Franzio

Bipolar disorder

Your recent edit seems to be to POV, please explain your edit on Talk:Bipolar disorder. --Anarchist42 21 February 2006 (UTC)

yr edit

Hi, I'm new to this and wonder if you could quickly explain something - your recent edit on the depression page says 'rv to Franzio. Book promotion'. I see that you have deleted someone elses insert of a book reference. But why does it say rv to Franzio (me)? Many thanks. Franzio

It means I reverted back to your version. Putting a username in the edit summary lets other editors know how far back the revert went. That's all.  :) Monkeyman^(talk) 17:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

social anxiety

Hey, thanks for your edits on social anxiety. I left a message on the talk page. Essentially, I've proposed moving it to social anxiety disorder to avoid any ambiguities with the general apprehension one receives in social circumstances. I'm not sure your most recent edits apply, since you seemed to cover both social anxiety and social anxiety disorder. I think, with your help, we should make some more edits distinguishing SAD with just normal social anxiety and shyness. This should make it easier for readers to understand the disorder. I appreciate your input, especially on the introduction, which needs tweaking. Thanks! :) Gflores ^Talk 21:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Psychiatry

Just to say thanks for giving some attention to this article; it's long been on my "to revisit" list, so I'm glad someone is attracting people's attention to it. Perhaps one day I will make it back there...
Best wishes, David Kernow 18:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Hello again, Franzio: Just seen that you've removed "occasional" from the description "Despite its occasional adverse effects (such as post-traumatic stress and memory loss) ..." about ECT in the Anti-psychiatry article. Do you mean to suggest that ECT always produces adverse effects? Usually produces adverse effects? Often produces adverse effects? Sometimes produces adverse effects? Who describes them as "adverse"? All patients? Most patients? Some patients? Doctors? I feel the description does need some qualification. Thanks, David 14:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi David, Thanks for your messages. I was going to reply to your first one, and hadn't noticed that the 'occasional' qualifier on the anti-psychiatry page was yours. I agree that the ECT effects need specifying, but felt that the adverse ones weren't only occasional. As I understand it they are quite commonly associated with the procedure, and as the statement stood it didn't make a claim either way. I will try to source and specify these and other claims throughout that page, as I hope others can. Franzio 15:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you removed the "occasional" as I agree it is misleading; I must've been tired when I added it. My concern is the characterisation of ECT's common side-effects as "adverse effects"; to me, that reads as a non-neutral description. For those people benefitting from ECT, these side-effects are not necessarily adverse relative to the relief they receive. Best wishes, David Kernow 22:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

anti-psychiatry

Hello Franzio. I just wanted to leave a personal note of explanation and apology again, for jumping into the anti-psychiatry article in a way you found offensive. I admit it was partly in a somewhat rash response to the openly POV stance of another editor combined with the dearth of references in a controversial article. That combination sets alarms ringing and demanding reliable sources usually scares off those who think they can write entirely from their POV. However, i realise now that the agressive tagging would appear offensive to someone who has been taking the time to source the article already and i also over estimated the input that that editor actually had. Please be assured however, that it was not a case of tagging and running. I do intend to stick around and improve the article as best i can (with my limited expertise) and i consider tagging as just the first stage of that to help me (and any other editor) to find the text that requires sources (IMHO, of course). I'll go through each and every one of those tags and try and find a source myself.

Should you feel i have tagged a sentence that you feel doesn't require a source during your improvement efforts, please do remove it. I didn't intend them to be set in stone until i say so, i see them simply as a signposts to potential areas that need improvement through sourcing. I hope that explains my position. Best. Rockpocket 23:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rockpocket, just saw you message on my talkpage after mine to you on the antipsychiatry talk page. Thanks very much for your message, it is very encouraging and reassuring, and I can completely understand your concerns, and I'm sure that with a combined effort (that would be a lot of work for you to go through every tag!) we will get there. Franzio 09:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please do not issue personal attacks on Wikipedia. And if you are planning to question an editor's integrity - please make sure you attribute actions and quotes to the correct person in future. The deletion you refer to here, and the quote you attribute to me, was actually the work of Cesar Tort (my reponse to that was indented and was actually inspired by some of the same concerns you mention). Thus the personal attack that followed is completely without foundation or justification. I suggest you discuss the issue with him, meanwhile I await an apology. Rockpocket 20:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Rockpocket, try not to be so melodramatic. I have apologised for my misreading on the antipsychiatry talk page, although the general point about your biased POV remains and in this specific case, although you talked of balance, you did not reinstate anything about clinical psychology or suggest that anything should be. I can also note that I never asked nor received an apology from you for your sustained personal 'attack' on me and my credentials (e.g. first 'normality and illness' section), e.g. that I am a hypocrite promoting high school grade genetics, merely because a part of the text was described by you as doing so, a part of the text I had nothing to do with - something I clarified but you just continued on. Double standards. Anyway, as I have said, imo your take-over of this page has been bullying and prejudiced and happened despite your acknowledged inexpertise in the area, and despite your reassuring comments above, and has been very difficult to stand up to and I cannot have any more to do with the page. The fact that this appears supported by Wikipedia admin leads me to leave Wikipedia, not just that page, so you don't need to pursue me here. Franzio 09:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Your incorrect assumtions continue to astound me. Firstly you assume i'm an admin (i'm not and have never said i was), then you assume an edit that I didn't make (or even agree with) was from me because it suited your POV of my (assumed) intentions. Then you assume i am "supported by Wikipedia admin" when i have no more inherent support from them than you do (other than i follow policy and you, it would appear, distain it). If you stopped making assumptions and took other editors at their word per WP:AGF, you might begin to notice that the person you find "very difficult to stand up to" has actually been encouraging you to contribute on five different occasions - and yet you prefer to criticise than edit. Rockpocket 23:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)