Hello, Doc insanity! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply] Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Is this a new phenomenon or just related to particular editors? And why are the standards applied so patchily? I think some editors don't do anything to improve the articles they "edit", and it rather puts off me from writing stuff to be honest.

I placed a request for a dispute resolution on Dispute resolution noticeboard concerning the insanity defense page. --Mark v1.0 (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Dispute resolution declared the case closed.

In the cash of the page I found your response

• "Mark v 1, please don't put such inaccuracies into the discussion. Where have I posted that I don't understand the rules of wikipedia?
• Not sure how you're contributing to a dispute resolution with the way you've presented your case - it sounds more like you're asking for a partial decisions favouring you! I've explained the basis for removing an inappropriate reference which doesn't prove the point made. If you mentioned an example then used that citation as support, that would be different."

Regarding your question "Where have I posted that I don't understand..." I interpreted "And why are the standards applied so patchily?" as not understanding.

TransporterMan wrote on my talk page an explanation for the closure of my request of dispute resolution.

Regarding my intent on "the insanity defense" page. I was trying to prove the point that the loss of freedom (incarceration in jail or "hospital" is the same) is worse, if one is judged insane. The power of a psychiatrist's opinion (not science) trumps the power of the judicial system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark v1.0 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well it's not true that the opinion of a psychiatrist "trumps" the judicial system. Detention of someone found NOT GUILTY by reason of insanity is not punishment. So detention in hospital and prison are not the same. Your point may be more true in the US than here in the UK, in which case you should state that (given that the page is not US-specific). In England and Wales, except when there is a restriction order made (which is not that common), the decision for discharge is in the hands of doctors and by way of appeals a tribunal. There has been a recent case in the UK where someone asserted the right to a public tribunal. As for contrasting a psychiatrist's opinion and science, that is to misunderstand the nature of expert evidence in my mind. Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC) As I've mentioned on your page, I've put the reference to Albert Haines back with an explanation of the context. I hope that helps. Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 13:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding "So detention in hospital and prison are not the same." In both cases the person is deprived of their freedom, their liberty, you are just calling the jail cell a different name. Hospital detention is worse than prison because the duration is unlimited in time. Yoder and Haines both found it unjust. In a just world, a person has to actually commit a crime first, before losing their freedom for an unlimited period of time --Mark v1.0 (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I'm not going to have a debate about it. Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Insanity defense". Thank you. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NOTE: I added a summary of our dispute resolution on the DRN - I would like to post this summary on the Insanity defense talk page, but I would like your input first so that it can be as fair and neutral as possible. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Sleddog, thanks for asking but I'm fine with whatever you want to post, honestly. Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because it was layered inside a compound statement I'll ask again. Your last revert which removed significant cited portions of the article (and lead). Would you please self revert and restore the content that was previously not under dispute prior to your willful excising of the content? Hasteur (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could I ask first, is this policy of having to reference all statements made, no matter how self-evident, applied consistently? Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 09:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again you have removed content that was under a previous consensus and somewhat cited. If you dispute it's citedness, challenge it with the citation needed. If you challenge the neutral point of view, use the NPOV section and open a discussion for the section explaining your thoughts. Are you saying that a lead has to be 100% cited? Considering that the lead has existed for a non-trivial time do you think it is disruptive to outright remove the lead and leave a disjointed article? Please consider self reverting both of your removal edits. You are out of order in the WP:BRD process. I am opening a discussion at the talk page to see if we can attempt to resolve this. Further disruptive editing will be taken to the Administrator's Noticeboard/Edit Warring. Hasteur (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NONE of the material removed was cited, Hasteur. It is not myself that is saying that everything is cited, this is apparently the policy. Could you explain the policy to me? Because it's clear as mud at the moment. There is no consistency in approach at all. Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Doc - I was looking through some of WP's policies and I found something that I thought might help you. Looking back at some of the previous discussions on the Insanity defense article, there was, at one point, some disparity over which of two sources was acceptable (I think it was about the Albert Haines case). I'm not here to open that issue up again or voice any opinion one way or the other, but the debate seemed to have been over what was considered reliable as a source. I think this note from WP:Verifiability might help: "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers." What I get from that is that peer-reviewed research journals are not the only acceptable sources. Again, that dispute seems to have been resolved, but I thought it might help you for future reference. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it depends on what you're referencing. Certainly news items don't need academic references. Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As you seem to be missing the point, not dropping the stick, and harboring a battlefield mentality I request that you cease any interaction other than postings required by standardized Wikipedia processes on my talk page. Further attempts to stir up trouble on my talk page by posting on cold threads will result in your being reported to the appropriate noticeboard for harassment behavior. Hasteur (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Harrassment? Hardly. Cease interaction yourself. You're incredibly po-faced, and not diplomatic at all. Throwing off threats willy-nilly doesn't worry me, as other people will see how pathetic all this is. Desist and decease. Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sure whoever you report this to will wonder why you felt the need to include a derogatory reference in an edit summary - hardly appropriate is it? Naturally if you have reported me I will file a counter-report for incivility. Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What a waste of time that was! If only there was a Barnstar for being a thin-skinned prima donna! Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm so glad that you and I have managed to work out our differences and make progress on Insanity defense. I think the article will be much better with us working together instead of arguing. I'm sure the article will continue to improve as we discuss it further. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the cuppa :)

Yes, hopefully we can make some improvements because really it's in bad need of it! Cheers. Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Doc. Just in observing your comments on discussion pages, I thought I'd point out something you may not have known. To prevent text from getting all strung together, it's usually best to left-indent your post one more tab stop than the post above it. It's not a policy or anything, but most people do it - it's just easier to follow a conversation that way. All you have to do is put a colon (or two or three or more, depending on how many tab stops you need) before your post.

Like this.

When you do this, it makes conversations easier to read. I figured you just didn't know, so I thought I'd point it out. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Sleddog - that is a very useful tip. I haven't got up to speed on Wiki wrinkles yet. Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Doc - it's me again. I looked at your most recent edit on insanity defense ([diff]) and, with full good faith, I reverted it. I did, however, have a good reason for doing so. It's not that your edit was wrong, necessarily, but it was unnecessary. Congress is a federal legislative body, so its acts are always federal - as each state has its own legislature, each state has the power to make its own laws (though, per the US Constitution, federal laws take precedence over state laws). Saying "Congress passed Act X, which affects only federal crimes" is tantamount to saying "Parliament passed Act Y, which only affects crimes in the UK." If you think such an explanation is still needed, go ahead and undo my revert, but I think you clarified something that really didn't need clarification. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 03:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC) The reason why I changed it is because to people from the US, that wouldn't be self-evident - as many countries are not federal like the US, and so would assume that a statute applied to the entire country! Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 08:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Doc - could you please comment here? Thanks. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi

Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. You can find more about it by reading the article on The Signpost featuring this journal.

We welcome you to have a look the journal. Feel free to participate.

You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:

• Publish an article to the journal.
• Sign up as a peer reviewer of potential upcoming articles. If you do not have expertise in these subjects, you can help in finding peer reviewers for current submissions.
• Sign up as an editor, and help out in open tasks.
• Outreach to potential contributors, with can include (but is not limited to) scholars and health professionals. In any mention of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, there may be a reference to this Contribute-page. Example presentation about the journal.
• Add a post-publication review of an existing publication. If errors are found, there are guidelines for editing published works.
• Apply to become the treasurer of the journal
• Join the editorial board.
• Share your ideas of what the journal would be like in the future as separate Wikimedia project.
• Donate to Wikimedia Foundation.
• Translate journal pages into other languages. Wikiversity currently exists in the following other languages
  • Ceština, Deutsch, Español, Français, Italiano, 한국어, Português, Slovenšcina, Suomi, Svenska, Ελληνικά, Русский, العربية, 日本語
• Technical work like template designing for the journal.
• Sign up to get emails related to the journal, which are sent to updateswijoumed.org. If you want to receive these emails too, state your interest at the talk page, or contact the Editor-in-chief at haggstrom.mikaelwikiversityjournal.org.
• Spread the word to anyone who could be interested or could benefit from it.

The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the wide-reachwikiversityjournal.org email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.

Diptanshu^Talk 13:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC) -on behalf of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.Reply[reply]