Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WLU (talk | contribs) at 17:39, 27 January 2012 (→No personal attacks: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Visit my Sandbox if you want to help me work on things: User talk:Tylas/Sandbox

File:PEGI white bad language tag.png

Bad Language (not by me) Warning!

Please be nice here, but do feel free to discuss the DID page. You can yell at me if you really have to, but please use nice language.:) Thank You!

An Example of what NOT nice is - Swearing by WLU.

== Don't do this again ==

This has fuck-all to do with the dissociative identity disorder page. If you have questions about an individual editor, raise them on their talk page. Bringing up five-year-old complains adds nothing to the page and just serves as an obvious ad hominem attack that attempts to discredit another editor. If you have an actual issue with another editors behaviour, there are numerous venues to address it, including dispute resolution, wikiquette alerts and simply leaving a note on a talk page. DO NOT attempt to smear the other editor on a talk page for an actual article. It is ugly, irrelevant and merely adds acrimony to the page. Bringing up a five-year-old complaint does not add more sources to the discussion. It does not introduce any new policies or guidelines to clarify edits. It does not invite outside input to resolve a disagreement. If you seriously are interested in DreamGuy's editing history, ask him about it on his talk page. Don't bring it up in an article talk page.

Your other edits show a similarly uncivil imputing of motives that borders on personal attacks. See for instance these comments:

• "I sure hope you are not part of http://www.fmsfonline.org. That would be an extreme POV and COI to be sure! You are not part of that organization are you?"

Has DreamGuy indicated this? Is the FMSF the only organization skeptical DID and concerned over its possible iatrogenicity? Would it matter, as DreamGuy is not promoting the FMSF, he's insisting on retaining a large number of peer-reviewed sources that are actively critical of DID - something that TomCloyd inappropriately removed.

• "As for your next point, I have no need to vindicate my personal beliefs because I don't fall for the mumbo jumbo of the popular media. I know what I have - dissociated parts of the self, not multiple personalities and I am not as weak as you seem to think."

It's not popular sources that are being critical of DID, it is scholarly and there are a lot of them. If you actually have DID, that is a genuine conflict of interest which suggests you should be very careful in how you edit. Nobody cares about your condition however, since it is only reliable sources that matter, not editor opinion.

• "I really doubt that Misplaced Pages supports fanatics that try and promote popular media over current science."

Again, there are a large number of scholarly sources that exist, not popular ones; calling another editor a fanatic is inappropriate. You will run into editors who disagree with you; these disagreements are resolved by citing the best sources available, not by name-calling and accusations.

Please focus your comments on sources, not editors. If you have a specific dispute with an editor, there are other venues to bring them up - not talk pages. I admit that DreamGuy is aggressive and abrasive, but he is also correct in his citation of wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and knows what a reliable source is and how to use it. For wikipedia to adhere to the highest standards in its text, and produce the best and most reliable pages, all editors must adhere to the policies and guidelines. If you have a disagreement with Dreamguy, you need to learn them and cite theim in your edits - not attack his character. We are not a webforum and flame wars are not appreciated. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 15:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC) WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 15:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

WLU

You are quite protective of Dreamguy. I am the one that feels attacked and as others with DID have stated they are afraid to even post on the DID page. We have been met with adversity from you and Dreamguy. I simply pointed out that Dreamguy has had other problems on Misplaced Pages. I will contact the correct people then and make a formal complaint if this is the correct procedure. Thank you for sending me in that direction. I disagree with you about what he is doing on the DID page. Just because I have DID does not mean that I am not very knowledgeable and unbiased about it. You say the same with Tom Cloyd. Is anyone unbiased except those who lack true knowledge of the disorder?

Never come to my page and use swear words. I find that highly offensive!

You don't know the rules, so I see no reason to respect your opinion. You're going to waste a lot of time and take up space on servers with this nonsense. I'm not protective of Dreamguy, I'm pointing out he's right - because he cites or implies policies, guidelines and sources to substantiate his opinions while yours is just opinion. You're showing no evidence of actually knowing the scholarly literature on DID, and more importantly no evidence of understanding wikipedia's rules - yet somehow you feel arrogant enough to lecture other editors who do. Learn the rules. I don't give a shit if you have DID or not, I care about policies, guidelines, and sources.

Learn. The. Rules. Hyperlink them into your posts. Justify edits and talk page postings by referencing them. Your opinion is worthless unless backed by a policy, guideline or source. Just like mine is. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

WLU's Swearing

Justification

Please note my revert justification here, and please explain why you reverted to a version with older sources, less reliable sources, primary sources and fewer sources using the {{cite pmid}} template. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Your reason isn't a reason, I would appreciate it if you would undo your revert while keeping Doczilla's change . There's no policy that says a bad edit has to remain up for a certain amount of time, but disrupting wikipedia to make a point is a guideline. Making the main page worse simply because you disagree with an editor is, in my opinion, significant disruption. However, unlike the ongoing disagreements on the talk page this actually affects actual encyclopedic content. If you genuinely are here to create an encyclopedia and improve the knowledge it contains - please revert to the version with the better references. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 21:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you would revert the page back to Tom Cloyd's version as we have asked numerous times and you have ignored those requests!~ty (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the difference being I have provided reasons why Tom Cloyd's version was problematic - . I clearly stated why the version I reverted to was an improvement. I've clearly stated why the version you reverted to is inferior to the previous one. So please, provide a reason or revert to the improved version. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 21:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear WLU (note I have worked on getting your name right)  :) You cannot say that ALL of Tom Cloyd's edits were wrong. He did not revert anything. He added to the page. You could have come back and just fixed the references you did not like, but instead of you reverted what he says is 6.5 hours of his work. No matter what rules you follow, that is just wrong. His work is not that of some wacko. His is pretty dang sharp at psychology especially DID. And you are welcome. Sorry, I just got up and get his with this stuff. I just want work to continue on the page and not just going and looking up old reference. Real Work!~ty (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

What changes do you think were important to retain? I will explain why they were not. If I reverted in error, I will replace them myself (or review and suggest improvements if you would prefer to do so). It's possible I was overly zealous in my revert but I recently reviewed my action and only noted one change that should have been retained .

What do you think of this edit? WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It's been a busy day and I have not had time to look, but that statement that your actions were over zealous - makes me smile! Thank you! That was nice! :) ~ty (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Now up to two changes . WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Because WP states that we should not have to run every new edit by you before we work on the page, and I will edit when I can work directly on the page and not have to run to you for every yes or no. This is not productive or sane. I have made edits before, you just reverted them all to fit your own POV and you know it. You mis-use WP rules to keep your agenda on this page.~ty (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to run every edit by me, just like I don't feel the need to run every edit by you. However, if I see a problem with an edit, I will tag it, bring it up on the talk page, or if it's sufficiently egregious, I will revert and explain. All I expect of any editor is that they use reliable sources in proportion to their weight in the scholarly community. I fail to see how I'm promoting an agenda when I have justified all of my references with highly reliable sources, of the sort specified at WP:MEDRS. You may personally disagree, but I don't care - as an editor you and I must adhere to the same policies and guidelines and WP:NPOV states that we document disagreements in the scholarly community. We don't ignore them if we don't like them. I may spend more time adding information about iatrogenesis or some other aspect that you disagree with - so long as you do not remove that information spuriously, there is no issue.

Sources

Sources put between <ref></ref> tags are found in the body. Where you see the superscript, that is where the reference is found. I suggest editing the section in question, searching for the author's name, and removing everything around it between the ref tags. The exception is when {{cite pmid}} is used, for those you'll have to note the PMID number and search for that instead. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Be patient! This part is new to me. I will work on it. You were right about Piper, I put it on that list by accident. I did not mean to list that as a reference I wanted to delete. Thanks for your help.~ty (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying this to criticize or hasten, I'm answering the question implied in your edits . You're very obviously new to editing, even if you're not new to the topic of DID (in example, you don't know the difference between a reference in the body and the reference appearing in the references section). Comments like these will steepen your learning curve. I can stop making them, but I've seen (and made) the mistakes you're making before. I'm trying to make the technical parts of editing clearer and less confusing, but again, I can stop. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 15:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. I meant - you move quickly and I can't keep up! I do appreciate your help. I do enjoy that part of your personality!~ty (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You need to add </sub> to the end of your signature. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 22:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

from did/talk page

Please Visit my Sandbox to help me work on this section

User talk:Tylas/Sandbox Please do contribute to the edits! Helping with doing the format correctly is greatly appreciated!:)

Tertiary Structural Dissociation Structural Dissociation builds on the early work of Pierre Janet' and brings together recent neurobiological and psychological research, evolutionary psychology, learning theory and almost two-thirds of a century of clinical experience by Kathy Steele, former president of the International Society for Study of Trauma and Dissociation (ISSTD and Dutch psychologists Onno van der Hart and Ellert Nijenhuis. Simply put, structural dissociation explains dissociative identity disorder in the following way: A young child is severely threatened, causing changes in the brain to occur. The child's personality splits into a part that attempts to avoid all triggers of the trauma and another that is stuck in trauma time. The part stuck in trauma time does not know when an episode of trauma starts or ends. The parts are unable to integrate to the self, resulting in DID. Memory loss is a hallmark sign of DID and it occurs when one of the parts, such as an EP, takes the place of the host (ANP) then the ANP will experience memory loss for that section of time. The part that took over executive control of course, will have memory of the section of time.

Phase Oriented Therapy This is an often used method of treating Dissociative Identity Disorder developed by three major researchers in the field of trauma, dissociation and DID: Hart, Nijenhuis and Steele. The therapy is broken down into three phases geared at resolving structural dissociation. The patient with DID first needs to experience safety and learns to function better in daily life, then with the help of a therapist, they are guided through trauma memory processing.

References I would like to use for this:

Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).

I have the book and can add the page numbers as needed.

~ty (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Please put comments outside of this box. I am trying to work on this and hope others will as well. It's a work in progress, as per the title. I am working on weighted sources. Please be patient.~ty (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

"This is an accepted method" got a source for this? And once again, all this sufferers from being written as if they are currently valid rather than used to be valid. It makes a world of difference. Juice Leskinen (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This would be much better and much easier to include on a subpage (for instance, you could click on the red link I'm including and start it right now User talk:Tylas/Sandbox). Right now you can't see the references, and if you include the reflist you'll get ref dumps from any other sections that use the ref tags. But if you're determined to do this on the DID talk page despite the disadvantages (such as Juice's comments which you would be free to remove on a personal subpage, while retaining comments from anyone you wanted) you might as well do it right. There are ways to cite multiple pages of books in different references. It looks like this:

<ref name = Smith14>], 2008, p. 14.</ref>

<ref name = Smith14/>

<ref name = Smith22>], 2008, p. 22.</ref>

==References==

• <cite id = Smith>{{cite book | last = Smith | first = J | year = 2008 | title = Best book ever! | isbn = 1234567890 | publisher = Best Book Publisher }}

I can fix the specifics if they show up. The above section looks a bit too purple, has several peacock words in it, includes numerous unlinked and unexplained terms whose meaning can't be derived from the context and reads like a how to manual which is verboten. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 23:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ha! That's good! Adding the comment about the Juice comment really makes sense. Thanks WLU - I do appreciate this part of your personality. I sure like when you are being nice :) ~ty (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ty - moving this entire section to your talk page really is the sensible thing to do. Developing content in your personal sandbox is a great idea, but the Talk page has a different purpose, so doing it here is a bit confusing, and we already have enough confusion here (or am I projecting???). Just a quick thought.Tom Cloyd (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Why I Moved sections to my Sandbox

The problem is now that I moved all this to my Sandbox,no one is working on them. I wanted the community to work on each section and thought we could agree on bits a pieces to be fixed a section or part of a section at a time- thus the reason that I made a section on the talk page where we could do that, but it does not seem to be the WP way. Just the sensible way. Oh well. I guess I am on my own doing this, but the problem is that when I try and put it on the DID article, we all know that our friendly reverter there will just delete the whole thing as he keeps demonstrating. I am having problems with that part of his personality! It's rather control freakish! :) But I shall still carry on. Perhaps if you have time you could help, but I know he just deletes what you add to the page as well.~ty (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

No personal attacks

It doesn't matter that your statement doesn't include profanity, calling someone "whacky" and demanding they go somewhere else to edit is still uncivil and really just a nice way of saying they're too stupid to edit the page. I've called Juice to task for his incivility, I'm doing so with you as well. Edit summaries in particular are bad places to insult people because they can't be changed. At least on talk pages you can strike through your comments if you regret them later.

Stick to policies, guidelines and sources. Stop trying to pigeonhole people as belonging to an organization you disagree with. Even if Pamela Freyd, current executive director of the FMSF started editing the page - she'd still have to cite sources and you'd have to accept that the reliable ones get to stay on the page. Not once have I said that because you have DID and Tom Cloyd treats DID you can't edit the page. I don't care. I just want you to focus on edits, policies, guidelines and sources, not contributors. Otherwise you're going to waste even more of your time on the talk page than you, and I, already do. And please stop refering to when I do things you like or don't. I don't care. You'll save both of us a lot of time if you actually replied to my substantive points. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Template:Activitas Nervosa Superior
2. Template:Journal of Trauma & Dissociation