Drugged monkey

Thank you for experimenting with the page Psychiatry on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. soum (0_o) 08:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. You need to make an effort to learn our policies; please refrain from soap boxing and read no original research. Thanks again. El_C 09:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Drugged Monkey, Wikipedia is not the place to discuss religiosity vs. science. Most people, including myself, are religious and also believe in science, medicine and psychiatry.

The APA pubished this nifty little book called "Handbook of Psychotherapy and Religious Diversity". You just might want to read it and see how mental health professionals, even if they are not religious, must deal with religion in their profession. After looking at such references you'll realize such positions can easily coexist. Chupper 13:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chupper, I am ready to prove my assumptions about diet. But also I am prepared tor read the handbook that you suggested to me. You are the first person to give me some more information rather than just ignoring me online. I understand your position against things that haven't been proven. But how come psychiatry has not come up with more noble prizes like other areas of science. Maybe you can explain that too. I want psychiatrists to defend their position with science and reason. So that is what I am prepared to listen to and not referrals to authority.

Drugged Monkey

Hello again. Unless you begin to observe policy, you will be restricted from editing. This is your final warning. Many thanks in advance. El_C 09:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What policy, you didn't point to one. Isn't America a democracy. Are you saying I am not entitled to free speech.

Drugged Monkey

Hi Chupper,

Here is what I think psychiatry should win.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ig_Nobel_Prize

Drugged Monkey

No, I don't think America is a democracy, but this isn't America anyway and Wikipedia certainly is not a democracy. You have been blocked from editing indefinitely since it does not seem likely you will be editing in accordance with our standards. Sorry, but it does not appear you bothered reading any of the links I provided. Dialogue works both ways but you simply were unwilling or unable to do your part. El_C 03:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have read the documentation. I have asked for help. You are the person that is not listening. You don't want to help yourself you support illegal drug dealers and gun dealers. You love violent people. Have fun loving violent people. They will eventually kill you too.

Drugged Monkey

I take exception to that. If you continue with these sort of insults, this page will be protected from editing. No, it does not appear that you have read any of the documentation I provided, such as when I wrote that: If you wish to add claims to Wikipedia entries, you need to cite reliable sources so that these claims can be verified not to be your original research. Also, you're in a conflict of interest so long as you continue advancing your theories. El_C 03:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Anti-psychiatry

Hello. Regarding your recent edits to the Anti-psychiatry article, please be aware that all contributions must be written in a neutral tone and be attributed to reliable sources. While we value your participation, we must ask that you refrain from adding your personal beliefs to our articles. Thanks! Rockpocket 02:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to something else: "So what do I have to do make my information and studies reliable so that they are accepted by people

Drugged Monkey"

I fully agree with you that I should not present personal beliefs. Neither should others. Everything should be evidence based. That is the system that I want. I just would like more evidence to fix these problems. I don't see the big deal about that. But you didn't answer the question, what do I need to make my information acceptable? What do you regard as personal beliefs and what do you regard as science? Because you let scientology talk about stuff....psychiatry is currently mainstream, but mainstream science of any kind should still be able to defend itself. I will do my best to be neutral and provide evidence for my assumptions. If I do make mistakes or what you consider mistakes I appreciate correction and will work on making it more scientific and less belief based. Thanks, I'm glad that you value my participation.

Drugged Monkey

IN RESPONSE TO EL_C:

I take exception to that. If you continue with these sort of insults, this page will be protected from editing. No, it does not appear that you have read any of the documentation I provided, such as when I wrote that: If you wish to add claims to Wikipedia entries, you need to cite reliable sources so that these claims can be verified not to be your original research. Also, you're in a conflict of interest so long as you continue advancing your theories. El_C 03:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right, I do not know you so I can't tell what you are supporting or not supporting. I would like to stop violent people. I would like to help people get better and I think I know some possible ways. I would like to use science to achieve this. So I will present original research and then make these claims. Until then all claims I make I shall keep updating with available research. Defense is acceptable, but the least amount of force is best. Rapists or serial killers are a problem for society and that system that we have doesn't seem to be working properly. I am prepared to put my ideas up for scientific review when they are ready, as well as political review too.

Drugged Monkey

policies

(moved from userpage to now unprotected talkpage) Rockpocket 19:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Drugged Monkey,

Since your talk page is blocked I thought I could use your user page for the moment.

I’m also against psychiatry. However, if you want to edit here I would recommend to study closely the Wikipedia policies.

Also, if you want to talk about antipsychiatry subjects unrelated to the improvement of the articles I would recommend to do it in an open forum, such as this one.

—Cesar Tort 18:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. You can see Wikipedia's policies in your user page

Thanks Cesar Tort

Drugged monkey 09:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked

I have unblocked this page to permit discussion of what Wikipedia is not, to assist you in understanding what the purpose of the project is. If you still wishes to contribute after reading and acknowledging our polices on original research, you may request to be unblocked (see here for instructions). Please be aware, though, that if you continue to publish original though, or soapbox about psychiatric practices, you will be blocked again without further warning. I also urge you to take Cesar's advice on this matter, he has he significant experience in editing Wikipedia from a similar philosophical position and can advise you on how to navigate the Wiki process. Rockpocket 19:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. I will present evidence. I am serious about providing alternatives. I just went the wrong way about it. For that I apologise. I just hope that when I present alternatives you are positive about accepting that research. I will be reading all that information and do things slowly and evidence based. Thanks Rockpocket.

Drugged Monkey

I just read all the rules and also read what you said in anti-psychiatry. I understand the things that I need to do. I will try not to as you say "soapbox" and apologize if I have written more than was required on the talk page. I am serious about providing an alternative. Just sad to think that it will be regarded as fringe science.

Drugged Monkey

Ok, I'm glad you have read our policies. It may well be unfortunate that anti-psychiatry is a fringe movement, but thats life. Wikipedia is the place to record that, not change it. I have now unblocked your account, so you are free to edit anywhere in the encyclopaedia. One last thing, please sign your talkpage comments with four tildes (~~~~), rather than just your name in plain text. The software will turn this into a signature for your automatically. Happy editing. Rockpocket 17:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Rockpocket

Drugged monkey 09:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Anti-psychiatry

Regarding your recent edit to Anti-psychiatry

"The brain is precious ask a neurologist and read how they treat Alzheimer's and dementia. The brain is the most important thing about people. It should be cared for with the utmost important. See how major depression is treated for people with alzheimers."

The paragraph qualifies as original research that lacks verifiability. Please do not contribute anything, especially to controversial articles, without inserting a citation between <ref> and </ref> tags mentioning what website, book, or article, you are citing information from. Otherwise, wikipedia is a depository of truthiness with articles being determined solely by what people think is true.--Loodog 04:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I can present evidence that they get more information about Alzheimer's and dementia than about psychiatric illnesses. I would like psychiatric disorders treated like dementia so that it has a dual diagnosis like dementia, both as a neurological and psychiatric disorder. Alzheimer's was originally just a psychiatric disorder and older people died without any help except for drugs that we now know don't work well on their own. I personally don't think that psychiatric drugs are the way to go. For the short term they are good for changing environments. I got this information from zoo's when they move animals to new cages. But they don't subject the animals constantly to these drugs. Now as a neurological disorder more information about the disease is known. It could lead to a cure. I know this is not the place to present my ideas. But I wanted to explain why I put that statement above. Furthermore, I think that when you get older you would like a brain illness, or what is known as mental illness, to be treated like a neurological disorder rather than a psychiatric disorder.

http://alzheimers.about.com/od/diagnosisissues/a/diagnostic_test.htm

The website above describes the tests for Alzheimer's. Furthermore there was information describing that both for the neurological disorders Alzheimer's and the various types of dementia that treatment of the brain was precious and that ECT and any other brain treatments like lobotomy not be performed on people with these illnesses. But I seem to have lost the resource. I still think the brain is a very precious resource. But as I have no evidence to back up that statement I shall only put up information when I find evidence. Feel free to take it down when the evidence is no longer available. Also I apologize for being chatty, you might consider it a waste of space or time, but I felt that I needed to explain my actions.

Drugged Monkey

Hi,

If you want to discuss ECT I would recommend you to do it in the proper article: Electroconvulsive therapy. There is quite a discussion going on there.

—Cesar Tort 05:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Too right. Unfortunately I am in a busy period right now, but then again the ECT article is not going to disappear and psychiatry is going to remain around for me to criticize for quite some time. But I think I can expose some people over illegal practices. Unlike scientologists I don't believe all psychiatrists are bad, they just have bad training. But like any area there are always bad apples that need to be exposed.

Drugged monkey 09:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)