User talk:TempusTacet

Welcome

Hi TempusTacet, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! Paradoctor (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Paradoctor, Thanks for the welcome & for helping with the disambiguation page. I've already "met" some fellow authors and look forward to collaborating with them. Still learning how to navigate this project and trying to understand more about the rules.--TempusTacet (talk) 10:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Still learning how to navigate this project and trying to understand more about the rules."

After 16 years, I still find that to be an ongoing concern. Then again, I'm hard of learning, YMVV. xD Luckily, we have the Pareto principle. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 10:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Took a pass on Autistic burnout

Hi! Thanks for creating the page. I've done a minor pass in organizing the article a bit. I also reorganized some of the citations. I kept all the references, but reduced the number of times they were cited, and removed mid-sentence citations to keep the article more readable. In part, trying to reduce chance of a future overzealous removal of actual references due to WP:OVERCITE —siro χ o 06:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Siroxo, Thanks! I've slightly tweaked your revision to ensure that claims can be clearly attributed to sources. Since "Autistic burnout" is a poorly understood condition with conflicting research findings (everyone agrees it exists, people feel that they "know what it is" but research still has to work out and agree on a definition) I believe it is important to be able to see who said what.

The "causes" of autistic burnout deserve their own section, the one sentence is really just the high-level summary intended for the introduction. Several of the papers discuss how people reach/fall into autistic burnout, I just didn't have the time yet to summarize this.

As more research is published (we'll likely see a number of publications on management next) the article can be expanded and the need for citing from primary sources that disagree will slowly go away as consensus is reached.--TempusTacet (talk) 07:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good thanks for finding a happy compromise. I'll keep my eyes open for good ways to expand the article. I made one small tweak to change the way a sentence breaks, to include the citation in the way you did, but make it so the citation doesn't break the flow. I find reducing the number of mid-sentence citations generally leads to articles being a bit easier to read, but I don't want to mess too much more with the locations of your citations while this article is still growing. —siro χ o 07:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! I agree that mid-sentence citations aren't great. From a writer's perspective they're usually a sign that the specific information that requires them should be expanded into its own sentence. For example the discussion of autistic burnout on blogs, social media, etc could be described in a separate sentence or even a separate paragraph. The early academic research on autistic burnout systematically analyzed these discussions, so we have good sources that describe these discussions went. Looking forward to your contributions!--TempusTacet (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to follow up on this and apologize a bit. Back when I used to edit a lot several years ago, citation standards were a lot looser. Not just in terms of sources, but also in terms of location. It was more encouraged to save citations for the ends of paragraphs, or at least sentences. After participating in a ton of AFDs the last couple months, I am seeing how much tighter the standards have gotten for in-line citations. I am also getting more used to it. Anyways sorry for the headache. —siro χ o 07:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Factual, Neutral Statement"

The description of your last edit to Autism Spectrum is really stupid. There is nothing neutral to the idea that something can be "cured." The word "cure" itself implies that something is a disease by its very nature. If you wish to be taken as a "serious/reputable voice in the debate," make more "serious" arguments instead of whatever that nonsense was. "There is no cure for homosexuality" is a factual statement. That doesn't make it neutral. Your premise is a joke. Uchiha Itachi 25 (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Uchiha Itachi 25, I'm sorry that you're offended by the statement. Nevertheless, I'd like to ask you to be a bit more polite with your words.

The statement "There is no known method to prevent or cure autism" is neutral and factually correct. If you look at the very first sentence of the article, "autism" is defined as "a neurodevelopmental disorder", in line with the currently accepted definition by the APA and WHO, which is detailed in the article's second paragraph, where it is also contrasted with the view of the neurodiversity and/or autism rights movement.

The third paragraph then talks about possible causes.

Naturally, if something is seen as a disorder or condition and something is known about its causes, the question arises whether it can be prevented or cured. Even this question does not imply that something should be prevented or cured.

I believe it is very important to clearly state that there is no method to cure or prevent autism (despite many contrary claims made by dubious figures trying to sell products to parents of autistic children) before discussing therapeutic approaches, all of which neither prevent nor cure autism but have different aims.

As long as autism is mainly/widely viewed as a disorder or medical condition, which is the case today in 2023, I believe that the terms "prevention" and "cure" are appropriate. This is not true for homosexuality, which is no longer seen as a disorder or medical condition.

(I've never claimed to be "a serious/reputable voice in the debate" myself but that these voices would all agree to the statement that there is no known cure nor means of prevention, even if they hold opposing views on the question whether a cure should be sought after, should be applied, or could potentially be found.)

Happy to continue the discussion in a friendly manner!--TempusTacet (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks for working with me on Autism and LGBT Identities! SomeoneDreaming (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SomeoneDreaming, Thanks a lot! I think this will become a really concise and informative article once we're done. Looking forward to collaborating with you on this and hopefully many more articles.--TempusTacet (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Autism spectrum in animals (the controversy)

Autism spectrum in animals

I'm sorry if this article may not meet Wikipedia notability rules right now, but I'm looking for stronger autism spectrum sources on the issue in animals. It could take a while but I'll eventually get a stronger article on this subject. We should give the article a chance while I search for the medical-related resources appropriate for Wikipedia and for autism spectrum subjects on the site. Angela Kate Maureen Pears 14:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I've just replied to you and tried to give you some hints. I'm very skeptical that "autism in animals" exists but as always I'm very open to find out I'm mistaken and learn about something I didn't yet know. I'm also happy to help interpret/summarize sources that you might find. One thing you probably want to make sure you understand prior to embarking on your literature search is the difference between animal models and medical conditions occurring in animals (see eg this edit of mine where I removed some content that you added). It can be very confusing as researchers will talk about "studying autism in mice", which can sound like they are studying "autistic mice" or "mice with autism spectrum disorder".--TempusTacet (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DSM-5 and DSM-5-TR

Other specified paraphilic disorder

Respected sir,

Thanks for your kind comments. However, sir, I never said or even meant that "DSM-5-TR has "replaced" the DSM-5." Sorry, if you got this impression. This was may be because I am not a native English speaker. Sir, may I most humbly request you to please visit - https://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.pn.2022.03.3.28 The second question makes the difference between a TR edition and a new edition, a bit clear. Although even this site does not mention "how much more text needs to be revised, before we start calling it a new edition and not just a text-revised edition". May be you can clarify. In any case, I agree to your comments, most respectfully, as I am a very junior person sir. Thanks Again.

Anil1956 (talk) 05:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Anil1956, no worries, I just tweaked the phrasing to make it more accurate. We usually say that "the ÐSM-5 replaced the DSM-IV" as each edition is written from scratch, with many years of preparation and reviews. A new edition goes along with big changes to diagnostic categories, diagnostic criteria, and (in the case of the DSM-5, which dropped the axes system) an overall new approach to diagnoses. A text revision is really just that: Small adjustments to diagnostic criteria, updated descriptions, and only occasionally addition or removal of an entire diagnosis. It's an update but it's not a disruptive or major change. (The FAQ you linked says: "The text revisions in DSM-5-TR should not affect insurance coverage or result in changing diagnoses that have already been made.") Many of the updates to diagnostic criteria had already been published in the meantime.

I hope that clarifies why "In 2022, DSM-5 has been replaced by DSM-5-TR" is a bit misleading and saying something like "In 2022, a revised edition of the DSM-5 was published" is more accurate.--TempusTacet (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]