User talk:EverSince

Archives

Reactive attachment disorder

Hi. I've nominated this article for FAC and am trying to find knowledgeable psych types to review it. [1] I'd be most grateful if you could look it over. (This is the post DPeterson et al version by the way).Fainites ^barley 17:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major depression vs Clinical depression

I'd like to get some experts commenting on the proposed move of the page Clinical depression to Major depression or Major depressive disorder. Any comment would be appreciated. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting Vandalism?

Sorry, why you keep reverting a vandalized page? (Mental disorder) -- ...RuineЯ|Chat... 19:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh was I reverting back to the vandalism? I thought I was undoing it but I guess in the meantime you'd already undone it then I was undoing you, lol EverSince (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of depression

Hi, You pointed out that the History of depression section mostly deals with mental illness. Since the term depression was not in use in the medieval and Renaissance eras, most of the sources refer to mental illnesses in a general sense. What we need is a secondary source where a psychiatrist or MD interprets the historical sources, and says "When the Renaissance treatise on mental illness discusses XXXX symptoms, they are discussing what would be called depression today." If you know of sources on the history of depression, please contribute them. Thanks.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I trust you saw my reply on the talk page. My original brief comment did imply things are more clear-cut than they are. I do think we could link off to the relevant article, whether psychiatry or mental disorder etc, when things have to be more general (something the cited articles can't do obviously and have to go into more general context). I think quite a lot of the general content could be moved to the most related general article, and then linked to there (as other disorder articles can also do), leaving room to add in more specific stuff. Don't know what you think about that. EverSince (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC) History of mental disorders might be the most relevant place for much of it actually. EverSince (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary psychology

Hi, would you mind reviewing my version of the heredity-evolution paragraph in the "causes" section, "biological" subsection of Major depressive disorder? With all due respect to my fellow editors, another contributor to the article seems intent on simply labeling the approach "controversial" (which, IMHO, smacks of dismissiveness), whereas I think my revision is simply more matter-of-fact and doesn't grant the topic any undue weight. So, since you clearly know the evolutionary angle well, I'm wondering if you'd mind weighing in on this. Also, if you're aware of additional empirical invesitgations of the matter, could you bring those to our attention when you get a chance? Thanks, Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stress: History & usage

Just wanted to thank you for this huge improvement. Now seems to me, particularly because of my enthusiasm for the history of ideas, the best & most useful part of the entry. Regards Wingspeed (talk) 07:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...funny how these things emerge and morph and take their place in language EverSince (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey Request

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, Sam4bc (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the reference tag

The article you wrote has only one reference. It's in dire need of more sourcing. The tag in no way denigrates the article, it's just a way of saying to other editors, "Please help make this article even better." As such, I'm going to readd it once more. S. Dean Jameson 02:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, I was placing the wrong tag at the top of the article. I thought I was placing the reference tag that said the article need "additional" references, when I was placing the one that says it has "no" references. Please accept my apology. I've added the proper tag now. Regards, S. Dean Jameson 02:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, no worries. I since added another source and the original was a comprehensive peer-reviewed article; how many do you think it needs? EverSince (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Just been watching some of your edits, seems like we have some common interests and wanted to say hi. -- Scarpy (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi yeah I recently noticed the self-help groups for mental health article and that you'd built it up. Be good to get the mental health/wellbeing/disorder/services/groups/consumers/survivors/recovery articles linked together more actually, like one of those project sidebars or just a project focused specifically on that. EverSince (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe one for support groups and one for advocacy groups? -- Scarpy (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the whole of the subject, mental distress/disorder/wellbeing & related services/groups? There's medical & psychology projects overlapping over this, but not centered on it. Might be a bit ambitious though. Would need to distinguish between support and advocacy aspects... EverSince (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess actually those sidebars don't seem that common and have gone from same places where they were...and they can all be linked by the category they're in, mental health organizations or mental health. EverSince (talk) 11:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will minimise the hypoxia article

Hi, I will minimise the hypoxia article quickly, but first I'll send a warning to the guy who reversed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk • contribs) 09:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again EverSince. After minimising the article I've put some new information in it again. Are you happy with that?

Steve Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve, thanks for the message; I'll try and get my head round that section in the causes of schizophrenia page again soon and I'll make any comments about it there to keep all editors involved. EverSince (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

thanks for all your correction and showing me the ropes Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and I appreciate your wanting to get the issues well covered. EverSince (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moral Treatment

I just wanted to write and say how impressed I am with your edits of the Moral treatment page. (It's because of editors like you that Wikipedia is worth referring to!) I plan to link to this page in a story at my blog, Advances in the History of Psychology, once I return from vacation in September. And I thought you'd like to know.... Cheers, JTBurman (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note...been meaning to do some more on that article (incl. on the ex-patient angle) so hopefully that will spur me on soon. Not always that easy to find reliable detailed sources for it or the related figures, though have just found a couple more via your very interesting blog :) EverSince (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

another look

Hey Eversince, could you have a look at the last par in hypoxia under causes of schizophrenia again.

I think the comments are from the same Finnish cohort and they mention hypoxia and motor coordination and schizophrenia.

What do you think?

Steve Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

couple of changes

Hi again Eversince,

don't know where you are in the world of Wikipedia at the moment.

I re-added the reference you had to the article on 'hallmark of hypoxia'. and looked up the suplementary section to the Molecular Psychiatry article on oxidization. I only have a basic knowledge of stats, so I hope I interpreted the p value of .01 correctly.

Good luck Steve Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 11:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tidal model

I agree that there should be links between Tidal Model and recovery model. I am happy to assist with this. --Vince (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a fair short summary to me. --Vince (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Tidal model bit needs expanding imminently. Good work. If I was going to be picky, I would suggest splitting the concepts of recovery section into subsections. --Vince (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Center(s)

There are likely several facilities called Freedom Center. When another WP article emerges about one of the others, the current Freedom Center article should be moved to Freedom Center (Omaha) and a disambiguation page should be created. However, there's no point in doing that without another article to add. • Freechild'sup? 17:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan, cheers, EverSince (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism?

Hi Eversince, I don't know if you guys have a procedure for dealing with vandalism.

Somene has added a short comment saying 'yes, thats it' to the bottom of the genes section in Causes of Schizophrenia

I wanted to tell you incase you want to block the IP address

Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

depression

Hi; I don't want to be critical but I think you may be heading in the wrong direction. The article needed to be shortened by about 10,000 chars to reach FA, but today alone you've added 10,000 chars to it, essentially doubling the size of the problem. We're all going to have to exercise a lot of self-discipline to get this to work. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've already raised in advance on the article talk page what I would be adding, did you not see it? And suggested that once there was a proper social causes subsection of an equivalent size to the others, it would be a very long section and probably need to be forked off and then summarized on the main page, in the usual way eg. Causes of schizophrenia. I trust these developments can be discussed on the article's talk page. EverSince (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it but didn't quite grasp what you were saying. Truthfully, I've been having a hard time following all the logic branches on the talk page -- that's one of the reasons I came here instead of asking the question there. Anyway, you've addressed my concern, so thanks. Looie496 (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah a lot of issues going on all at once on that talk page... Glad your concern is addressed, I agree it's gonna be tricky getting down the word count, while keeping the balance... EverSince (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

schizophrenia and Colin Ross

Hi; I believe you are jusified, but I think when removing Colin Ross it would be good to say so explicitly either in your edit summary or in a note on the talk page. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did?..."extract Ross from innacurate insertion..." etc? and I only moved the citation and its basic point down the page... EverSince (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I missed that. A reading of the Colin A. Ross article, though, suggests to me that he is too fringey to deserve being mentioned at all in an article about schizophrenia. Looie496 (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know what you mean - there's an editor who's keen on his trauma model and likes to get them both in. It is in a subsection on alternative approaches I suppose...I do'nt really mind either way now that it doesn't single him out by name and is only to source one concept in a sentence on what is a notable theme. EverSince (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No access

Hi Eversince, hope everything is ok

I don't have access to the journal sorry.

Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MEDRS

I think your concern with the existence of a separate MEDRS guideline is reasonable. Medicine is just a part of a general knowledge, after all. I am not sure most of the participants in the discussion understand that. I think if you reformulate your view as "adding disclaimer to the WP:MEDRS guideline that it only pertains to medical facts and areas of the medical articles" you may be able to have a meaningful discussion with them. Paul Gene (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might help if you lay out your views on the MEDRS talk page around the four points suggested by Kim. They will attract more attention in that form. And Kim will direct other's comments on your views into a constructive discussion. (It looks to me, although I may be wrong, that for now your views are simply dismissed.) I think if you give an example of your concerns it may also help. For example, MDD article is a part of psychology, medicine and neuroscience projects; the psychology part should not be governed by MEDRS. Please note that I am not answering you on the MEDRS page as I am trying to help Kim to reduce noise and to get to the bottom of the issues. Respectfully, Paul Gene (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]