I'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:
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Awarded to Tylas for her untiring responsiveness in the torrent of hostile chatter that has characterized the Talk:Dissociative_identity_disorder page in recent weeks, as well as her multiple valuable contributions to the article itself. Your knowledge of the literature is manifestly broad and deep, and your many ways of sharing this knowledge is an educational experience for all us who are capable of learning (and a missed wakeup call for all others!) Tom Cloyd (talk)00:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Civility Award
Awarded to Tylas for her unfailing politeness and good humor, in the face of a broad range of uncouth and completely uncalled-for responses and behavior, while working on the Wikipedia DID article. I've never before in my entire life seen such an impressive display of the power of "nice". Awesome, thought-provoking, and effective. Tom Cloyd (talk)00:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hi Tylas! Although you may not have a big number of edits, but you have been on Wikipedia for a long time and i feel that you can surely contribute your best here more often in many articles and other areas too! A nice editor with great potential and a good friend :). Hope to see you around more soon :) Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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!
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)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Heya Tylas! I am greatly happy and thankful to have received your sweet smile . You are one of those Wikipedians who always try to defuse conflicts, consistently lighten the mood and always make Wikipedia an Awesome place to be ! Keep up the great work by editing and improving Wikipedia like you always do as you have a great future ahead. I am confident that we both will strive and work together to make Wikipedia the best! Regards and Happy Editing!! TheGeneralUser (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 page15:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Awwww..... Thank you so much General User! I see you are editing the DID page too! I so welcome some unbiased help there! Thank you so much! Tanya ✫ ♥♫ 16:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Angel Heart Barnstar!
The Angel Heart Barnstar
Tylas I don't have enough words to thank you for your nice, friendly and sweet help you offer and do it for me many times! You always help me in good faith no matter if you know about something or not. I am overwhelmed and flattered by your kindness and willingness to help me and other people whenever possible :). We both as part of the Wikipedia community always try to make this a more better place to be which I'm proud of. Wish you all the best in your future work and life! Regards and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you dear. How is your user page project coming along? I should be on the computer all day writing away - if you need any assistance. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 17:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've put the user page project on hold for now, little busy schedule at the moment. If i need any assistance regarding this, I'll be sure to ping you. On the other hand, if you do require any help and assistance from me, feel free to message me. Regards. TheGeneralUser (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TheGeneralUser has given you a puppy! Puppies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your puppy must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a puppy, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of puppies by adding {{subst:Puppy}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message.
Again: You keep saying that these are the widely accepted experts. I'm willing to believe that, but I need something more than some random person on the Internet saying so. Do you, or don't you, have an actual WP:Independent source that says these are the experts and their guidelines are the ones that everyone agrees to use? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to WAID - We have to assume a basic familiarity with the field to argue this point. If you read the literature at all you know Kluft, Dell, Putnam, Howell, Steele, van der Hart, et al., not to mention Siegel and Schore are widely published in peer review books and academic press books. This is basic, and it's not my job to teach you this. Please, stop asking me for an independent source for the proposition that the earth is flat. You are expected to know this. This is an obvious ploy, that is obstructive and non-productive. Tanya ✫ ♥♫ 16:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that's not how Wikipedia works. If you want to say that they're the experts, "you're just supposed to know this" is insufficient. Asking for a source is not a ploy; it's a requirement of our WP:NOR policy.
So based on what we can actually prove in independent sources, this group is one point of view on DID. They are probably the most significant view, but we don't seem to have have any high-quality independent sources that say "they're the experts" or "they're right" or "they're the only ones you should trust".
So—this being the English Wikipedia, not the real world—you have to write the article from that standpoint. I, too, can say, "This is basic, and it's not my job to teach you this", but you're apparently not going to figure out how Wikipedia works if no one teaches you how Wikipedia works, so I'm at least trying:
Unless and until you can produce an good independent source that says the Journal of One POV is better/more widely accepted (by everyone, not just a small subset of professionals) than the Journal of the Other POV, then you have to treat both of these main conceptions of DID as being potentially accurate and worth respect in the article. You don't get to say "I just know that the Society For My Favorite POV is right" (and, importantly, neither does any editor who "just knows" that the other POV is right). You need to WP:Write for the enemy and make sure that the article fully, accurately, and properly reflects their POV. If you won't or can't do that, then I can suggest other wikis that might be a better match for you, but this is the requirement for articles at this wiki. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Wikipedia worries me
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)[reply]
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/complex18:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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/complex19:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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!
Wolf Love!
TheGeneralUser has given you a Wolf! Wolves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Wolves must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion and protecter forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a wolf, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of wolves by adding {{subst:Wolf}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
For all your hard work and dedication to Wikipedia and your never give up attitude, this Wolf is a gift from me to you :) A true and correct desire for anything good will eventually turn into success no matter how long it takes. See you soon! TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Thanksgiving :-)
TheGeneralUser (talk) wishes you a Happy Thanksgiving and hopes your day is full of good times, good food, good family, good football, a good parade and a good nap...then shopping tomorrow. :) Have a Great Day! :)
Spread the joy of Thanksgiving by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/HappyThanksgiving}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
.jpg?lang=en)
