Psychotropic sentence

Welcome!

Hello, Psychotropic sentence, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! /skagedal^... 16:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Please be careful

You are engaging in what is known as WP:Edit warring on the Major depressive disorder article and will be subject to the WP:3RR rule and blocked. So I urge you to discuss you position on Talk:Major depressive disorder before making any more changes to the article. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're not getting any donation from me then! And I'll make sure to let others know how "scientific" Wikipedia is.

I am not Wikipedia. As a matter of fact, I have opposed the Major depressive disorder article on the FAC page: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Major depressive disorder as well as on the article talk page. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you opposed, but all I've added were two well-known scientific studies, one on cognitive effects of ECT by Sackheim, and another PLOS study on anti-depressants. Both of these are already present in other Wikipedia articles. The 2007 Sackeim study is the first large, well controlled study on cognitive effects of ECT. The cognitive effects were mentioned in the article three days ago, but without a reference, so I've added it. Today I found that both the mention of the effects and the study were suppressed, and replaces with a subjective study. The 2008 Kirsch anti-depressants study was widely-publicized, and the conclusions, both from the study abstract and press reports, and quite different from what was written in Major depressive disorder. It is odd that this Wikipedia article presents a different perspective on treatment, both on ECT and anti-depressants, compared to the articles on ECT and SSRI. Who is Looie496 to decide this anyway? Psychotropic sentence (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a variety of reasons for opposing, not related to yours. I did point out some gross inconsistencies and conflicting statements in the "Medication" section a while ago, but that is not my area of expertise so that is the most I can do there.

I have pointed out that they are using outdated reference sources, that they are making general statements based on one study using a specific subject pool in a particular country, and other such things. I have felt quite ignored but some of my issues have been addressed.

It can be a frustrating process but there is no way around what they call WP:CONSENSUS and WP:AGF. It is unpleasant, but unfortunately, you cannot just get your way in an article that is undergoing the featured article process, which Major depressive disorder is. Too many people are watching in this situation. So I advise you to go along with it, for lack of an alternative choice, or you will be blocked (which is most unpleasant).

You seem like you have knowledge, so you would be a loss to Wikipedia if you go away. But it is your choice. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I urge you to reply on the article talk page, as your concerns have been acknowledged as valid by the major editor of the Major depressive disorder article. See: [1] —Mattisse (Talk) 02:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

This user has been blocked because a TimeChecker investigation has shown that they have [are going to] abusively used [use] time travel in order to operate one or more user accounts (WP:CLOCKPUPPETS). Information concerning this block has been retroactively removed from the timestream; therefore the Chronosight Team or the High Council of Gallifrey must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing Chronosight blocks without permission from a Chronosighter risk causing a temporal paradox, and will immediately have their administrator rights removed and an indefinite site ban as an emergency measure. By decree of the High Council.