User talk:Dr Chris Lee

Hi, I noticed you made some changes to Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing. An anonymous user had previously made some pretty sweeping edits to the page, and over on the article's talk page we are discussing reverting the article to prior to those edits. I'd like to invite you over to discuss the article and any changes you want made. :) Kat, Queen of Typos 06:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My changes are in keeping with several recent studies (published in last 2 years). For example Van der Kolk's work published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry that EMDR out performed Fluoxetine, Rothbaums large and very rigorous study published in Journal of Traumatic Stress on EMDR versus traditional exposure, the most recent meta-analytic study by Shidler and Wagner (2006) in Psychological Medicine and the first process study on EMDR Lee, C. W., Taylor, G., & Drummond, P. (2006). The active ingredient in EMDR; is it traditional exposure or dual focus of attention? Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 13, 97-107.

What had been written in Wikipedia last year failed to take into account these studies. The conclusions from this more recent work is in sharp contrast to the views expressed on the page.

In addition since all over the world various committee’s on evidence based practise have debated the merits of EMDR, I think that their resultant views are likely to present a more balanced view than what I read when I opened the page last week.

Finally I found it very odd that a science based publication was describing the recent history of what happened to an institution that once provided training to a currently licensed practitioner. Seemed a bit personal to me.

Signing articles

I notice that you've not been signing your comments on the talk page...just add four ~ at the end of your comment and your signature will show up. DPeterson^talk 12:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I copied your talkpage additions to the bottom of the talkpage as 'threads' of discussion flow downwards from the bottom of the page. I had a look to see how your earlier comments were removed but it's a mystery! Cheers.Fainites 14:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EMDR

I warned you here (see first statement on this page) that we were considering reverting your edits - not at your fault, but because of the inappropriate edits someone made to the article before you did, so your edits were not, in fact, reverted without discussion. I apologize that we had to go so far as reverting them to remove the numerous unacceptable changes that other user made just before you made your initial edits. I invited you to the talk page to participate, and I'm glad you finally made it there. Also, when you respond to another person's comments, you need to go to their talk page - for example, to talk to me you'd go to my talk page and leave your reply. I didn't know you had replied to my above comment until just now. Kat, Queen of Typos 05:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EMDR Talk Page

Hi Dr Chris Lee,

Remember, new discussions go at the bottom of the talk page, and to sign your name, use 4 tildes with no spaces. A tilde is this ~ which lives on the key next to your number 1 key, and under Escape, if you're using a regular keyboard. 4 tildes automatically transform into your user name with a link to your page, and the time and date, like this: Kat, Queen of Typos 11:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr Lee. Sorry. I wasn't just ignoring you and carrying on editing anyway. I just hadn't realised you'd left me a message about the Devilly stuff because you left it on my title page, not the talk page so I didn't see it. I suppose the point is that Devilly is now 'out of date' in the sense that he may well have been 'correct' when he did the meta-analysis but others have picked up on the main points and done further specific research on them - eg comparisons of outcomes with exposure therapy etc. There was a time when Devilly was involved in editing the page which you can see earlier on the talk page but the others ganged up on him and accused him of having a conflict of interest because he put in a reference to his own research! Is he now fairly represented in the controversy section do you think? Fainites 09:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the 4 tilde thing is quite important as you can then easily click to the person's talk page to reply. It's one of these ~ x 4. Fainites 09:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot just edit the talk page and put your comments at the very top. New comments go at the bottom of the topic's section. You claim to be a doctor, so you should have no trouble learning Wikipedia's standards. PLEASE use the talk pages correctly. And you have been REPEATEDLY asked to sign your name using 4 tildes. If you are not willing to learn Wikipedia's standards, please stop editing pages. Kat, Queen of Typos 07:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]