User talk:Standardname

Hello, Standardname! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! xC | ☎ 14:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

xC | ☎ 14:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

dissociative disorders

Hi.

I've noted you added links to Dissociative disorders in some articles. I was curious if the article did not exist already; I mean, in your copyedits it turned out red in the articles you edited because the second word ("disorders") should be small. Otherwise it appears red: Dissociative Disorders.

You may answer here or in my talk page if you wish :)

Welcome again to Wikipedia.

—Cesar Tort 14:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

> I've noted you added links to Dissociative disorders in some articles. I was curious if the article did not exist already

The article Dissociative disorders already existed, and was recently updated.

> I mean, in your copyedits it turned out red in the articles you edited because the second word ("disorders") should be small. Otherwise it appears red: Dissociative Disorders.

Apologies, I don't quite understand what this last question is asking me to explain. Could you clarify, please?

Thanks.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Standardname (talk • contribs)

I took the liberty to move your post here to avoid confusion.

• "Apologies, I don't quite understand what this last question is asking me to explain. Could you clarify, please?"

It was not a question: just an observation. The first letter of a second word in an article is usually (not always) written in small letters, as "disorders" above. Just a minor issue. Don't worry about it.

—Cesar Tort 22:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Structured Clinical Interview

You seem to be adding links to SCID to a large number of pages. This includes some pages where it has very little relevance. Please consider adding information only where it is directly relevant.--Limegreen 03:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm sorry, but I must agree with the comment above. Linking to SCID from an article as broad in scope as medication, for instance, is not very appropriate. I have reverted most of these edits; please do not be discouraged from contributing, but please try to make such additions to articles where they will be more relevant. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Many of the reverted edits omit extremely useful information. For example, the page "Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV" contains 'DSM-IV' as part of its title and therefore, 'SHOULD' have the link to DSM-IV Codes, which I added, and has since been removed.

The omission of links to DSM-IV Codes and Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV results in the omission of relevant information to people with mental health problems. For example, people with mental health problems, such as dissociative disorders and Dissociative identity disorder, are often misdiagnosed because of little awareness of Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (and DSM-IV Codes) and, as a result, are NEVER cured!

Now that you have removed the links, many people will continue to NEVER be cured. Standardname 23:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

As I stated above, the links may be added, where they are relevant. They remain, for instance, in dissociative identity disorder, and I have reinstated your last addition to Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV. By the way, you are welcome to expand these articles if you wish. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Fvasconcellos, thank you for the message. Could you reinstate the additions to DSM-IV Codes, please? This is very important, as many people frequent the article, and there seems to be INsufficient information for people, without these additions. I am unable to reinstate the additions, because an administrator has blocked me, because of these additions. Examples of RELEVANT additions are:

1) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ... The relevant link '''DSM'''-IV Codes, is an acronym for the page title '''D'''iagnostic and '''S'''tatistical '''M'''anual of Mental Disorders version IV;

2) DSM-IV Codes ... The relevant 'http://www.psychiatryonline.com/content.aspx?aID=2375', is to information about 'Dysthymic Disorder', which is no-where else found in Wikipedia;

3) DSM-IV Codes ... The relevant 'http://www.psychiatryonline.com/content.aspx?aID=3357', is to information about 'Posttraumatic Stress Disorder', which is no-where else found in Wikipedia;

4) DSM-IV Codes ... The relevant 'http://www.psychiatryonline.com/content.aspx?aID=9381', is to information about 'Somatization Disorder', which is no-where else found in Wikipedia;

5) DSM-IV Codes ... The relevant 'http://www.psychiatryonline.com/content.aspx?aID=3974', is to information about 'Borderline Personality Disorder', which is no-where else found in Wikipedia;

... etc, etc, etc.

Also, as far as I'm aware, I received NO warning and therefore, couldn't correct any unaware mistakes I was making!

Much appreciated.

StandardName

I will review your edits to DSM-IV Codes and contact the administrator who blocked you. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Fvasconcellos! Much appreciated. Apologies for any inconvenience I may have caused. I only joined Wikipedia a few days ago, and am still learning the rules. Thanks, Standardname

You're welcome. I'm afraid I can't really see the relevance of the above additions, as psychiatryonline.com is restricted to subscribers, and the article already has a link to the DSM-IV-TR website; sites requiring payment/registration are normally to be avoided. You have been unblocked, by the way. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Fvasconcellos, I only just logged on and read your message. I didn't realise Psychiatryonline.com is restricted to subscribers as, I only read the free excerpts on those pages. As the DSM-IV-TR website doesn't seem to provide free excerpts (unless I'm mistaken, I could only see details of changes in DSM-IV, on dsmivtr.org), would it be okay for me to reinstate the free excerpts at links such as the following? http://www.psychiatryonline.com/content.aspx?aID=3357 Standardname 21:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I still don't think linking to these excerpts adds that much. Others may, of course, disagree; I recommend that you bring this to the attention of Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. If there is a specific article you would like to add these links to, you may ask at its Talk page instead, but WikiProject Talk pages are usually good places to get feedback. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Fvasconcellos. Standardname 19:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Agenda driven edits

You edits are clearly agenda driven and violate WP:POV fairly consistently. Kindly think before editing. --DashaKat 20:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear DashaKat, Thank you for the message. I only replaced text which had NO substantial evidence, with EXTRACTS from psychiatric and medical articles WITH evidence. D.I.D. was doubted by lay-men/lay-people, and there is psychiatric and medical evidence for the existence of D.I.D., of which I added references to psychiatric and medical articles. HOW CAN MY EDITS BE AGENDA DRIVEN, WHEN THEY ARE ALL EXTRACTS FROM PSYCHIATRIC AND MEDICAL ARTICLES? Standardname 22:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear DashaKat, I can understand it may come as a shock to you that there is evidence for DID, because this hasn't been discussed as much in the popular media, only mainly in psychiatric and medical papers. I hope you will be okay with me reverting back to these psychiatric and medical extracts, let me know if you have any objection with this. If I do not hear back from you within the next hour, I will continue with the extracts from psychiatric and medical papers. I hope this is okay with you. Standardname 23:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Standard...I'm on board with you. I'm a medical professional, and well aware of the evidence that you are using to support your edits. You are going to come up against very stiff resistance from DreamGuy, who, along with being a certified imbecile, is a control freak who thinks he owns this topic. Best of luck. Sally forth. --DashaKat 22:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop immediately

I see you totally completely and utterly changed the controversy section of the DID article without discussion and are completely advocating the entirely false and biased claim that there is no controversy. You need to stop editing that article immediately, as the talk page has overwhelming evidence that there IS controversy, so you are working against the comments of multiple editors here. Based upon your prior major edits I was curious if you were aiming for something of this nature, and I see now you have finally gone way ofver the line. You need to read and follow the WP:NPOV policy and not try to use Wikipedia as your own soapbox. DreamGuy 22:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear DreamGuy, Thank you for the message. I only replaced text which had NO substantial evidence, with extracts from psychiatric and medical articles WITH evidence. D.I.D. was doubted by lay-men/lay-people, and there is psychiatric and medical evidence for the existence of D.I.D., of which I added references to psychiatric and medical articles. WHERE ARE THE PSYCHIATRIC AND MEDICAL ARTICLES TO BACK UP THE CONTROVERSY? Please could you revert my edits back in, please. Standardname 22:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear DreamGuy, I can understand it may come as a shock to you that there is evidence for DID, because this hasn't been discussed as much in the popular media, only mainly in psychiatric and medical papers. I hope you will be okay with me reverting back to these psychiatric and medical extracts, let me know if you have any objection with this. If I do not hear back from you within the next hour, I will put these extracts back. I hope this is okay with you. Standardname 23:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That was not merely listing medical articles, it was removing any and all content you personally disagreed with. If you do revert back it will get undone ASAP by myself or someone else. You know that it IS controversial... there's a whole other article here on the fact that it is controversial. And one side saying there is evidence doesn't mean you can ignore the other side saying there isn't. There have been professional, scholarly publications from scholars saying it isn't real, and to claim otherwise is just wrong. The extent of the POV-pushing you are trying to do here is off the scale. Please, again, go read WP:NPOV before making any further edits. Your resistance to this fundamental policy of Wikipedia makes me question all of your earlier edits. 23:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear DreamGuy, thank you for the message. The controversial articles were written by lay-men and lay-people who have done NO psychiatric or medical research. I read WP:NPOV, and it says extracts must be 'published by reliable sources', and all my extracts are publishers of psychiatric or medical papers. I'm not ignoring any psychiatric or medical articles saying there isn't, but where are these articles? I can't see any. There seems to be none. I hope you will be okay with me reverting back to these psychiatric and medical extracts, let me know if you have any objection with this. If I do not hear back from you within the next half hour, I will put these extracts back. I hope this is okay with you. Standardname 23:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not how things work. You KNOW this is not OK with me, and not OK in general, and that you are being completely irresponsible. You do not get to say "if I don't hear back from you in x amount of minutes I'm going to do whatever I was warned not to do." NPOV says reliable sources, but it does not say go through and present only one set of reliable sources and only the one you agree with and horribly slant the article.

And your "lay people" argument doesn't fly here, because not all the people editing are as inexperienced as you seem to think, and inexperienced people CAN still edit assuming they get real sources and not slant the article. Furthermore, you seem to just assume anyone who disagrees with you must be an idiot who knows nothing about the topic, and I can assure you that is not true. DreamGuy 07:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear DreamGuy, you've removed many of my extracts from psychiatric and medical articles, please could you put them back: WP:NPOV. I know more about the subject than most people who added unsubstantiated 'popular media' text about the incorrect controversy, that's why no-one has disputed ANY of my edits on D.I.D. before today. Thank you. Standardname 23:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, that's false, as I did go through and change some of your earlier edits. No one disputed MOST of your edits BEFORE because they weren't POV pushing before... Although some of them may have very stealthily done so and were missed in the sea of edits you were doing. Now that your agenda is more clear I am sure we will start going back through old edits of yours with a fine toothed comb. I already saw some problem areas in there, and those will be undone as well. Furthermore, the fact that articles exist for one side doesn't mean that other reliable and scholarly sources for the other side can be ignored. That's so completely an abuse of the WP:NPOV policy that it's one of the worst I've seen in a while, and I've seen a lot. DreamGuy 07:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't edit war on D.I.D.

Hi, Standardname. I understand your good intentions, but please don't try to change the article by simply putting back the same edits over and over. That's not the way disagreements are solved here. It's all right to boldly make a major change in an article once, but if that change is reverted, you should take the disagreement to the talkpage (this is the talkpage of D.I.D.) and try to get consensus for your changes, before putting them back in the article again. Please see Wikipedia:Edit war. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 23:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC).

Dear Bishonen, thank you for the message. I improved and corrected WRONG text according to WP:Deletion_policy: "content not verifiable in a reliable source", with text WP:Citing sources, WP:Verifiability#Sources: "-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals".

DreamGuy had no right to remove my text WP:Citing sources, WP:Verifiability#Sources: "from journals and books published in university presses", as he did not follow the WP:Deletion_policy, as all my text is WP:Citing sources WP:Verifiability#Sources.

I privately discussed the matter with DreamGuy, and said that if he had any objection with me 'undo'-ing his revert, then could he either let me know or back up his text WP:Citing sources, WP:Verifiability#Sources, he did not respond and therefore, I assumed he was not able to back his edit up.

I know more about the subject than most people who added unsubstantiated 'popular media' text about the incorrect controversy, that's why no-one has disputed ANY of my edits on D.I.D. before today.

Please let me know why DreamGuy can remove my text AGAINST the WP:Deletion_policy, and why I am not allowed to add text WP:Citing sources, WP:Verifiability#Sources, thank you. Standardname 00:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Bishonen, as DreamGuy removed my text AGAINST the WP:Deletion_policy, can I reinstate my text now WP:Citing sources, WP:Verifiability#Sources ? Standardname 02:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The deletion policy absolutely does not prohibit removing text from a page like that. You need to reread that page. Though, the funny thing is, I find it odd that you found it so fast and managed to start abusing it for arguments to try to support your violation of WP:NPOV. If you'd actually read the thing you'd know it doesn't say what you claim it says. I don't know if you are just amazingly aggressive in trying to find support for your side that you misread the contents (though that would be hard to do, as the page specifically ENCOURAGES peopole to edit out bad material on a page), or if you are a diehard wikilawyer out to abuse policies to try to defend yourself. You sure did jump in out of nowhere and try to take control, ignoring previous discussion on the articles. Have you used another user account here before? Your edits seem familiar. DreamGuy 07:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus "Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus": my edit covers all this and therefore, should be held non-negotiable. Why, after my text covers the three key policies, is it still NOT non-negotiable? Standardname 03:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You are completely misinterpreting policy here... the information proving you wrong when you claim there is no controversy was also verifiable, but you deleted that, and stating straight out that there is no controversy and that the DID exists to fill the DSM up with diagnoses or whatever is hugely original research (and wrong), and NPOV is amazingly, off the scale violated by your edits. All three of those things prove you wrong. Your aggressive arguing here is also off the scale. You operate like someone who has been trying to abuse policies for years. DreamGuy 07:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Be really careful of this. It counts even if you believe someone is breaking policy, and in particularly counts if you are involved in a content dispute as appears to be the case. --Merbabu 02:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Merbabu, why have you mentioned WP:3RR when I am just discussing, and have not made further edits? I understand from Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus "Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus": my edit covers all this and therefore, should be held non-negotiable. Why, after it covers the three key policies, is it still NOT non-negotiable? Standardname 03:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

But you HAVE made further edits, and your edits do NOT follow those rules, and your edits certainly are NOT non-negotiable... in fact they are outright prohibited. DreamGuy 07:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me say it another way, irrespective of any other policy or reason, WP:3RR needs to be heeded to by every editor. I'm not saying you or anyone else has or hasn't broken this or any other policy. It's just a reminder. --Merbabu 07:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Last warning

Good heavens, look at the history of D.I.D. now..! After my message above, telling you you can't edit the article any more before getting consensus on the talkpage, plus my edit summary stating that "You need to use the article talkpage before editing anymore, or you risk being blocked", and Merbabu's reminder to "be really careful" of the the three-revert rule, I see you've edited the article 22 more times, without going near the talkpage, and put a lot of policies into your edit summaries. I'd better make myself clearer, then. I'm an administrator. I'm familiar with our policies. I or another admin will block you if you edit the article again without first discussing and getting consensus for your changes on the talkpage. Please read the three-revert rule carefully. Bishonen | talk 09:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC).

I second this last warning. Given the fact your indefinite block was lifted only because you claimed to be new and promised to follow policy and work with the community, if this behavior continues, I will reinstate the indefinite block. You obviously have more experience than you claimed since you are mis-quoting policy all over the place and violating the three revert rule while trying to justify it. I would be happy to work with you to clarify you understanding of Wikipedia's policies and discuss how the community works, or you might look in to getting a mentor who can help you before you find yourself asked to leave the project. Shell ^babelfish 12:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Bishonen and Shell, why were my additions originally allowed to be reverted (and removed) by DreamGuy, considering "Mere disagreement is not such proof" Wikipedia:Revert#Do_not?

Dear Bishonen and Shell, According to Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus, "Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus": my additions covers all this and therefore, should be held non-negotiable. Why, after my additions covers the three key policies, is it still NOT non-negotiable? Standardname 12:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The point is that several editors disagree with your interpretation of the additions. You believe that your material is warranted, they do not. Used the ideas at dispute resolution to resolve the dispute you're having over content.

The policy that you are referencing is about our article deletion guidelines and how to determine consensus for those discussions; it has absolutely NOTHING to do with your current situation. When someone removes your changes, your next step is to use the talk page of the article or their talk page to find out why and work out your differences. Quoting policy which doesn't even remotely apply to your situation in an attempt to violate multiple policies on reverting and editing conduct will just cause you to be blocked from editing. Shell ^babelfish 17:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)