User talk:Chris Dubey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)