Revision as of 03:03, 15 December 2013 editZad68 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,355 edits →FA work: r← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:46, 15 December 2013 edit undoThe Four Deuces (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers50,519 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
:Hi Zad; Appreciate your getting back to me on this topic. It is the "Schizophrenia" page which is an FA. The main topic now is that the central diagnostic manual DSM-5 has just been upgraded to replace the out-moded, ten year old DSM-4 manual. However, just about the entirety of the wikipage is still written with references almost only to the DSM-4. Therefore what makes sense now is to do a "search and identify" of all the references made to DSM-4 (the old version), enumerate them, and then let the general edit community do the upgrade transition edits to DSM-5 (the new and current version) by listing them sequentially as a group on an FA review. Your user page posted stars for 2 GA medical articles, and maybe an FA article upgrade star would look good next to them. What do you think? ] (]) 14:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC) | :Hi Zad; Appreciate your getting back to me on this topic. It is the "Schizophrenia" page which is an FA. The main topic now is that the central diagnostic manual DSM-5 has just been upgraded to replace the out-moded, ten year old DSM-4 manual. However, just about the entirety of the wikipage is still written with references almost only to the DSM-4. Therefore what makes sense now is to do a "search and identify" of all the references made to DSM-4 (the old version), enumerate them, and then let the general edit community do the upgrade transition edits to DSM-5 (the new and current version) by listing them sequentially as a group on an FA review. Your user page posted stars for 2 GA medical articles, and maybe an FA article upgrade star would look good next to them. What do you think? ] (]) 14:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC) | ||
::OK Bill... although I'd love a FA gold star, updating ] to use the new DSM-5 wouldn't get me one, unfortunately. I agree that the article needs to be updated to use DSM-5. I see you made some edits to the article along that line but got reverted, which can be frustrating. But, the good news is that the editors who reverted you, like {{u|Jmh649}} (Doc James) and {{u|Casliber}}, are some of our most experienced and proficient medical and science article editors. I also see you started a section on the Talk page there but unfortunately haven't gotten anybody to join you in discussion there. Casliber has started making DSM-5 changes. I think the best thing to do would be to try get more engagement on the Talk page. I don't have access to DSM-5 at the moment but it looks like Casliber and Doc James will be getting it soon. Don't worry if the updates aren't made right away, there's no deadline on our articles. <code>]]</code> 03:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC) | ::OK Bill... although I'd love a FA gold star, updating ] to use the new DSM-5 wouldn't get me one, unfortunately. I agree that the article needs to be updated to use DSM-5. I see you made some edits to the article along that line but got reverted, which can be frustrating. But, the good news is that the editors who reverted you, like {{u|Jmh649}} (Doc James) and {{u|Casliber}}, are some of our most experienced and proficient medical and science article editors. I also see you started a section on the Talk page there but unfortunately haven't gotten anybody to join you in discussion there. Casliber has started making DSM-5 changes. I think the best thing to do would be to try get more engagement on the Talk page. I don't have access to DSM-5 at the moment but it looks like Casliber and Doc James will be getting it soon. Don't worry if the updates aren't made right away, there's no deadline on our articles. <code>]]</code> 03:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC) | ||
==User name== | |||
Your user name is the same as a well-known person, ]. You need to follow the procedures under ] or request a ]. ] (]) 22:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:46, 15 December 2013
Welcome!
Hello, BillMoyers, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction to Misplaced Pages
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome! FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
November 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Anne Carson may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨) |
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
December 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rembrandt may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- the scholarship of Paul Crenshaw.<ref>Schama, Simon (1999). ''Rembrandt's Eyes''. Knopf, p. 720).</ref> Schama presents a substantial argument that it was the famous ancient Greek painter [[
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Misplaced Pages shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment, This short edit was made to distinguish between "science" wiki-pages and "arts" wiki-pages which are presently not separately discussed in this article. If you have the current stats file for the number of wiki-pages for each scale of classification (number of A-class articles, B-class, C-class, etc) then the edit could be completely rewritten. BillMoyers (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Recent edit at abortion
Just letting you know I reverted your addition of info from that 2013 article. As I explained in the edit summary, the page, and the section in question, discusses abortion incidence worldwide and should not include single-country data. I'm also not sure the source is very high quality. We are better off, where possible, relying on sources like high-quality medical journals such as The Lancet, or international health org stats such as produced by WHO. If you want to discuss further, i suggest you raise it on the article talk page. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have approached this in that way, but i have set out my objections at the article talk page.hamiltonstone (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Updates from new manual.
1)Article as a whole appears to completely overlook the comparison and relationship of this diagnosis with "Personality Disorders" as presented in ICD10 and DSM5, the discussion is completely missing. 2)Lede does not mention relevance of associated personality disorders to Schiz. diagnosis and treatment. 3)"Schneiderian" classification should be discussed under "History" section. It is secondary to both the ICD10 and the DSM5 classification categories and the section should reflect this. It presently does not appear in discussion until section 4 here as "Diagnosis". 4)"Causes" subsection completely ignored personality disorders; possible correction may be with a new subsection, or as a subsection to present "Genetics" subsection; Or, possibly under "Developmental" 5) Very scant "Psychological" subsection under "Mechanisms" compared to "Neurological" subsection; Personality Disorders completely ignored in this subsection. 6) "Diagnosis" opening paragraph in subsection mentions only DSM4 and needs to be updated; no mention is made of disagreements and contrasts between DSM5 and ICD10 regarding "Schiz." diagnosis and assessment. 7)"Diagnosis" subsection on "Criteria" is outdated and does not mention DSM5 updates for schizophrenia. 8)"Diagnosis" subsection on "Subtypes" is outdated to DSM5 and needs to be re-drafted. ICD-10 classifies the DSM-5 schizotypal personality disorder as a form of schizophrenia rather than as a personality disorder.
Since forty to sixty percent of all psychiatric diagnosis, including schizophrenia, include a second co-diagnosis of at least one of the personality disorders, it is no longer practical to completely isolate the discussion of Schizophrenia from Personality Disorder as it may have been done in the past before DSM5. Both the differential diagnosis and direct diagnosis of schizophrenia have been influenced by the DSM-5 re-organization of personality disorders into "Clusters." In contrast to DSM-4, the updated DSM-5 published in 2013 now lists personality disorders in exactly the same way as other mental disorders such as schizophrenia, rather than on a separate 'axis' as previously. DSM-5 lists ten personality disorders, grouped into three clusters. Of the three clusters, "Cluster A" is directly relevant to the diagnosis and treatment of schizophrenia as ICD-10 indicates that the schizotypal personality disorder is a form of schizophrenia, and DSM-5 lists this personality disorder alongside schizophrenia in the section on "Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorders" along with a second listing of it in the separate section on "Personality Disorders." "Cluster A" includes the three personality disorders: Paranoid personality disorder, Schizoid personality disorder, and Schizotypal personality disorder.
F20 Schizophrenia; F20.0 Paranoid Schizophrenia, F20.1 Hebephrenic Schizophrenia, F20.2 Catatonic Schizophrenia, F20.3 Undifferentiated Schizophrenia, F20.4 Post-Schizophrenic Depression, F20.5 Residual Schizophrenia, F20.6 Simple Schizophrenia
The schizophrenic disorders are characterized in general by fundamental and characteristic distortions of thinking and perception, and by inappropriate or blunted affect. Clear consciousness and intellectual capacity are usually maintained, although certain cognitive deficits may evolve in the course of time. The disturbance involves the most basic functions that give the normal person a feeling of individuality, uniqueness, and self-direction. The most intimate thoughts, feelings, and acts are often felt to be known to or shared by others, and explanatory delusions may develop, to the effect that natural or supernatural forces are at work to influence the afflicted individual's thoughts and actions in ways that are often bizarre. The individual may see himself or herself as the pivot of all that happens. Hallucinations, especially auditory, are common and may comment on the individual's behavior or thoughts. Perception is frequently disturbed in other ways: colors or sounds may seem unduly vivid or altered in quality, and irrelevant features of ordinary things may appear more important than the whole object or situation. Perplexity is also common early on and frequently leads to a belief that everyday situations possess a special, usually sinister, meaning intended uniquely for the individual. In the characteristic schizophrenic disturbance of thinking, peripheral and irrelevant features of a total concept, which are inhibited in normal directed mental activity, are brought to the fore and utilized in place of those that are relevant and appropriate to the situation. Thus thinking becomes vague, elliptical, and obscure, and its expression in speech sometimes incomprehensible. Breaks and interpolations in the train of thought are frequent, and thoughts may seem to be withdrawn by some outside agency. Mood is characteristically shallow, capricious, or incongruous. Ambivalence and disturbance of volition may appear as inertia, negativism, or stupor. Catatonia may be present. The onset may be acute, with seriously disturbed behavior, or insidious, with a gradual development of odd ideas and conduct. The course of the disorder shows equally great variation and is by no means inevitably chronic or deteriorating (the course is specified by five-character categories). In a proportion of cases, which may vary in different cultures and populations, the outcome is complete, or nearly complete, recovery. The sexes are approximately equally affected by the onset tends to be later in women.BillMoyers (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
FA work
Hi Bill, I saw you dropped a note on my User Talk regarding work on an FA article. What was the article and what did you have in mind? I can't say I can commit to a ton of work but there's a specific section you'd like input on I'd be happy to try to do that. I am watching your User Talk page so just go ahead and reply here. Zad68
18:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Zad; Appreciate your getting back to me on this topic. It is the "Schizophrenia" page which is an FA. The main topic now is that the central diagnostic manual DSM-5 has just been upgraded to replace the out-moded, ten year old DSM-4 manual. However, just about the entirety of the wikipage is still written with references almost only to the DSM-4. Therefore what makes sense now is to do a "search and identify" of all the references made to DSM-4 (the old version), enumerate them, and then let the general edit community do the upgrade transition edits to DSM-5 (the new and current version) by listing them sequentially as a group on an FA review. Your user page posted stars for 2 GA medical articles, and maybe an FA article upgrade star would look good next to them. What do you think? BillMoyers (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- OK Bill... although I'd love a FA gold star, updating Schizophrenia to use the new DSM-5 wouldn't get me one, unfortunately. I agree that the article needs to be updated to use DSM-5. I see you made some edits to the article along that line but got reverted, which can be frustrating. But, the good news is that the editors who reverted you, like Jmh649 (Doc James) and Casliber, are some of our most experienced and proficient medical and science article editors. I also see you started a section on the Talk page there but unfortunately haven't gotten anybody to join you in discussion there. Casliber has started making DSM-5 changes. I think the best thing to do would be to try get more engagement on the Talk page. I don't have access to DSM-5 at the moment but it looks like Casliber and Doc James will be getting it soon. Don't worry if the updates aren't made right away, there's no deadline on our articles.
Zad68
03:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- OK Bill... although I'd love a FA gold star, updating Schizophrenia to use the new DSM-5 wouldn't get me one, unfortunately. I agree that the article needs to be updated to use DSM-5. I see you made some edits to the article along that line but got reverted, which can be frustrating. But, the good news is that the editors who reverted you, like Jmh649 (Doc James) and Casliber, are some of our most experienced and proficient medical and science article editors. I also see you started a section on the Talk page there but unfortunately haven't gotten anybody to join you in discussion there. Casliber has started making DSM-5 changes. I think the best thing to do would be to try get more engagement on the Talk page. I don't have access to DSM-5 at the moment but it looks like Casliber and Doc James will be getting it soon. Don't worry if the updates aren't made right away, there's no deadline on our articles.
User name
Your user name is the same as a well-known person, Bill Moyers. You need to follow the procedures under "real name" or request a change of user name. TFD (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Saß, H. (2001). "Personality Disorders," pp. 11301-11308 in Smelser, N. J. & Baltes, P. B. (eds.) International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences, Amsterdam: Elsevier doi:10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/03763-3 ISBN 978-0-08-043076-8
- ^ American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing. pp. 645–684, 761–781. ISBN 978-0-89042-555-8.