User talk:Vanished user 54564fd56f45f4dsa5f4sf5
♫✫¸ℒℴνℯ.♥♫♥✫¸ℒℴνℯ.♥♫♥⋱.♥♫♥ ℒℴνℯ.♥♫♥⋱¸¸.·´¯`✫¸ℒℴνℯ.♥♫♥✫¸ℒℴνℯ.♥♫♥⋱✫.♥♫♥ ℒℴνℯ.♥♫♥
Please understand that even though the WP DID page says I have a bunch of edits there - I have none. Everything I ever did on the WP DID page has been changed, so please do not think I would ever write such a horrendous page. The couple of editors that work on the WP page find ways, by manipulating WP rules, to report that DID could be caused by literally anything including reading a book or watching a movie, even though the experts report that DID IS caused by childhood trauma. They also try and make the public believe that iatrogenic methods which can create a temporary personality state is actually DID! This is so Whacked! The NPOV rule on WP is often distorted as it is on the DID page and used to present fringe material as equal to mainstream consensus.
Sites I am working on: Dissociative Identity Disorder
⋱¸¸.·´¯`✫¸ℒℴνℯ.♥♫♥✫¸ℒℴνℯ.♥♥⋱ℒℴνℯ♫✫¸ℒℴνℯ.♥♫♥✫⋱¸¸¸ℒℴνℯ.♥♫♥⋱.♥♫♥ ℒℴνℯ.♥♫♥⋱¸⋱¸¸.
This is so good, even though it was not written for this site, I have to share it here. It was wrote by Tom Cloyd - who along with me was ran off the DID page on WP - at least for now. I at least will be back. Tom Cloyd detests WP and will never go near it again.
"I am a professional psychotherapist, and I treat DID. Wikipedia alarms me, for a number of reasons. Psychopathology is one of the most complex and demanding topics in psychology. Dissociative identity disorder is easily the most complex of the fundamentally non-organic psychopathologies. Why would anyone seriously consider non-expert sources on this topic as opportunities to provide "...cohesive, relevant, and informative..." knowledge? As for Wikipedia itself, its DID article is grossly inaccurate, distorted, and clearly biased. Major authoritative sources on the subject are simply ignored, in favor of biases which utterly lack research support. This is what you get when amateurs play experts. The distortions in this article have been around for years, and have never gone past the status of speculations. If you want fairy tales, look to the brothers Grimm. Science-based writing about psychopathology may or may not be in Wikipedia. If you're not an expert, you surely won't be able to determine the accuracy of a given Wikipedia article; if you are, why would you go there to read something produced by a bunch of anonymous amateurs? It just makes no sense to use these kinds of sources.
As for the consideration of DID and popular culture - why is this considered a topic of any importance? Any authoritative sources on this subject (and I know of none) will surely not be freely available online, but will be found in serious journals and books.
Excellent books, written by scholars and clinicians with well-established credentials, are readily available. I can highly recommend Putnam's <Diagnosis and treatment of multiple personality disorder> (20+ years old, but still superb), E. Howell's outstanding <Understanding and treating dissociative identity disorder> (2011), and of course the absolute magnum opus on this subject: Dell & O'Neil's <Dissociation and the dissociative disorders> (2009) - expensive but worth every cent." Tom Cloyd
| Nice things from people | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Awards - overdue and richly deservedI've been around Wikipedia for a while, but I've never before seen your rare combination of perspicacity and civility. I wanted to give recognition to your remarkable contributions to the ongoing struggle to make the Dissociative Identity Disorder article more correct and useful. When I entered into this struggle, I didn't expect to encounter someone with my level of passion and persistence for this subject. Surprise!!! I am continually amazed, delighted, and gratified by your contributions. It is a remarkable gift to the community, both small (Wikipedian - rather large, actually) and large (the rest of the blessed world!). I am well beyond grateful for what you do. I therefore have no choice but to award you TWO barnstars simultaneously (I've never seen this done before); to do less would be to perpetrate a misrepresentation of your value to us:
Awwwww.....! Thank you! I am blushing from head to toes! :) I got barn stars! I am so excited! ~ty (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
GOT IT! Milk cow barn, north of Everson, Washington [(c) Tom Cloyd]. (It was a bitterly cold day - Christmas eve, 2008.) Am deeding this to you. It needs more barnstars, though. Get back to work! Tom Cloyd (talk) 08:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Home barn of the wild Tylas Ha ha... you are too funny. -laughing- ~ty (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC) A kitten for you! thank you for all your hard work on wikipedia. your awesome. Unitybicycle (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Awwwww!! You are a sweetheart! Thank you! ~ty (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC) A barnstar for you!
Thank You! That is kind of you! I keep trying to edit the DID page and run into an obstacle. Maybe some day it will be more new editor friendly.~ty (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC) You Are a Superhero!
If they had an actual "Superhero" award, I would have given you that instead! Thank you so much! Daniel Santos (talk) 08:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Awwwww! You have made my morning. Each day I wake wondering if a "silencer" will be here to attack and instead I am greeting with a friend. :) ~ty (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Smiles for you! TheGeneralUser (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:User:Cowman109/Smile2}} or {{subst:User:Cowman109/Smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing! Just came around to say Hi :). Regards and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Awwww... this made my day! I never come to WP expecting anything good, but this is awesome! Are you the same Generaluser that has worked on the DID page before? If so, this is probably a sympathy smile. ;) ~ty (talk) 04:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC) A barnstar for you!
Oh! You are a sweetheart! Thank you so much! I am trying really hard to make a little corner of WP an accurate place for people to get their information. Tanya~talk page 15:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC) A Rose for you! :)
The Angel Heart Barnstar!
Awwwww.... how sweet! You are a dear! Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 20:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Refreshing Bubble Tea and Juice for Tylas!
|
.jpg?lang=en)
| Content expert banned |
|---|
content expert bannedTylas, I'm sorry to see you go, though I definitely understand if that is your choice. If you feel you can, it may be worth dropping by the administrators' noticeboard one last time to register a formal "Oppose" vote. All the best. —danhash (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC) I will continue to monitor the admin board, of course, until this is resolved, but I realize that no one is going to be able to ever edit the DID page as long as WLU is there. I noticed your posts there and like them! You are awesome! ~ty (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I will pop in once in a while and see if I can edit anything. In the past 2 editors (you know who) dive in almost as soon as I post something to delete it and argue it.~ty (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC) |
| Child protection on WP |
|---|
Child protection policy on WP Hello Tanya. I am a member of the Arbitration Committee for the English Wikipedia. Among other tasks, Arbcom has a role in handling allegations related to child protection issues. I see that you have had some recent edits deleted by an admin. I also see that you were informed back in February that it was inappropriate to make allegations of this kind on wiki, and that there was a procedure to follow if you had concerns. If you did not intend those comments to sound the way they did, please be more careful in future. If it occurs again, it is likely that you will be blocked. If you have genuine concerns about individual editors, please follow the procedure in Wikipedia:Child protection contains details of the appropriate way to report potential child protection issues. If you have any queries, please feel free to email me or talk to your mentor. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
|
| Randy from Boise |
|---|
Randy from BoiseYes, topic banning TomCloyd was unfortunate. He knows a great deal about the subject, but got caught out by how to handle opposition to his edits. There is an amusing essay Randy in Boise about the dark side of Wikipedia's attitude to expert editors, which you may feel has some relevance here.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” - Isaac Asimov |
Psychology - Dissociative Identity Disorder
 | This is a WikiProject, an area for focused collaboration among Wikipedians. New participants are welcome; please feel free to participate!
|
| What's going on with the DID WP page |
|---|
A View of what's going on at the DID pageThe world's top researchers in DID report that there is no actual research for the SCM. The expert consensus presents 3 models for DID etiology and the SCM is not one of them. There is no empirical support for the SCM. pdf fileGo here for in-depth information on this problem at WP. Reference: Guidelines for Treating Dissociative Identity Disorder in Adults, third revision. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation. 12:2, 2011 (2011). The full pdf file is online for free. WP Rules that I think are important here:
This is the consensus statement of the international professional association for clinicians and researchers into trauma and dissociation disorders. There is no competing or contending association. There is no competing consensus statement. If anyone wishes to dispute importance they may do so, but your opinion (or mine) is not of value here - as we are not experts on DID. Any sources you may cite will also just be opinions, albeit published ones; the proponents of the SCM have no data. There is nothing to empirically resolve, as there is no empirical support for the SCM. The "belief" of the authors supporting the SC motel, is all you have. Science is not about belief, it is about data. They have none. The models approved by the expert consensus on DID have plenty, and the opinion of the centrist consensus is that the data indicate the validity of the traumagenic model. That is the fact, and that's what we must report. Since the DSM-III, DID has been attributed to trauma, in statements which express probability, not certainty. Science is never about certainty, but rather about degrees of probability. The consistent statement of the DSM is that DID is most likely caused by childhood trauma. The DSM does make explicit statements. It is mainstream because it is the professional association for the topic. Again, this is obvious. There is no conflict here. The expert consensus statement clearly explains the mainstream expert consensus on DID. There are a number of criticisms of it, as there are of the DSM, the Jewish Bible, the Christian Bible, the US Constitution, UN Charter, ad infinitum. To assert that there is no consensus because there is [[1]] is to misunderstand the nature of the word. When I consult Webster's Third New International Dictionary (unabridged), it is clear that current usage allows "consensus" to mean a number of things, and there is conflict (lack of consensus) as to which meaning is preferred. It can mean unanimity. It can also mean majority. The central thrust of the definition given is "general agreement" or "collective opinion". You can lean on which ever flavor of the cited usages support your POV, can you not? |
| 2011 Expert Consensus Statement on DID |
|---|
Expert consensus statement on Dissociative Identity Disorder - 2011
|
| The Expert Consensus on DID |
|---|
The Expert consensus on DID
• "...alternate identities result from the inability of many traumatized children to develop a unified sense of self that is maintained across various behavioral states, particularly if the traumatic exposure first occurs before the age of 5. These difficulties often occur in the context of relational or attachment disruption that may precede and set the stage for abuse and the development of dissociative coping." "Fragmentation and encapsulation of traumatic experiences may serve to protect relationships with important (though inadequate or abusive) caregivers and allow for more normal maturation in other developmental areas, such as intellectual, interpersonal, and artistic endeavors. In this way, early life dissociation may serve as a type of developmental resiliency factor despite the severe psychiatric disturbances that characterize DID patients." "Severe and prolonged traumatic experiences can lead to the development of discrete, personified behavioral states (i.e., rudimentary alternate identities) in the child, which has the effect of encapsulating intolerable traumatic memories, affects, sensations, beliefs, or behaviors and mitigating their effects on the child’s overall development. "...disturbed caregiver–child attachments and parenting further disrupt the child’s ability to integrate experiences" Secondary structuring of these discrete behavioral states occurs over time through a variety of developmental and symbolic mechanisms, resulting in the characteristics of the specific alternate identities. The identities may develop in number, complexity, and sense of separateness as the child proceeds through latency, adolescence, and adulthood." (p.122-123) pdf file
• ...posits that the development of DID requires the presence of four factors: (a) the capacity for dissociation; (b) experiences that overwhelm the child’s nondissociative coping capacity; (c)secondary structuring of DID alternate identities with individualized characteristics such as names, ages, genders; and (d) a lack of soothing and restorative experiences, which renders the child isolated or abandoned and needing to find his or her own ways of moderating distress. The secondary structuring of the alternate identities may differ widely from patient to patient. Factors that may foster the development of highly elaborate systems of identities are multiple traumas, multiple perpetrators, significant narcissistic investment in the nature and attributes of the alternate identities, high levels of creativity and intelligence, and extreme withdrawal into fantasy, among others." (p.122-123) pdf file
• "This theory suggests that dissociation results from a basic failure to integrate systems of ideas and functions of the personality. Following exposure to potentially traumatizing events, the personality as a whole system can become divided into an “apparently normal part of the personality” dedicated to daily functioning and an “emotional part of the personality” dedicated to defense. Defense in this context is related to psychobiological functions of survival in response to life threat, such as fight/flight, not to the psychodynamic notion of defense. It is hypothesized that chronic traumatization and/or neglect can lead to secondary structural dissociation and the emergence of additional emotional parts of the personality." (p.123) pdf file
• "In short, these developmental models posit that DID does not arise from a previously mature, unified mind or “core personality” that becomes shattered or fractured. Rather, DID results from a failure of normal developmental integration caused by overwhelming experiences and disturbed caregiver–child interactions (including neglect and the failure to respond) during critical early developmental periods. This, in turn, leads some traumatized children to develop relatively discrete, personified behavioral states that ultimately evolve into the DID alternate identities. (p.123) pdf file Tanya~talk page 23:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC) |
| Consensus on Dissociative Identity Disorder is published on p.123 |
|---|
There is a consensus on Dissociative Identity Disorder, and it's been published. (p.123)Everyone please understand beyond this point - it is pure mud. We are getting away from the topic, and I hate to contribute to that [[3]], but here is my reply to WAID anyway. The journal is published by the international professional society for research on and treatment of dissociative disorders. There is certainly disagreement in that group, but there is also a consensus, and it's been published. (p.123) pdf file Everyone of any significance in the field - who actually does research and/or treatment of dissociative disorders including DID, is a member and/or uses the publications of the ISSTD. The experts are the actual expert clinicians and researchers who write on and study DID - and they are all members of the ISSTD - Ross, Dell, Kluft, Putnam, Steele, van der Hart, Nijenhuis, etc. Having published a dissenting POV does not make you an expert. The dissenters have opinions. The experts have data. It's that simple. Clearly I have scholarly support for my position, whereas your support could be used to lift a large balloon. Is there a professional society for those who hold beliefs that have no empirical support whatsoever? If so, give it's name. All editions of the DSM since the MPD/DID diagnosis first appears in the DSM have said what the DSM-III-R says, one way or another: "...in nearly all cases, the disorder has been preceded by abuse (often sexual) or another form of severe emotional trauma in childhood." (p. 271) That position has never been deviated from, and the DSM-5 appears highly likely to take exactly the same position. If that isn't consensus to you, then you fail to grasp the meaning of the word. Tanya~(t) 01:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC) |
| Pseudoseizures common in DID |
|---|
Pseudoseizures - PNES (Common in Dissociative Identity Disorder)I ran across this and thought some of you might be interested. This is what a pseudoseizure (PNES) looks like - they clearly are not a neurological event, as there is too much variation, and the pattern is wrong. It will probably be listed in the DSM 5 as: "With prominent non-epileptic seizures and/or other sensory-motor (functional neurologic) symptoms" http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1184694-clinical |
| Peer review for DID |
|---|
Peer review for Dissociative Identity DisorderThose of you watching, this morning Mathew has again entered the debate as can be seen on the [Peer Review page]. Even with all the evidence I have presented he has still stated that "we are polarized 2:1 with one editor insisting that International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation (ISSTD) as "the experts" and their journal Journal of Trauma and Dissociation and their Guidelines as the only correct source." What I have actually said is that beyond the expert consensus I presented of the ISSTD, please note that all editions of the DSM since the MPD/DID diagnosis first appears in the DSM have said what the DSM-III-R says, one way or another: "...in nearly all cases, the disorder has been preceded by abuse (often sexual) or another form of severe emotional trauma in childhood." (p. 271) That position has never been deviated from, and the DSM-5 appears highly likely to take exactly the same position. That is consensus. Beyond this, the expert consensus is that there is no actual research on the sociocognitive method. This dissenting view, with no research, is just speculation. The expert consensus in DID reports that there is no actual research for the SCM. With no research support, any alternative ideas are just speculations. (p.123-124)pdf file How much more clear can it get that that! There is an expert consensus of the causes of DID. Editors personal opinions do not matter. Only the expert consensus which is described by the DSM and the 2011 Treatment Guidelines. Tanya (t) 14:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
|
| The DSM and DID |
|---|
The DSM and Dissociative Identity Disorder
Reply to WAID - All psychologists receive basically the same training in how memory works. They all know it is not perfectly reliable. They all know that it can be implanted, and tell entirely fictitious stories. But to say that is not to say that it typically is, or that there is any evidence that any significant number of trauma victims possess such illusory memory. Competent therapists all know that the question of the accuracy of client memory is inappropriate in psychotherapy. It is a non-issue. Ross covers this well in his 2009 book, and he's not the only one who's written about this. What is striking is that virtually all DID victims tell stories of childhood abuse, and that this has been consistently true from the beginning of the consideration of the diagnosis. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 14:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC) |
| Experts on DID |
|---|
Some of the experts on DIDAs a courtesy, here is a list to start with: 2011 REVISED Adult Guidelines Guidelines for Treating Dissociative Identity Disorder in Adults, third revision. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation. 12:2, 2011 guidelines written by top people in the field of DID: Chu, Dell, van der Hart, Cardena, Barach, Somer, Loewenstein, Brand, Golston, Courtois, Bowman, Classen, Dorahy, Sar, Gelinas, Fine, Paulsen, Kluft, Dalenbert, Jacobson-Ley, Nijenhuis, Boon, Chefetz, Middleton, Ross, Howell, Goodwin, Coons, Frankel, Steele, Gold, Gast, Young and Twomby. Members of the Standards of Practice Committee were Peter M. Barach, PhD (Chair), Elizabeth S. Bowman, MD, Catherine G. Fine, PhD, George Ganaway, MD, Jean Goodwin, MD, Sally Hill, PhD, Richard P. Kluft, MD, Richard J. Loewenstein, MD, Rosalinda O’Neill, MA, Jean Olson, MSN, Joanne Parks, MD, Gary Peterson, MD, and Moshe Torem, MD. Members of the 2005 Guidelines DSM Revision Task Force included James A. Chu, MD (Chair), Richard Loewenstein, MD, Paul F. Dell, PhD, Peter M. Barach, PhD, Eli Somer, PhD, Richard P. Kluft, MD, Denise J. Gelinas, PhD, Onno van der Hart, PhD, Constance J. Dalenberg, PhD, Ellert R. S. Nijenhuis, PhD, Elizabeth S. Bowman, MD, Suzette Boon, PhD, Jean Goodwin, MD, Mindy Jacobson, ATR, Colin A. Ross, MD, Vedat ¸Sar, MD, Catherine G. Fine, PhD, A. Steven Frankel, PhD, Philip M. Coons, MD, Christine A. Courtois, PhD, Steven N. Gold, PhD, and Elizabeth Howell, PhD. Members of the 2010 Guidelines Task Force included James A. Chu, MD (Chair), Paul F. Dell, PhD, Onno van der Hart, PhD, Etzel Cardeña, PhD, Peter M. Barach, PhD, Eli Somer, PhD, Richard J. Loewenstein, MD, Bethany Brand, PhD, Joan C. Golston, DCSW, LICSW, Christine A. Courtois, PhD, Elizabeth S. Bowman, MD, Catherine Classen, PhD, Martin Dorahy, PhD, Vedat ¸Sar, MD, Denise J. Gelinas, PhD, Catherine G. Fine, PhD, Sandra Paulsen, PhD, Richard P. Kluft, MD, Constance J. Dalenberg, PhD, Mindy Jacobson-Levy, ATR, Ellert R. S. Nijenhuis, PhD, Suzette Boon, PhD, Richard A. Chefetz, MD, Warwick Middleton, MD, Colin A. Ross, MD, Elizabeth Howell, PhD, Jean Goodwin, MD, Philip M. Coons, MD, A. Steven Frankel, PhD, Kathy Steele, MN, CS, Steven N. Gold, PhD, Ursula Gast, MD, Linda M. Young, MD, and Joanne Twombly, MSW, LICSW. |
| Dissociative Identity Disorder basics |
|---|
Dissociative Identity Disorder basics
|
| Disorganized attachment and DID |
|---|
Review: Abuse alone is not, in fact, predictive of DID (disorganized attachment)"The incidence of dissociative identity disorder (DID) is strongly correlated with exposure to serious physical and sexual abuse. Although studies of more than 1,000 DID sufferers indicate that severe child abuse is a predisposing factor in 95% to 98% of cases (B. Braun, 1988), abuse alone is not, in fact, predictive of DID. Disorganized/disoriented attachment style and the absence of social and familial support, in combination with abuse history, best predict DID. Individuals who are securely attached are less likely to develop serious psychopathology in the event of abuse and are more likely to build a strong extrafamilial system of support--also a protective factor against psychopathology. Recognition of the significance of secure attachment and familial and social support as protective factors against the development of DID suggests social intervention as an important area of research to mitigate the psychological consequences of insecure attachment, social disconnection, and abuse." What it's saying of course, is that the effect size (correlation-squared, or the amount of dependent variable variance accounted for by the independent variable - abuse is too low, which usually means that we don't have all the variables involved, or enough of them. They show that in a wide range of situations, when there is attachment, and any real degree of family support, all sorts of major stressers seem to be significantly damped. This is not news, but it is in a recent review.Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 21:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC) |
Comments on any of the above?
Show me the evidence that the SCM is accepted by mainstream expert consensus
- Reply to WAID - Show me what evidence you have that the the SCM is accepted by the mainstream consensus of experts please. Your argument does not appear rational to me. Show me your evidence. I do not believe there is any, and what happens in that case historically, is that the minority/fringe POV falters and fades with no actual demonstrable truth or research to back it up. The expert consensus, on the other hand, is simply able to do more, and thus the culture as a whole listens to them. That is how these battles are won. I have complete faith in that - even on WP.
- Writing for the enemy - What I say keeps getting lost in all the banter - I do not see the SCM as the enemy. It simply has no research to support the opinions presented. I do not care how DID is caused. I only care that the correct information is presented. I have never argued against having a paragraph in the DID article about the minority POV's concerning DID, what I argue is having minority/fringe POV's presented as equal to the mainstream expert consensus. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 14:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
| The Latest Science about the Mind, the Brain and Relationships |
|---|
|
Learn from a MASTER! Dr. Dan Siegel's Mindsight Lecture Series: The Latest Science about the Mind, the Brain and Relationships I so wish I could go to this, but just spreading the date so those that can attend will. October 12, 2012 - June 7, 2013 in Santa Monica, CA CE Credits Topics: Lecture 1: Mindsight in Politics Lectures 2 & 3: Practical Applications: Strengthening the Mind Lecture 4: The Teen Brain Lecture 5: Connecting to our Parents Across the Lifespan Lecture 6: Trauma and Attachment Lecture 7: Thriving with Uncertainty in Life Lecture 8: Mindsight at Work Lecture 9: Mindsight in the Media Lecture 10: How Relationships Promote Health and Happiness |
==== Taℓk tℴ mℯ ♥♫✫⋱¸¸.·´¯`✫¸¸ℒινℯ♥⋱¸¸.·´¯`¸¸✫♫♥ಌ⋱⋱¸¸.·´ಌ¯`¸¸¸¸✫ℒℴνℯ✫⋱¸¸.·´¯`¸¸✫ಌ♥♫♥⋱¸¸.·´¯`✫¸¸¸ℬℯℓιℯνℯ ♡♥⋱¸¸¸¸ℒινℯ ಌ ℒℴνℯ ಌ ℬℯℓιℯvℯ
Lol
Love Jimmy popping in - looks like you've made yourself right at home.
In case you didn't know, instead of hatting stuff (which still contributes to pageload times), you can archive it to a subpage eg User talk:Tylas/Archive1 by just cutting and pasting. It's OK to do that even if it contains other people's posts to your talkpage. WP:ARCHIVE has more information. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
He he.... Yeah, he is great! That is a perfect solution that I can live with! After this DID mess is all revolved, I will do that, but until then, I like everything in one place so I (and anyone) can easily find it! Everything on this page right now is important to the goal of getting the DID page right! You made my day. I come to WP expecting to be hit on head with a ten-pound hammer, but instead I am met with a laugh! I love it! Thank you for making my WP day brighter! Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 15:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I will be back soon
I will be back to WP later. I need to finish a couple of other projects first, then I will bring my argument here in full force. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 16:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- If you do return to the DID page, almost certainly my first action in response will be to pull the DID section out of the dispute resolution noticeboard archive since the issues brought up there were not addressed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Reply to WLU Such threats. The first item on my agenda will be to present my argument to the dispute resolution noticeboard! Any other way you will simply delete or revert any and all edits I make, just like you always have and keep me isolated on the talk pages. I look forward to presenting my argument at the noticeboard! That in fact, is my MAIN goal in returning. I am almost ready.
The second item on my agenda is the behavior noticeboard. I will pull out all the swearing and attacks you have made towards me since I started to work on the DID page and every attempt you have made to keep me from editing that page. I will present your looking me up off WP (before I gave up and just made it visible) - the many bold attempts you have made to run me off.
I will be back. I have done nothing wrong. You on the other-hand have attacked me and just about anyone who has tried to edit the DID page until they go.
Finally I will present THE argument - the consensus of the experts on DID!
All this arguing you do and you don't even understand the most basic bit of information which is that a person cannot have more than one personality. All your copy and pasting (with minor changes) things you have taken out of context from articles, and your cherry picking of certain literature, rather than mainstream consensus - makes the DID page is a distorted POV disaster. What is most comical is how you can present an argument that reading a book and watching a movie create DID! This is almost as funny as your argument that poor therapy, resulting in a temporary personality state, is the same as DID
Friendly bit of advice Because you claimed that you were going to withdraw from the DID page the consensus was to follow WP:MEDRS. The DRN thread was closed with that consensus. You will first need to challenge the existing consensus on the article's talk page before you bring it up to DRN. Second, your repeated challanges on the exact same vein in addition to loudly proclaiming that you're leaving the article space (only to come back shortly thereafter) appears to be a cross between WP:IDHT and WP:DIVA. Please consider if adding to the topic is appropriate for the amount of personal anguish you appear to have in respect to the issue. Hasteur (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but I never said I was going to withdraw from the DID page. I cannot just leave an article to present such bull. Sorry. The problem is that I have not been allowed to work on the article. I will gladly argue anything you want to throw at me - in my time frame! I am a busy person. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 19:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- So, just to make sure I am sure I understand... The statement you made at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_47#Dissociative_identity_disorder is not your intent? Using the flag of retiring or other ways of giving up and then returning to the area of conflict once the scrutiny has left is deceptive, rude, and against the guideline of AGF. I strongly suggest you re-think your return to the article. Wikipedia is not here to correct great injustices, or to bring the "truth" to the world at large, or to promote fringe ideas regarding science. As I've now yeilded the neutral ground in contacting you twice and giving you advice about your impending return I will give my viewpoint should the issue come up at a content or conduct noticeboard. Hasteur (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I did not mean to be rude and it's interesting what is found to be rude on WP and what is acceptable behavior. What is WP for? In the case of the DID article it is, and has been a vehicle to push fringe ideas. Is WP just a social environment where the in-crowd can keep pushing everyone else out. I get your point. You think I am wrong to try and present accurate information on the DID page.
- Just to be clear, the position Tylas espouses regarding DID, that it is caused by childhood trauma, is not fringe. It is quite mainstream, in popular discourse and in the scientific discourse. The central dispute is essentially that she considers it to be the sole, or only noteworthy position such that it is undue weight to discuss the sociocognitive model at length or except to dismiss it. The actual dispute is that she considers the SCM to be a fringe theory, and I vehemently disagree, citing the large number of scientific papers supporting the SCM as evidence. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
DID is caused by childhood trauma - the experts say this is so. WLU and Mathew are not experts. I am not an expert. It does not matter what any of us think. Just because a few skeptics think you can actually get DID from reading a book or watching a movie and they can wrap that idea with scientific language and get a paper written now and again - (remember this SGM POV has NO RESEARCH to back it up -ZILCH! NONE! NATA!) - does not mean that it is an expert opinion. It is simply an opinion of someone in the field of psychology. So what!
If you had heart disease, who do you consider the knowledge of an expert - a cardiologist (preferably one of the very best in the field) or a general practitioner. Would you accept the arguments of the GP against the consensus of cardiologists - those that live and breath cardiology, that attend seminars, read all research on the subject, who work with those with heart disease and who consider every aspect of cardiology? I sure hope not, yet that is what you are demanding we do here on WP with DID. The idea of being an expert on a subject is they know the subject they are talking about BETTER THAN ANYONE! There is a group called American Cardiology where those who join share what they study. Would you consider that a bogus group because skeptics of the disorder do not join it? Keep in mind that the ISSTD is THE INTERNATIONAL group that studies DID and other trauma related disorders. Do you get the idea here?
The text below was not written for this site, but when I read it elsewhere I had to ask Tom Cloyd permission to share it on WP. This brought me back to WP ahead of my schedule - since the study I will present (that will lay this argument with WLU to rest once and for all) is not yet complete. Tom Cloyd who was ran off the DID page on WP detests WP now and will never go near it again - which from what I read is the case with many content experts.
- "I am a professional psychotherapist, and I treat DID. Wikipedia alarms me, for a number of reasons. Psychopathology is one of the most complex and demanding topics in psychology. Dissociative identity disorder is easily the most complex of the fundamentally non-organic psychopathologies. Why would anyone seriously consider non-expert sources on this topic as opportunities to provide "...cohesive, relevant, and informative..." knowledge? As for Wikipedia itself, its DID article is grossly inaccurate, distorted, and clearly biased. Major authoritative sources on the subject are simply ignored, in favor of biases which utterly lack research support. This is what you get when amateurs play experts. The distortions in this article have been around for years, and have never gone past the status of speculations. If you want fairy tales, look to the brothers Grimm. Science-based writing about psychopathology may or may not be in Wikipedia. If you're not an expert, you surely won't be able to determine the accuracy of a given Wikipedia article; if you are, why would you go there to read something produced by a bunch of anonymous amateurs? It just makes no sense to use these kinds of sources.
- As for the consideration of DID and popular culture - why is this considered a topic of any importance? Any authoritative sources on this subject (and I know of none) will surely not be freely available online, but will be found in serious journals and books.
- Excellent books, written by scholars and clinicians with well-established credentials, are readily available. I can highly recommend Putnam's <Diagnosis and treatment of multiple personality disorder> (20+ years old, but still superb), E. Howell's outstanding <Understanding and treating dissociative identity disorder> (2011), and of course the absolute magnum opus on this subject: Dell & O'Neil's <Dissociation and the dissociative disorders> (2009) - expensive but worth every cent." Tom Cloyd
I will present all this above in a table. It will take me some more time, but when those who are doing it are done, there will be no doubt as to who exactly are the experts on DID. This debate to be continued upon completion of that project.
One more point to add - I do not care who fixes the DID article, as along as it is accurate and does not report minority skeptical POV's with equal weight as that of the mainstream expert consensus. The minotiry skeptics need to be reduced to one paragraph.
WLU, I would love it if you did this! I do respect your IQ and your talents as a WP editor, but you do need to report the expert consensus on the WP DID page.
WikiWomen's Collaborative
Hi Tylas! I just wanted to let you know that the WikiWomen's Collaborative have launched! You can read all about it on this quick blog that I wrote! Do be sure to participate in the Facebook page and Twitter if you can, and suggest that your friends do as well. If you'd like to be a made an admin on Facebook, just let me know! Also, we've got our own blog channel now, so let's start getting those blogs rolling :) Happy to have you involved - let's do this! SarahStierch (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Sarah, I would love to help, but right now I need to get something settled on the DID page. Anything I edit in the meantime, I am just hounded and I don't want to bring that to this wonderful project. After I get my information together and fight the battle on the DID page, I will be more than happy to help out!