User talk:Piotrus

: 632

: 82

: 6

: 22

You have the right to stay informed. Exercise it by reading the Wikipedia Signpost today.

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps (not signed with ~~~~) are archived manually when I get around to it.

Please start all new discussions at the bottom of this page and include a heading. When in doubt, click the "New Section" button above.

If I left you a message on your talk page, please answer it there by indenting one line and starting your response with a ping: {{Ping\|Piotrus}} If you leave me a message here on my talk page, I will answer your message here by pinging you.

Always sign your message (by clicking the sign button or by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~). Thanks in advance.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by .

I agree to the edit counter opt-in terms.

Lurking stats

Page views for this talk page over the last 90 days

Detailed traffic statistics

Psychiatry Under the Influence

Hello! Funnily enough, I was tasked with finding a DOI for an article in one of my classes; which led me to your Psychiatry Under the Influence wiki page. To preface, I have never written or edited a wiki page so I don’t have the skill to edit a page properly. With this, I noticed that there is a small error within the citation referencing

Marecek, Jeanne (November 2016). "Robert Whitaker and Lisa Cosgrove, Psychiatry under the influence: Institutional corruption, social injury, and prescriptions for reform" [. Feminism & Psychology. 26 (4): 511-514. doi:10.1177/0959353516663966 . ISSN 0959-3535 C.

This error being, that the DOI links to a review of the source, not the actual source. And when I looked, it doesn’t appear that the referenced work has a DOI so it may cause some confusion. If you have a better solution than just removing it, feel free to let me know, as I am still learning about proper citation!

Thanks!

[ [User:Meowmiaoumeow|Meowmiaoumeow]] (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Meowmiaoumeow Perhaps I misunderstood your message, but I think this is as intended. As in, it was my intention to link to reviews of the book in question, because it is reviews (or other mentions of the topic - here, book - in independent sources) that can be used as a source. The book itself (which is the topic of the article) is a WP:PRIMARY source and it can be used at best to summarize contents. The article about a book has to be written from sources that talk about the book. See for example The Dark Domain which I am finishing right now, or non-fiction The Use and Abuse of History which I expanded recently.

Sidenotes:

I think your sig code is broken
funnily enough, I am a university lecturer who regularly assigns my students to edit Wikipedia. Kudos to you that you have done so by yourself (even if it is just to leave me a message about a potential error). I'd encourage you to try to edit Wiki yourself, it is fun for many of us here (like a video game... complete another article = get a unique achievement), and for me it certainly helped me develop professional skills in writing and collaboration that helped me become a professor :D Food for thought.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To AfD

Hoax letter writers _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 05:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]