disputes, edit-wars etc - or at least not too often :-) So please discuss why the current discussion on side-effects of ECT is insufficient and the type of edits you wish to use. I'm sure that many will disagree with your views, but as I indicated above, WP is not about other editors imposing their idea of "truth" upon you, but rather reaching a consensus on the POVs that go to make up an article's overall NPOV in a general enclyclopedia (with some constraints on article size too) David Ruben Talk 01:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2/0/9/User_talk%7E209.122.225.245.html"