User talk:Forgottenfaces/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Forgottenfaces, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 08:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

What to do if you see edit warring behavior

If an edit war develops, participants should try to discuss the issue on the talk page and work things out.

It is better to seek help in addressing the issue than to engage in edit warring over it. When disagreement becomes apparent, one, both, or all participants should cease warring and try to discuss the issue on the talk page, or approach appropriate venues for help. Other alternative approaches recommended within the community are suggested below.

If, despite trying, one or more users will not cease edit warring, refuse to work collaboratively or heed the information given to them, or will not move on to appropriate dispute resolution, then a request for administrative involvement via a report at the Edit war/3RR noticeboard is the norm. A warning is not required, but if the user appears unaware that edit warring is prohibited, they can be told about this policy by posting a {{uw-3rr}} template message on their user talk page. Avoid posting a generic warning template if actively involved in the edit war, it can be seen as aggressive. Consider writing your own note to the user specifically appropriate for the situation, with a view to explicitly cooling things down.

ORIENTATION

• User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles
• Wikipedia:Ignore all rules
• Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia in brief
• Wikipedia:Five pillars
• Wikipedia:The role of policies in collaborative anarchy

POLICIES & GUIDELINES

• Editing policies and guidelines
  • Wikipedia:Non-free content
  • Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria
  • Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline
• Core content policies
  • Wikipedia:No original research - talks about primary, secondary, tertiary sources
  • Wikipedia:Verifiability
  • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

WRITING

• Wikipedia:Editor's index to Wikipedia
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style
  • Wikipedia:Accessibility
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility
• Wikipedia:Article development
  • Wikipedia:Layout
  • Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources
  • Wikipedia:Article size
• Help:Wiki_markup
  • Wikipedia:Cheatsheet -
  • Wikipedia:Linking
  • Wikipedia:Bare URLs
• CITATIONS - general
  • Wikipedia:Citing sources
    • Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners
    • Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners with citation templates
    • Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners without using templates
    • Help:Citations quick reference
    • Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style
    • Wikipedia:Citation templates
• CITATIONS - APA - Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing

REVISION

• Wikipedia:Template messages
• Inline cleanup temmplates flagging problems needing attention.

Question

Hi FF,

Do you actually have access to Carson et al.? If not, making edits like this can be problematic. Does Carson verify the entire table? Or just the last point? I was under the impression that you didn't have the book (feel free to correct me) and if not, these kind of edits can cause the page to stray further and further from the source. We're better off replacing it rather than trying to modify it to something more appropriate.

If you do have access to Carson, most of my concerns are addressed but I wouldn't mind if you could type out the relevant section if it's short. If not, I'll try to get the book from a library. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right, I don't know what I was thinking and thought of it right before you messaged me. I'll revert it, I was trying to just reword it but got ahead of myself. Apologies. Forgotten Faces (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Returning it to the original version put in back in October, 2008, might be best (see my latest post on talk:DID about that section). I'm not saying the idea that torture to induce DID can't be included, but I don't think we can use Carson to verify. Then even muddier questions arise about how to integrate it, with how much text...is it a current belief? Is it a historical anachorism? Do all therapists believe this? A minority? A tiny minority? How many publish about it?!?!?!?!? It goes on and on. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I have no problem with that, it's pretty useless anyway as it is. I'm sure there's a decent amount written about developmental theory out there, maybe I can find some sources. Seems like the section could be done a lot more justice. Forgotten Faces (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I'm actually glad we went through this whole exercise, it's a lot of work but a bad bit of information gets resolved. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Found it :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

ISSTD research

Hi there! I've been looking for material on ISSTD that is NOT on the website. After about 45 minutes, I have nothing at all. This is a little surprising. It's very late, and I'll have to try again tomorrow. This may turn out to be a tough project!Tom Cloyd (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There are sources, see here. These might be enough to pass notability, depends on how many deletionists arrive at the debate. I would suggest taking the different names for the ISSTD found in the last source (Dell & O'Neil) and plugging them back into google books (and google scholar might work too). If you can't see any of the previews, I would try signing up for a google account (gmail for instance). Normally I believe your preview limit is a pool split between different people with the same IP address - I think having a google account gets around that. I'm often able to preview pages others' can't, and I'm always signed into my gmail account. I'm thinking this is causal.

If you have any questions about formatting, references or research, feel free to drop me a line. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both! I should have some time later to go through all this stuff and hopefully write a decent little stub (maybe more). Good start with your references, WLU. :) Forgotten Faces (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Question. I know we need outside sources to prove notability, but can I include info from the website for basic things like it being a non-profit org, and when it was founded, etc? Or is this a bad idea until it passes any notability snafus? Thanks. Forgotten Faces (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Notability comes first. I recommend writing up the page and shoehorning in any sources you can, and once that's done then I would start expanding details about the ISSTD itself. Otherwise your work may be wasted if the page is deleted. The ISSTD webpage can't indicate be used to indicate notability, but once other sources (such as the ones currently on your sandbox page) demonstrate it is notable, the ISSTD's own writings can be used to expand it with noncontroversial content. Controversial content is better dealt with using independent sources, though in my opinion a good way of dealing with issues like these is claim-counterclaim (if such counterclaims can be found in RS). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm starting to write some text down using the style cheat sheet, but I am totally lost to how to do inline references... I marked some sources with [1] and [2] based on the list put at the end of the article... I have no idea what I'm doing, but I'm trying. I have no real research experience, either, so I'm going to make tons of mistakes I'm sure. Feel free to fix and let me know why you did so so I can learn. Thanks! :) Forgotten Faces (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendations, makes sense to get it started and wait before diving in completely to avoid wasted work. Forgotten Faces (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so I did figure out the reference thing. I think. Forgotten Faces (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest replacing the {{fact}} tag (which puts your sandbox into a category) with a reference drawn from the ISSTD. You'll need that information anyway and I would be the page, with those references integrated, will squeak by WP:N. I'd vote delete, but I'm a deletionist and most of the community is not.

I've removed two paragraph breaks. If you hit enter once, you move your cursor down a line, but the actual text displays on the same line on the actual page (i.e. instead of being a paragraph break, it acts like a single space from hitting the spacebar). The result was a space between your period and your reference, and the subsequent reference. If you want an actual paragraph break, you need to hit enter twice, or use the <p> markup. Otherwise, a good start. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I was having problems finding a decent description of the organization so I wanted to remind myself I needed to find something better. That was the main reason I asked about quoting the ISSTD in the first place. So I will do that. Thanks for cleaning up the formatting, too. Forgotten Faces (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I genuinely enjoy both explaining the technicalities of editing, and figuring out when, where and why the software does weird things. Please feel free to ask me any question. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The journal of trauma and dissociation is published 5x/year per Taylor & Francis Online. Can I link to that as a citation? I'm not sure, maybe I can find that info somewhere else or should just remove it. Forgotten Faces (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a legit citation (use {{cite web}}) for the fact that ti's published 5x/year (which is itself a useful fact), but as a fact it does not establish notability. I'd say leave it in with a citation, but the best use of your time would still probably be focussing on WP:N. Three further general comments:

1. I suggest using {{reflist}} rather than <references/>. It's got some extra built-in functionality and you don't have to remember where the slash goes.
2. Rather than having four or five sources for a single point, really work to spread them out as much as possible. Notability is part "do citations exist" and part "what do they say". Saying the ISSTD used to be called whatever is a useful fact for an existing page but doesn't really help with notability. Saying "The ISSTD is the premiere clearinghouse for information on trauma and dissasociation" would help pass N. Saying "The ISSTD was one of the major players in the 'Memory Wars' of the mid-90s scientific literature" would too. Part of notability is demonstrating how the article's topic has impacted history, science or society at large. Sorry if this seems vague, notability can be slippy and the emphasis on independent sources doesn't really help. It's simply not enough to include citations, they have to indicate something noteworthy. More research would help, if you have trouble with this sort of thing, I can try helping you out digging up more sources. The peer reviewed literature might be a good place to look, but they're harder to get your hands on.
3. If you're re-using the same reference (and for a book, on the same page) you would use the <ref name = "name###">{{cite journal | whatever = whatever}}</ref> tag. You replace the name### with a letter or number combination that makes sense (i.e. <ref name = "Smith2008">, and keep the quotes) and subsequent uses of the reference uses <ref name = "name###"/>. Note the front slash, that's what is important in subsequent appearances. The ref name and citation template has to appear at least once on the page, but every other citation is the ref name tag plus forward slash only (<ref name = "Smith2008"/>). Clear as mud? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I think I cited it correctly. Good learning exercise. :) I definitely need some help with how it has impacted history, but I will look for sure. And I'll look into spreading the references and all of that as well. I'm going to give my brain a little break before diving in again. Thanks again for all your time, I will understand as I do it with the info you gave me. It's actually pretty clear despite being a lot to tell me. Forgotten Faces (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind the additions. It's your sandbox, so you've almost total control over it. If you'd prefer, I can simply suggest improvements rather than making them directly. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I definitely appreciate it, go ahead and do them yourself. I'm trying to add something that should help with notability, in theory anyway. It is definitely looking much better in any case. Thanks! Forgotten Faces (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I've started work on another page now so I'll be leaving it be for a bit. Based on what it looks like now, I'm 90% sure it'd pass a deletion debate unless a ton of deletionists showed up by freak chance. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate it. I should stop for the night as well. Forgotten Faces (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This source says it was founded in 1983, and all of the other sources I've read (and referenced) say 1984. Any idea why? Forgotten Faces (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I would go with 1983 since that is what the ISSTD says themselves, but I would look into why so many say 1984. Your organization, the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation (ISSTD), founded in 1983, is dedicated to addressing the effects of repeated abuse and trauma.~ty (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It actually says "resolved to found" and held the first conference in December of '83. A wording close to that would work in my opinion, it would be helpful if someone could figure out what happened in 1984 that so many people cite it. If the timeline is "Dinner in '83 and decision to create an association, conference in December, incorporated in 1984", that explains the discrepancies - but you need a source. I'd suggest sticking with 1984 in the lead since numerous independent sources use that date but going into more detail in the body for the nuances. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You might want to try filling out the {{Infobox organization}} (probably one of the sub-templates at the bottom might be more appropriate). Good practice digging up info and you get to play with a template. Makes the page look more polished too. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I will try that later today. I am trying to find something that mentions the ISSTD's guidelines for treating DID. They are widely used in the field so I'm sure there are some articles/books that reference using them or how good/bad they are, etc, and that would certainly be a notable thing. Please WLU or someone else, if you can find anything add it or let me know. Thanks Forgotten Faces (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I need some help with references. See the page writeup. I need citations about the guidelines on DID being in widespread use and also more info on the memory wars it was involved with in the 90s (see notes on the page itself). If anyone can help, please do. Feel free to add references yourself. Thanks. I am working on this tonight for several hours and I hope it to be near finished (enough to submit) by then. Forgotten Faces (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I am also going to change the founding to only include notable past presidents (preferably that have a wiki page themselves, like Ross). Forgotten Faces (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Your article has been moved to AfC space

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Forgottenfaces/International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

FF, I ran across this ref. Not sure if you used it or want to, but I thought it was interesting. ~ty (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Tylas, the link is broken. I'd love to use it if you can get me the right link or the name of the book/article. Thanks Forgotten Faces (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

• The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
• You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the Help desk or on the reviewer's talk page
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Sumitkumarjha75 (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia. Great work on the ISSTD Article!~ty (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for your userpage

Tireless Contributor Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I am awarding this barnstar to you for your excellent work in MAKING the ISSTD article.

Thanks tylas. Forgotten Faces (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problems

You might try Wikipedia:Copyright problems to get an answer to your question. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Considering a google search does not lead to pages with the DSM quoted completely, I do believe it's a copyright violation. I've also seen some summaries when searching and believe I can summarize in paragraph form after seeing examples. It is good to know where to ask though, thanks! Forgotten Faces (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

FF, here's the story on copyright and the DSM diagnostic categories: There was a flap at Wikipedia (WP) a while back in which lots of DSM-related articles were temporarily made inaccessible to the public, because someone at the Amer. Psychiatric Assoc. claimed a wholesale copyright infringement in such articles. An article I'd been working on had a careful paraphrase of the complete diagnostic (Dx) category list, but was withdrawn anyway. The issue was settled in a few days, after Wikipedia's lawyers looked into the matter, found a few problems and got them fixed. The article I was working on was restored to public access without modification.

What you can do without any risk whatsoever is what I did with PTSD - provide a carefully written, detailed paraphrase/summary of the diagnostic criteria. There will be NO issue about this - it will be perfectly acceptable to everyone. Not to do this, on the other hand, presents, to my mind, in inadequate picture of a very important part of ANY mental illness diagnosis - the criteria by which a formal diagnosis is made.

The problem is that you need skill to do this well - training and clinical experience will give you adequate perspective, so that distortions through poor word choice or misplaced emphasis do not happen. However, not everyone has that training and clinical experience. Furthermore, some people, such as a number of editors working on the DID article, possess a manifest POV that is well outside any mainstream view to be found in the professional mental health community, and they can and do work to make sure their fringe point of view is expressed where it should not be. This is not acceptable at Wikipedia, and poorly serves the lay reader, the professional reader, and readers who actually have any Dx in question. I am very concerned about this, and am continuing to work on getting the problem corrected.

I suggest you work at writing that careful paraphrase of the Dx criteria. I'd be happen to come over and give what you write a review, if you like, and suggest improvements, if any appear to be warranted. Unlike anyone else involved with the DID article, I've actually DONE a number of DDNOS diagnoses, so my perspective might be genuinely useful to you. My hunch, given what I've seen of your contributions so far, is that you'll do a good job with your initial draft. So I encourage you to have I go at it.

Tom Cloyd (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Tom. I appreciate the info and nice comments. I'll definitely let you know my first draft, I'll stick that section it in a sandbox as I go as to not really violate anything and then stick it in when it's good to go. I have a hard copy of the DSM-IV-R so that's good at least. I certainly don't know near what any clinician does but I do pretty well as far as perspective (I think, maybe not), at least not enough to totally mangle things (hopefully!). I appreciate your willingness to help and definitely will take you up on it. Forgotten Faces (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Of probable interest to you. I just posted this, in response to you, on a thread on WLU's talk page, and he immediately removed it. I will put it here.

I strongly suggest that you do NOT move the article into dissociation. The latter is a psychological process on which there is a rich and growing theoretical and scientific literature. It is an important and separate topic to itself, in academic, research, and professional (clinical) psychology. DDNOS is a mental illness category thought substantive enough and reliable enough to warrant inclusion in the DSM, etc. Conceptually and functionally the two are quite properly distinct.

DDNOS is considered a "wastebasket" category only because it's where people end up who [a] do not fit into any of the other non-DID-related dissociative disorder Dx categories AND who cannot qualify for the DID Dx. Often, given time, they develop into a full blown DID Dx. It is NOT an "inferior" Dx category, but merely a perplexing one, and the subject of important ongoing formal and informal (clinical observational) research. It fully deserves its own article, I assure you. By moving ahead on this project you are doing good work. Stay with it.

A thought for you to consider: WLU has been very helpful to you. Why is that? What is his motive? If he wants genuinely to help, why did he remove my contribution above? How is that helpful? You should know that I have issued to him, on his Talk page, a 3 warning (see last section on page) to him this morning, which he also promptly removed. The warning still stands, of course, and is part of the process by which his behavior is brought up for formal review by an Administrative Board.

He is NO friend of any DID-related topic at Wikipedia, nor of anyone with DID. His agenda is not that of professional psychology. He has a destructive, deviant, and fringe POV to which he is dedicated. From the moment I first appeared on the DID article and Talk page, he and his associates have reverted my contributions and done everything possible to chase me away. Why is that? Something to think about. Be wary, I suggest.

Tom Cloyd (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion and of course have read what is going on in various places. I am trying to not let stuff like that sink into the pages I am working on. They are much less controversial, in fact neither of them are controversial pretty much at all. WLU has been helpful in answering questions on wikipedia policy and specific editing questions I couldn't figure out with trial and error/looking at code for other pages/wikihelp/etc. It is as simple as that. He is not telling me what articles are appropriate to reference or not unless I ask specifically, so he's not really affecting the content on the DDNOS or ISSTDs pages that I've apparently adopted. Although he is welcome to with good references of course, as is anyone. These things do not all have to be grouped together, and I am withholding any comments unless or until it is appropriate venue to express it IE arbitration of whatever kind that is happening. I really appreciate your help I just want to stay out of the fight and get stuff done, you know? I really dislike conflict especially when it's unproductive. Forgotten Faces (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I certainly understand. It is true that WLU knows a lot of the technical stuff. I wish his efforts stopped there, but they don't. I appreciate your desire to stay out of the fray. Not a problem! I, too, would like to be able to do that - very much. However, I choose to fight for my clients and their families, and others who deserve to come here and get decent information. I'm very pleased to hear that you believe the content you're produced is well-balanced and accurate. That's exactly what it needs to be! Hats off to you for you work and your objectives I hope someday the DID article will also be well-balanced and accurate. Am working on it, as are others (including you, I think). I'm very glad you're doing what you're doing.Tom Cloyd (talk) 11:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I will work on the DID article more when I know there isn't so much infighting that nothing is getting done. I did fact check part of the history section last night and found unsourced stuff and removed it. I'm still just learning how to do all of this, keep in mind I had no wikipedia experience at all as of about two weeks ago. I am glad you are fighting the good fight as it were, I hope to learn enough from this to be able to be a more effective contributor and learn the rules and policies. I am really unsure what arbitration will do exactly so it will be interesting anyway. I prefer the quieter, gentler way I guess, but it won't be like that forever. It's quite an overload when the first page you are trying to work on is in so much controversy/fighting/etc and I need to learn the ropes a little more I think. Thanks. Forgotten Faces (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

AN posting notification

Administrator's noticeboard posting. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Forgotten Faces (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

you deserve a kitten (i hope you like kittens) for your work on wikipedia. you are awesome.

Unitybicycle (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Why thank you, I do indeed love kittens. Forgotten Faces (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ugh on my part

I just edited the DID lead again, but you might not be happy about it. And it's my bad to do so, so please, feel free to change it to something you prefer and rather than editing again as is my wont, I'll discuss any objections I might have on the talk page BEFORE reverting as I should have. I like it better and would prefer not to revert on the principle, but if you want to change it again I'll leave it until we've reached a consensus on the talk page. My apologies, and my bad. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It's okay, thanks for the note about it. As you can see I slightly changed it again and am satisfied with that if you are. Some other people might want to chime in - hopefully constructively! - but I am cool with it now. Thanks Forgotten Faces (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Mentioned you here but it's probably best to consolidate this on the DID talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Editing

Hola,

We were both editing the DID page just now. Have a look at my edits if you'd like, all the articles I added I have PDFs of and can forward them to you if you'd like. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi WLU. I would very much like if you would send them to me. I've only got time to read the first edit re: legal issues and it looks fine to me on read-through, although I think it would be neater to separate legal issues into two sections - DID patients as plaintiffs/accusers/etc and DID patients as defendants as in Milligan, including the concerns with malingering and alters' rights. Can wait on that though until I read the articles.

I'll get to the other edit in a bit, thanks. I've been going through the references to get PDFs of whatever I can and then I will have access to some other articles over the next few days through a friend - and whatever I can't get that way I was going to request. There is plenty of stuff to read that I can find online so even without requesting anyone's help I've got a lot to do. Along the way fixing some minor reference problems because why not, I'm already there. Then after that I'll worry about adding new references/literature about the trauma model and all that. That's the plan anyway. Forgotten Faces (talk)`

Okay, yeah I need the other PDFs too definitely for the causes section stuff. The only thing at first glance that pops out is "It has been suggested that symptoms of DID may be created iatrogenically by therapists using techniques to "recover" memories with suggestible patients,[9][15][11] but this idea is not universally accepted." In my experience it is most - but at least some DID therapists do not use hypnosis at all or attempt to recover memories. Right now it seems to me to imply hypnosis is always or even standard use when it isn't or isn't always. That might seem like a petty little difference but making that clear is an important point imo. I definitely also think the info from Ross 2009 needs to be expanded, so that's something to work on as well. Thanks Forgotten Faces (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the section, it's a rough draft and my rough work could always use reworking.

I've sent you Reinders (2008) and Ross (2009), I think the rest are available online (even direct from the DID page itself, otherwise google scholar). If you can't get any let me know and I'll forward you a copy.

Ross 2009 is actually quite scanty in its details; it's a short paper and I was disappointed at the low level of detail included. The other issue is that it mostly criticizes Piper & Merskey 2004b (i.e. part II) so there simply wasn't much to include regarding the first one. I plan on adding more detail from Piper & Merskey 2004b, and will add more from Ross 2009 when I do.

"In my experience" is an edit killer here, it always has to be sources. However, the sources themselves need to be revisited, that's a pretty old summary that requires expansion and more specificity. RMT isn't just hypnosis, though hypnosis does come up frequently as a strongly iatrogenic intervention, and Piper & Merskey don't restrict their criticisms to solely those using hypnosis. This is the sort of thing I mean when I say we need to expand the body and document the controversy and the reaction. P&M alone generated three published letters to the editor and author replies that we might be able to tap. Just mentioning controversy and criticism does a disservice to both the readers, and the sources. There's far more detail here we should include to indicate why people dis/like the diagnosis, and why other people dis/like those first groups' arguments. The reader can then truly decide for themselves if they think the arguments are best for one side or the other, or just to note that both sides indeed have sophisticated arguments to present. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I see what you are saying and it sounds good to me. I just have such a huge learning curve and also hope other people want to come in to help. This is going to be a huge task and I do think it's worth spending the time on considering just how many people must read this page as one of the first places of information about DID. So here we go I guess. I have a shit ton of reading to do... the amount of things to be done is staggering but one thing at I time eh? Forgotten Faces (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You have two advantages - you seem to grok wikipedia's reliance on sources, and you're willing to read them. Once you've done that massive load of reading, your grasp of DID will be far better than most of the editors on wikipedia (and probably a lot more balanced than most) and can more easily engage on issues or point to sources that substantiate or contradict a point made on the talk pages. For the satanic ritual abuse page, I probably read at least a dozen books and several dozen sources. But now the page is much more complete than it was, and much better (IMO). The best articles require a lot of reading on the part of the editors; though anyone can edit, it takes a lot more background knowledge and time spent reading to edit well. But by starting with a good habit (reading and adhering to sources and the P&G) then all you really need is the occasional nudge or point to a policy and you'll be fine. Note, for instance, how little you and I argue because we seem to agree on both the importance of sources and the applicability of policy. On that alone, your workload is significantly diminished and you see me as a resource rather than an obstacle (and vice-versa). I'm sure we'll disagree, but we'll do so civilly and (I expect) offload the resolution of disagreements to WP:3O, WP:RFC or other places for resolution. I expect in the next month you'll find that wikipedia actually works quite well when people can agree to disagree within the P&G. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm pretty big on civility yeah, just in my life in general. I'm glad we can work together. Forgotten Faces (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

contact info.

Hi! Got your message. Thanks for the interest. Don't see an email link in your talk page navigation panel - something probably is not enabled in your settings. Anyway, my contact in is here. I definitely had you on my prospective contact list, and my plans are moving along quickly. I will likely have an initial project framework online later today. Do contact me, OK? Tom Cloyd (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I have emailed. Forgotten Faces (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Odd...

It's funny sinebot tagged your edit to the list of sources, it never does that to me. I think I opted out, if you usually remember to sign your posts, you might want to do so too. We really don't want that section datestamped or it'll archive. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops, it doesn't flag me 'cause I'm over 800 edits. You might still want to opt-out. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Forgotten Faces (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Intellectual property activism

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Intellectual property activism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Cite pmid

That url you were trying to add to Galbraith? This is how you do it [1].

{{cite pmid}} is a template. They're essentially separate pages that are added to individual pages as a unit. Think of a template that's used on a lot of pages like {{reflist}}; it'd be a lot of work to update the millions of pages that use it if you wanted to change the actual template. Instead, you have a template page (with the prefix Template: the same way your user page has a prefix User:) which you transclude. Change the template page, and that change cascades across millions of pages all at once.

So, whenever you see a {{cite pmid}} citation template, you can't change it on the article page. You have to change it on the template page. If you click on any of the citations using {{cite pmid}}, within the reflist you'll notice a tiny _Edit hyperlink. Clicking on that takes you to the individual {{cite pmid}} page (actually, {{cite pmid}} is a subset of {{cite doi}}, so you need to click on the resulting {{cite doi}} link to get to the actual citation page) and you edit that page. Now any page using that {{cite pmid}} is updated with the change you just made.

Clear as mud? Some people don't like {{cite pmid}}, I think they're fantastic. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for the help. :) Forgotten Faces (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries, again I'm happy to help with questions like that so feel free to drop me a line. Even if I'm busy with other stuff (as I have been the past week) I'm always glad to answer a question. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I see what you did there with the cite doi thing just now as well. Thanks. Forgotten Faces (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Merriweather Post Pavilion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Merriweather Post Pavilion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Route 66 (TV series)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Route 66 (TV series). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Frasier Crane

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Frasier Crane. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Under discussion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Under discussion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Music of Canada

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Music of Canada. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Charles Lindbergh

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Charles Lindbergh. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ron Paul

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ron Paul. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Miloš Obilić

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Miloš Obilić. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gentry

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gentry. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dražeta

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Dražeta. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Ambassadors

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Ambassadors. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Expand language

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Expand language. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:UC Davis pepper-spray incident

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:UC Davis pepper-spray incident. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Greasy Love Songs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Greasy Love Songs. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Frank Zappa

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Frank Zappa. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hydraulic fracturing

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hydraulic fracturing. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Circumcision

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Circumcision. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:%s

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:%s. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Leslie Daigle

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Leslie Daigle. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Watchlist survey

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Watchlist survey. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Summary style

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Summary style. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dispute Resolution

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dispute Resolution. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2012 Olympic Marathon Course

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2012 Olympic Marathon Course. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Super Market (Islamabad)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Super Market (Islamabad). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)