User talk:EverSince/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Just curious

What do you mean by that you found the social side of Wikipedia to be too intimidating? --Frap 16:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Theism/Non-Theism among Quakers

I am not aware of the situation elsewhere in the world than U.K. I am interested in the history of this subject in U.K. There are quite a lot of print publications around. The Bible as a source of scientific knowledge was seriously questioned in 1895. In 1985, there was a splurge of commemorative articles around the centenary of the Manchester Conference. A fairly recent survey is A Sociological Analysis of the Theology of Quakers: The Silent Revolution (Series: Studies in Religion and Society) by Pink Dandelion, Hardcover: 417 pages Publisher: Edwin Mellen Press (February 1997) ISBN 0773488073. Do you have access to a Quaker Library? === Vernon White (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm reading a collection of David Boulton's essays on this subject at the moment. They're coincidentally just talking about the Manchester conference. EverSince 13:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The Retreat

Thanks for your additions to the article on The Retreat. === Vernon White (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

AMA Request

Hi EverSince,

Thanks for submitting your request. I understand your concerns, and I think you actions so far have been exemplary. I'm not going to do anything since you've had no comment for a few days, but I have this page watched, so if I note another edit here that wasn't needed, or if you are contacted elsewhere, please let me know and I'll step in. For now though, I'm closing your case. Does that work? Thanks for returning. \/\/slack (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Wslack, that sounds good and I think it will be fine. EverSince 18:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a couple of heads ups (BPD)

1. Some cleanup of What?
2. This May be of use?

   Have a happy New Year. // FrankB 17:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Superb edits on BPD

Just had to remark that, and also let you know that if you ever feel that formatting quirks and other drudgery are holding you back again, feel free to message me and I'll do my best to sort it so that you can get on with the hard editing. --Zeraeph 12:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Zeraeph, that's really good to know. EverSince 21:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Psychiatric survivors movement

Lacking any sort of citations at all, this article ought to be deleted instead of merged. Lets discuss. --Vees 03:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Vees. OK. I think there are some useful wikilinks and external links, and a bit of the general description of the movement, which might be useful for consumer/survivor movement which is sourced although needs much more. How about if I move some bits like that over to the consumer/survivor movement, and then you delete the psychiatric survivors page if you wish? EverSince 15:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll keep an eye on it. --Vees 18:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy for you to go ahead. EverSince 13:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope that template message doesn't stir up any probs - a movement of psychiatric survivors is recognised and real, just under different and varying terms. I hope people will see the talk page and see that there is an alternative sourced page to work on. EverSince 18:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Then they can just remove the prod message, and cite it. --Vees 21:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well yes. I think the point to make would be that there is an alternative combined page with sources, subsuming the topic of this one. Sure it'll be fine though. EverSince 22:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		Awarded for excellent and continued co-operative work on the schizophrenia article - Vaughan 17:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If I understood more about proper usage of Wikipedia, I could give more contibutions which at this point, with my lack of understanding would risk the potential of damaging the articles... I tried to add to the psychosocial rehabilitation article, and I back off from what I was doing, however I can provide qoutes from: 'Best Practices in Psychosocial Rehabilitation' by Ruth Hughes, PhD and Diane Weinstein, M.S.W.; 'Psychiatric Rehabilitation' by Carlos Pratt, Kenneth J. Pratt, Nora M. Barrett, Melissa M. Roberts;'Psychiatric Rehabilitation Skills in Practice: A CPRP Preparation and Skills Workbook'by Mark S. Salzer, PhD, LCP, 'Introduction to Psychiatric Rehabilitation' by the Publications Committee of IAPSRS, all of which are part the immediate course of study that takes up my time and keeps me from learning proper Wikipedia editing--Psychologyofrecovery 13:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I formatted those links in the psychosocial rehab article, which weren't far wrong - I would'nt worry too much about it, someone can always tidy. You can always ask for help (e.g. [1]) or feel free to ask me, here or on the talk page. EverSince 16:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally just to clarify the above initial discussion on survivor movement etc, there is now one page covering all that, Consumer/Survivor/Ex-Patient Movement EverSince 16:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I added something to the PsyR or PSR page on the recovery model, it is a paraphrased qoute that I felt was important in explaining why a person reading such has never heard of it, also I added an USPRA page that will require editing, again I want avoid damaging anything wiki--Psychologyofrecovery 11:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks EverSince, it's just to great to finally see a group of knowledgable people working and keeping an eye on the article. All the best - Vaughan 09:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's great the schizophrenia article is FA class and still being maintained to such high standards and improved also. I hope some other psych pages can get there sooner rather than later! Thanks EverSince 16:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Question

I noticed you live in the U.K. I was wondering if you would know about the status of academic structure internationally (or at least in your home country) was in the same situation as the U.S. in regards to the subjects of Abnormal Psychology, Psychiatric Nursing, and Behavioral Health Services. By that I am referring to the division of information on mental illness taught in courses at lower division, grade or degree which hold views that reinforce stigma, are centered on Fruedian technique, ECT, Lobotomy etc; Where as upper division courses at universities that fewer students (often a select few of the wealthier) are attending are offered Psychiatric Rehabilitation courses. My concern being that USPRAs,University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, University of Arizona, and Boston university are big on the idea of disseminating this evidence-based practices of "recovery" information, yet they have not produced a single college professor who writes psychology or "Abnormal Psychology" textbooks that reaches a wider audience which shapes the social view of mental illness in the U.S...So my question is it the same outside of my country here in the U.S. or am I just seeing a home based problem in need of reform?--Psychologyofrecovery 14:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say it's pretty similar, Psychologyofrecovery. Worse in poorer countries where even significant deinstitutionalization is yet to occur. And generally the same situation of rehab/recovery around the fringes of a mainstream centered on the short-term neurochemical and maintenance treatment. It's good that it's focused on at some institutions (in limited areas, as you say) who are producing good work but, as you say, still that need for integration into the mainstream of education, public opinion and clinical practice. EverSince 17:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

citations for DSM article

Thanks for adding all those sources. That was a very nice job. I removed the tag at the top of the article based on your work. DPeterson^talk 20:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Clinical psychology Mediation

Hello! I'm .V., a member of Wikipedia's mediation cabal. We provide informal and optional mediation to users in disputes so, hopefully, it can be resolved early instead of being taken to "official" channels (the Mediation Committee or Arbitration). A user has filed a mediation cabal request regarding a discussion on a page in which you are a participant. You can find a link to the mediation here.

Remember, this mediation is purely optional and the result is non-binding. The goal of this mediation is to hopefully resolve the matter peacably, fairly, and to the satisfaction of all parties involved. Thanks! .V. _[Talk|Email] 08:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I hereby award you this barnstar for all your contributions to article's dealing with mental health. Thanks for all your contributions! Chupper 01:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ethics and evolutionary psychology

Original message: User talk:Elembis#Ethics & EP

You're right, Ethics and evolutionary psychology had actual content recently, but it was deleted on 2007-03-18 for lack of sources (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethics and evolutionary psychology). I copied the page before it was deleted, and since you mentioned it, it's now available at User:Elembis/Ethics and evolutionary psychology. Congratulations on the Barnstar, by the way! — Elembis (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Clinical Psychology

Thank you for the colloborative writing experience we shared on the ClinPsych article. I particularly valued your modelling of the mediation process with a tired and bruised editor at wikipedia, which I had not experienced before. Your voice was consistent and concilliatory, even when you were misinterpreted or misrepresented for example, asking permission when you were not. As I work may way through the article I find evience of your writng craft and that is a pleasure in its concise editing of stuff I had dropped in there for later re-working. You did the work ahead of me and at times beside each other, even though 11 hours apart. Thank you and be seeing you.--Ziji 21:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Recovery Psychology

The idea I told you about, I figured I would start on Wiki-books...Your input is greatly welcome! [2] P.S. I hope you do not mind I erased my former talk to you here on your page...I hope that is wiki-ethical

You've caught me at a bad time because I'm about to be doing a lot less here, due to other commitments. That page reads really well and was interesting reading, and I'll try to add to it if I can in future. I feel it's important that recovery is described separately to any particular professional approach. I like that list of qualities of recovery - I just added it to the recovery model page here, hope that's OK. Best wishes to you. EverSince 11:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Move of Mental illness to mental disorder

Being that I am a DSM fan, I favor the term "mental disorder" over the term "mental illness". Which do you prefer? Do you think we should set up a new proposal on the talk page? Chupper 01:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

For reasons of NPOV, I do agree. For now I'm trying to focus on getting the article fully up to scratch, and then yes I do think it would be good to revisit the name issue. EverSince 13:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC) p.s. as also per World Health Organization usage and e.g. WordNet: "Mental Disorder - (psychiatry) a psychological disorder of thought or emotion; a more neutral term than mental illness"

Decommissioning self

{{Attempting_wikibreak}}

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

Hi, I found your name among the contribs to American Psychiatric Association... I just created American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. I'm handing it over to you for the addition of any psych.-related templates etc etc etc that the relevant wikigroup suggests, 'cause you seem to be involved in related topics. Cheers! Ling.Nut (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Reactive attachment disorder

Hi. I've nominated this article for FAC and am trying to find knowledgeable psych types to review it. [3] I'd be most grateful if you could look it over. (This is the post DPeterson et al version by the way).Fainites ^barley 17:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Major depression vs Clinical depression

I'd like to get some experts commenting on the proposed move of the page Clinical depression to Major depression or Major depressive disorder. Any comment would be appreciated. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Reverting Vandalism?

Sorry, why you keep reverting a vandalized page? (Mental disorder) -- ...RuineЯ|Chat... 19:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh was I reverting back to the vandalism? I thought I was undoing it but I guess in the meantime you'd already undone it then I was undoing you, lol EverSince (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

History of depression

Hi, You pointed out that the History of depression section mostly deals with mental illness. Since the term depression was not in use in the medieval and Renaissance eras, most of the sources refer to mental illnesses in a general sense. What we need is a secondary source where a psychiatrist or MD interprets the historical sources, and says "When the Renaissance treatise on mental illness discusses XXXX symptoms, they are discussing what would be called depression today." If you know of sources on the history of depression, please contribute them. Thanks.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I trust you saw my reply on the talk page. My original brief comment did imply things are more clear-cut than they are. I do think we could link off to the relevant article, whether psychiatry or mental disorder etc, when things have to be more general (something the cited articles can't do obviously and have to go into more general context). I think quite a lot of the general content could be moved to the most related general article, and then linked to there (as other disorder articles can also do), leaving room to add in more specific stuff. Don't know what you think about that. EverSince (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC) History of mental disorders might be the most relevant place for much of it actually. EverSince (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology

Hi, would you mind reviewing my version of the heredity-evolution paragraph in the "causes" section, "biological" subsection of Major depressive disorder? With all due respect to my fellow editors, another contributor to the article seems intent on simply labeling the approach "controversial" (which, IMHO, smacks of dismissiveness), whereas I think my revision is simply more matter-of-fact and doesn't grant the topic any undue weight. So, since you clearly know the evolutionary angle well, I'm wondering if you'd mind weighing in on this. Also, if you're aware of additional empirical invesitgations of the matter, could you bring those to our attention when you get a chance? Thanks, Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Stress: History & usage

Just wanted to thank you for this huge improvement. Now seems to me, particularly because of my enthusiasm for the history of ideas, the best & most useful part of the entry. Regards Wingspeed (talk) 07:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...funny how these things emerge and morph and take their place in language EverSince (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey Request

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, Sam4bc (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing the reference tag

The article you wrote has only one reference. It's in dire need of more sourcing. The tag in no way denigrates the article, it's just a way of saying to other editors, "Please help make this article even better." As such, I'm going to readd it once more. S. Dean Jameson 02:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• You know what, I was placing the wrong tag at the top of the article. I thought I was placing the reference tag that said the article need "additional" references, when I was placing the one that says it has "no" references. Please accept my apology. I've added the proper tag now. Regards, S. Dean Jameson 02:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, no worries. I since added another source and the original was a comprehensive peer-reviewed article; how many do you think it needs? EverSince (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Just been watching some of your edits, seems like we have some common interests and wanted to say hi. -- Scarpy (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi yeah I recently noticed the self-help groups for mental health article and that you'd built it up. Be good to get the mental health/wellbeing/disorder/services/groups/consumers/survivors/recovery articles linked together more actually, like one of those project sidebars or just a project focused specifically on that. EverSince (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe one for support groups and one for advocacy groups? -- Scarpy (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

What about the whole of the subject, mental distress/disorder/wellbeing & related services/groups? There's medical & psychology projects overlapping over this, but not centered on it. Might be a bit ambitious though. Would need to distinguish between support and advocacy aspects... EverSince (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess actually those sidebars don't seem that common and have gone from same places where they were...and they can all be linked by the category they're in, mental health organizations or mental health. EverSince (talk) 11:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Will minimise the hypoxia article

Hi, I will minimise the hypoxia article quickly, but first I'll send a warning to the guy who reversed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk • contribs) 09:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi again EverSince. After minimising the article I've put some new information in it again. Are you happy with that?

Steve Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Steve, thanks for the message; I'll try and get my head round that section in the causes of schizophrenia page again soon and I'll make any comments about it there to keep all editors involved. EverSince (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for all your correction and showing me the ropes Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem and I appreciate your wanting to get the issues well covered. EverSince (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Moral Treatment

I just wanted to write and say how impressed I am with your edits of the Moral treatment page. (It's because of editors like you that Wikipedia is worth referring to!) I plan to link to this page in a story at my blog, Advances in the History of Psychology, once I return from vacation in September. And I thought you'd like to know.... Cheers, JTBurman (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note...been meaning to do some more on that article (incl. on the ex-patient angle) so hopefully that will spur me on soon. Not always that easy to find reliable detailed sources for it or the related figures, though have just found a couple more via your very interesting blog :) EverSince (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

another look

Hey Eversince, could you have a look at the last par in hypoxia under causes of schizophrenia again.

I think the comments are from the same Finnish cohort and they mention hypoxia and motor coordination and schizophrenia.

What do you think?

Steve Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

couple of changes

Hi again Eversince,

don't know where you are in the world of Wikipedia at the moment.

I re-added the reference you had to the article on 'hallmark of hypoxia'. and looked up the suplementary section to the Molecular Psychiatry article on oxidization. I only have a basic knowledge of stats, so I hope I interpreted the p value of .01 correctly.

Good luck Steve Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 11:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Tidal model

I agree that there should be links between Tidal Model and recovery model. I am happy to assist with this. --Vince (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a fair short summary to me. --Vince (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the Tidal model bit needs expanding imminently. Good work. If I was going to be picky, I would suggest splitting the concepts of recovery section into subsections. --Vince (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Freedom Center(s)

There are likely several facilities called Freedom Center. When another WP article emerges about one of the others, the current Freedom Center article should be moved to Freedom Center (Omaha) and a disambiguation page should be created. However, there's no point in doing that without another article to add. • Freechild'sup? 17:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, cheers, EverSince (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

vandalism?

Hi Eversince, I don't know if you guys have a procedure for dealing with vandalism.

Somene has added a short comment saying 'yes, thats it' to the bottom of the genes section in Causes of Schizophrenia

I wanted to tell you incase you want to block the IP address

Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

depression

Hi; I don't want to be critical but I think you may be heading in the wrong direction. The article needed to be shortened by about 10,000 chars to reach FA, but today alone you've added 10,000 chars to it, essentially doubling the size of the problem. We're all going to have to exercise a lot of self-discipline to get this to work. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've already raised in advance on the article talk page what I would be adding, did you not see it? And suggested that once there was a proper social causes subsection of an equivalent size to the others, it would be a very long section and probably need to be forked off and then summarized on the main page, in the usual way eg. Causes of schizophrenia. I trust these developments can be discussed on the article's talk page. EverSince (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw it but didn't quite grasp what you were saying. Truthfully, I've been having a hard time following all the logic branches on the talk page -- that's one of the reasons I came here instead of asking the question there. Anyway, you've addressed my concern, so thanks. Looie496 (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah a lot of issues going on all at once on that talk page... Glad your concern is addressed, I agree it's gonna be tricky getting down the word count, while keeping the balance... EverSince (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

schizophrenia and Colin Ross

Hi; I believe you are jusified, but I think when removing Colin Ross it would be good to say so explicitly either in your edit summary or in a note on the talk page. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I did?..."extract Ross from innacurate insertion..." etc? and I only moved the citation and its basic point down the page... EverSince (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I missed that. A reading of the Colin A. Ross article, though, suggests to me that he is too fringey to deserve being mentioned at all in an article about schizophrenia. Looie496 (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I know what you mean - there's an editor who's keen on his trauma model and likes to get them both in. It is in a subsection on alternative approaches I suppose...I do'nt really mind either way now that it doesn't single him out by name and is only to source one concept in a sentence on what is a notable theme. EverSince (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No access

Hi Eversince, hope everything is ok

I don't have access to the journal sorry.

Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

MEDRS

I think your concern with the existence of a separate MEDRS guideline is reasonable. Medicine is just a part of a general knowledge, after all. I am not sure most of the participants in the discussion understand that. I think if you reformulate your view as "adding disclaimer to the WP:MEDRS guideline that it only pertains to medical facts and areas of the medical articles" you may be able to have a meaningful discussion with them. Paul Gene (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It might help if you lay out your views on the MEDRS talk page around the four points suggested by Kim. They will attract more attention in that form. And Kim will direct other's comments on your views into a constructive discussion. (It looks to me, although I may be wrong, that for now your views are simply dismissed.) I think if you give an example of your concerns it may also help. For example, MDD article is a part of psychology, medicine and neuroscience projects; the psychology part should not be governed by MEDRS. Please note that I am not answering you on the MEDRS page as I am trying to help Kim to reduce noise and to get to the bottom of the issues. Respectfully, Paul Gene (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the efforts you've been putting in to this; I should say that I am aware of the situation and, again, of options regarding what I could do - it's just that I'm not entirely sure what I think (including about the validity of partitioning topics) and I'm not sure how much I want to get caught up in it beyond making a comment or query. See how it goes. Regards, EverSince (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, noted. Whatever you decide, I should say that yours and CosmicLatte's participation and comments on the MDD page have been quite educational for me. They showed me an unexpected and different, but completely valid view of things. (You see, I am used to the arguments of natural scientists with natural scientists.) Paul Gene (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

human brain

Hi -- just wanted to let you know, in case you aren't watching, that I've shifted your "brain size" material into the brain size article, which was formerly a redirect. It seemed like too much detail for human brain. However, it would be nice to have a 1-2 paragraph summary version there, if you feel like writing one. (I probably will pretty soon if you don't get around to it.) Regards, Looie496 (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the note, I saw and thought it was a good idea - I'd been wondering myself how to improve the readability while doing justice to the stats and the diversity regarding brain areas/gender/age/life experience etc. I'll have a go at summarizing, feel free yourself too of course. Regards EverSince (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Major depressive disorder

Just so you know, this article is a current featured article candidate here. Since you were a major contributor to it, your input would be most appreciated. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to soon - it's just that, as much as I want to address the actual issues, I struggle with having to promote the artifically categorical and decontextualized diagnostic framework in the process, makes me want to vomit over the screen sometimes... anyway I'll get over that eventually and support the effort gone into it... EverSince (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The sources that you found here look absolutely superb. Would you be willing to integrate them into the article? I think the article (and the Sociocultural aspects section in particular) could certainly benefit from their perspective. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

There might be higher impact publications to source those issues, but I agree yeah, will see. Cheers, EverSince (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This editor has decided to leave Wikipedia.

when are you coming back

would be good to see you back. Earlypsychosis (talk) 08:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC

Schizophrenia

I have nominated Schizophrenia for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Basket of Puppies 23:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2