User talk:JGM73

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello, JGM73! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can 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 by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do

cite pmid[edit]


If you're using {{cite pmid}} you need to check the reference after you insert it. Each reference is created on a template-by-template basis; once it's created it always exists, but the first time it appears you need to actually populate the template. A bot used to do it, but apparently it's busted. If I'm not sure, I usually search for "queue" on the page (incomplete templates incorporate the text "Citation will be completed automatically in a few minutes. Jump the queue or expand by hand"). If you click on the blue link saying "jump the queue" then the bot will kick in and extract the material from the pubmed database. I usually open it on another window or tab with a right click 'cause it retains my old one.

You can also use {{cite doi}} for non-pubmed indexed articles ({{cite pmid}} is actually a subset of {{cite doi}}) and there might be more. I thought {{cite isbn}} existed but the last time I tried it the system choked. You might be interested in WP:CIT in general if you're using citation templates within your first couple edits.

I've left a couple unfinished templates open for you to "practice" on if you'd like. Otherwise I'll populate them in a couple days. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for all your great advice! JGM73 (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
No worries, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page if you ever have any questions. I like figuring out technical stuff and helping new editors. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Greetings from WikiProject Medicine![edit]

Rod of asclepius.png
Welcome to WikiProject Medicine!

I noticed you recently added yourself to our Participants' list, and I wanted to welcome you to our project. Our goal is to facilitate collaboration on medicine-related articles, and everyone is welcome to join (regardless of medical qualifications!). Here are some suggested activities:

Read our Manual of Style for medical articles and guide to Reliable medical sources

Join in editing our collaboration of the month (the current one is Transverse myelitis)

Discuss with other members in the doctor's mess

Have a look at some related WikiProjects

Have a look at the collaboration dashboard

Have a look at the Trusted Sources recommended by Wikiproject medicine

Have a look at the most powerful citing tool Diberri's tool

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page, or please feel free to ask for help on my talk page.

Again, welcome!. Happy editing, JFW | T@lk 23:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

JFW | T@lk 23:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Primary, secondary and tertiary sources[edit]


I've reverted your additions to DID regarding epilepsy for two main reasons. First, the source ([1]) is a bit old (12 years). Not so horribly old it could never be used, but still - old, and it ties into my second reason.

Second, it's a primary source. In other words, it looked at one group of people and made a conclusion about that group. For conclusions applying to groups of people (i.e. everyone with DID or epilepsy), you really, really need secondary sources. If the DID-epilepsy connection is considered current and real, there should be a recent review article that makes the connection (a quick pubmed search didn't turn anything up).

On a somewhat unrelated note, you're use of the <ref name = whatever/> was, for lack of a better word, wrong. One use on the page must involve the tag plus a closing tag (<ref name = whatever>{{cite pmid | 12345567 }}</ref>, doesn't matter where on the page, just somewhere). Every other appearance, all you need is <ref name = whatever/> without the closing tag. I may have mentioned this before, if this is the case, my apologies. Takes a while to get a handle on stuff like this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation and my apologies for putting back the epilepsy as a differential diagnosis. I couldn't find the undo in the history and assumed something went wrong but noticed to late that the history was still updating...
For the record, there is no causal connection between epilepsy and DID (other than maybe seizures as side effects of medication), and in my opinion the higher incidence in comorbidity is probably the result of similarity between dissociative symptoms and symptoms of frontal lobe epilepsy and misdiagnosis on top of the higher incidence related to side effects of medication.
I know from personal experience that ruling out epilepsy still plays a significant part in the diagnosis of DID today, as evidenced by the continued inclusion of epilepsy as a differential diagnoses in the proposed DSM-5 criteria.[1] I agree the cited source is outdated and contains primary data which is irrelevant to this article (regarding dissociative symptoms in PNES and epilepsy). But I chose to include it because the source also summarizes findings of other sources regarding fugue states in CPS, EEG abnormalities in DID and DDNOS and comorbidity of DID and epilepsy and these were the findings I was referring to. It must be said, though, that the sources cited by Bowman et al. include primary sources and a collection of even much older data and this page definitely could use some fresh sources.
It may suffice to include a brief mention of epilepsy as a differential diagnosis citing the DSM, without further detail included... Keep it simple.
Regarding the reference tag, I simply copied the tag from elsewhere and overlooked the missing closing tag. I was aware of the correct syntax, but simply missed it. JGM73 (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Very Smart Person - I am so glad you have joined the editing on the DID page! :) Please hang in there and don't leave us! We do need you, please don't let the editors there drive you crazy. Are you a MD? I goofed, but fixed it. ~ty (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The mention of epilepsy as something to rule out is a good idea and doesn't seem to be there (still sourced with Bowman & Coons is the part of DDX discussing epilepsy; this is more distinguishing DID from epilepsy rather than epilepsy from DID, could use a better source and ref). If you've got the experience or expertise to understand and sort it out without much extra effort, feel free to take a crack at it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
That, sir, is some nice citegnoming. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your warm-hearted welcome. No, I'm not an MD but I've had the honor of advising a Dean of Medicine. I am a data analyst and software developer, who occasionally does some actual coding. My interest in psychiatry sparked from being involved in a research project in the field and is fueled by friends and family working in the fields of neuropsychology, pharmaceutical research, child psychology, dissociation and autism. JGM73 (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I enjoyed your edits on the DID page! Thank you for helping there. The page already looks much better. I hope you stay with us and make this a nice page. :) ~ty (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

DID talk page comment[edit]

I have added to your comment on the DID Talk page, voicing strong approval. You nailed it, to put it bluntly. I, too, hope that you stay with us, at least until we purge the major distortions from this important article.Tom Cloyd (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I am just here to help improve the quality of psychiatry related articles but I plan to stay around for as long as I have the time.
I believe psychiatry is still in it's adolescence and it will take many more decades of research to come to a better and more evidence based understanding of many disorders. Especially in the field of dissociation both opponents and proponents of various theories have been seeing what they wanted to believe and thus leaving no room for the truth. I am glad to see today's organizations dedicating more effort to treatment driven research and search for the truth in the subtle greys between all the black and whites of the past. DID itself may not have much priority because other disorders are more frequently diagnosed, which is unfortunately bad news for this Wikipedia article in dire need of publications to support the status quo of our understanding, but the research in the field of trauma and dissociation in general promises to yield a valuable basis of understanding for further research on DID. JGM73 (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I am in complete agreement. Viewed from this perspective, the future of psychiatry and the allied mental health care professions, all of which need a continued drive toward evidence driven models of etiology and treatment, is bright. I am personally a bit amazed at the progress we have made in a number of research domains in my sub-speciality - the trauma-related disorders. The problem, if it may be called that, is that what we have learned has led to ever more interesting questions. For that reason, I do look forward to every month's discoveries. We're in an exciting profession.
As you suggest, we clearly have suffered from that universal human failing: yielding to the seductive desire to think we know more than we really do. Living with unanswered or inadequately answered questions is uncomfortable for many, hence the leap to a false sense of certainty I see in too many of my peers. Practices based on the delusion of knowledge which actually doesn't exist will continue to be a problem for us for the foreseeable future, I fear. Ah...a reason to arise early tomorrow, and jump back into the work. As Karl Menninger (I believe) pointed out some time ago, having a good reason to arise every day is an excellent tonic for one's mental health! Tom Cloyd (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

False / Recovered memories[edit]

There is overlap, and multiple POV forks, but you need to propose a centralized discussion, rather than having "voting" on multiple pages. Michelle Remembers and Elizabeth Loftus also have related content. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That's why I referred the other pages to the repressed memory talk page: to keep things centralized. Maybe I should've put that part in bold... Sigh, you're right, people tend to ignore these links as just bump head first into the discussion on the talk page they are on.
I think that the articles you mentioned are an excellent example of articles that are related but stay on topic and do no create a content fork.
Thank you for your response, I greatly appreciate it. JGM73 (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Medicine[edit]


I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new multinational non-profit organization we're forming at m:Wikimedia Medicine. Even if you don't want to be actively involved, any ideas you may have about our structure and aims would be very welcome on the project's talk page.

Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders.

Hope to see you there! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)[edit]

The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.

  • Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
  • Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
  • If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Spiegel D (2010). "Dissociation in the DSM5". J Trauma Dissociation. 11 (3): 261–5. PMID 20603761. doi:10.1080/15299731003780788.