User talk:JenniSue

Talk to JenniSue

You raised a couple of nice ideas. I think there are three dimensions to the inquiry. Fist, information aimed at the general public, second, information aimed at worried and perplexed claimants, and finally, tips aimed at practicing representatives and lawyers.

--David F. Traver 00:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we need a social security disabilty Portal. --David F. Traver 03:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connect is a discussion page that was started by NOSSCR in about 1991. Because of potential liability issues, it was moved to a private attorney's site. It was at author and attorney Peter Young's SSAS site until about two years ago. He got tired of running it due to flame wars on the discussion board, and passed it on to me. We have about 500,000 visitors a year, and it is read and used as a discussion board by many SSA insiders in Washington and nationally, as well as a large number of practicing attorneys and representatives. Most of the "old guard" group of attorneys who began NOSSCR and have been practicing in this area check the site daily. With good monitoring by volunteers (including an ALJ) the flame wars stopped and now the site is worth continuing.

When Peter had the site he made an effort to add as much useful side content as possible, such as links to the rulings, cases, etc. I have expanded on this, and I have tried to make the site a good place to check on current news, plus hundreds of SSA practice-related links. For example, see the Legal Resources link on Connect.

As part of this, I added a Disability Wiki, with the intention of helping practitioners, ALJs, and others to spread information about the practice of disability law.

Your collaboration offer: I really like the idea of collaborating to add a tremendous amount of disability law content. Perhaps the first step would be to create some sort of collaboration page for the project on Wikipedia? I don't know the correct method for doing that. Perhaps the creation of a "Talk:Social Security Disability Project" or something similar, would be the way to get started? I too am very new to the world of Wiki.

--12:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)David F. Traver

Thanks for your reply. I think we should split out disability and make a new page because there is so much to cover. There is a really great opportunity here to help claimants and new reps.

I started a Wiki on point at Connect couple of months ago, but it has not gotten any traction. Perhaps we could give the broad outline here, and then fill in the details there.

For example, we could introduce the idea and history of the Rulings here, and there break out each ruling with specific practice-related comments there. Likewise, we could discuss the need for an application, but give detailed practice details there about the application process.

In any event, it's nice to meet you. David F. Traver 04:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You made some nice changes to the SSA piece. I somewhat disagree about the amount of District Court litigation. I'll provide some numbers in a while. David F. Traver 01:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history of the DID article, you'll see that a long and admittedly somewhat confusing article (that presented four POVs, including the healthy multiple POV) has been removed and replaced with an article that ASSUMES that DID is real and that it is caused by trauma, rather than being a socially-inflected disorder or iatrogenic. This has been done by two editors who are new to Wikipedia and have no concept of neutrality.

I'm trying to rewrite the article in a way that doesn't assume their "trauma theory" is true. Zora 23:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I myself tend towards the iatrogenic/socially-inspired "idiom of distress" theories, there ARE people who are much more dismissive and see DID only as histrionics and fabrication. That's the problem with discussing this topic -- it doesn't divide neatly into two camps. It's a confusing mess. Zora 02:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfair to label people in distress as histrionic or fabricating -- and you'll find people willing to do it to anyone with any mental disorder. I think these could rightly be called fringe views. (I'm sure it doesn't help that some notorious murderers have claimed to have multiple personalities in an attempt to evade punishment.) One of the concerns I have is that I've worked with women from Afghanistan and Bosnia who describe the symptoms listed under DID, but no one calls it that -- it's PTSD and it's treated by reassuring patients that they are safe, helping them process their memories in a culturally-sensitive way, encouraging them to remain "present," and providing medication when they can't sleep or the flashbacks are too intrusive. OTOH, if a native-born American sees a particular therapist and describes these symptoms, it's called DID and is treated differently. I don't see how DID could be a separate disorder from PTSD when the only differentials are where the patient was born and the therapist they have. But in any event, would it be possible to reach consensus on "Dissociative Identity Disorder is a diagnosis recognized by the American Psychological Association. The requirements for diagnosis are(whatever they are)." and THEN get into competing theories of causation and treatment? Or is it not possible to reach any consensus as to whether people even experience this set of symptoms?

JenniSue 03:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wholesale DID edit

I reverted your edits to the DID page. You make some good points, some with the potential of inclusion, however, it is poor Wiki-etiquette, to the point of being considered vandalism, to simply sweep in and make gross changes to an article, especially an article as contentious as this, without first discussing those changes with the major players. --Mjformica 17:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I have noted some of your comments and conversations with relation to the various psych pages. All due respect your "large law practice", and area of expertise, but I am not disinclined to suggest a fair amount naivete and anecdotal experience informing your input. Some constructive criticism, for which you called...you are an attorney. You are approaching much of what you read here as an attorney, and as someone with a nodding aquaintence with some the topics that you are championing. It might be helpful for you to be more informed. --Mjformica 18:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OI! Guys...can we take this over to the DID talk page? Personally I want to find a way of retaining BOTH your contributions, because they are both excellent in different ways. But because of the vastly different styles, there doesn't seem to be a way to weave them together myself that won't get my lynched by both of you.

If we can get this to become the collobarative effort it should be, between the two of you this could become an article worth featuring in no time.

Please? Ok, you can chuck rotten tomatoes at me now --Zeraeph 23:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best way to explain is that you can post, or respond to, anything you like on "Talk" page of an article, though usually you post the newer things at bottom, but you must NOT delete, or edit, anything except your own "talk".

The Three revert rule is invoked when you revert an article more than 3 times in 24 hours, the resulting ban is pretty much automatic, this it to stop people playing "tit for tat" deleting each other and replacing their own text.

Best to start discussing it (with MJformica) on DID Talk page, so the two of you can start merging your text by concensus.

It was bad ettiquette to just delete and replace existing text without prior discussion because there is a request for discussion article. When I did it there was FAR more to it than just that (not least that the author of the work I moved had just done something far worse), and besides I restored a lot of material and shifted it to Multiple personality controversy, even so, I was pushing the envelope as far as I could go!--Zeraeph 00:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wholesale edits without discussion is not only considered poor etiquette, but extreme vandalism. Just because there is not policy, doesn't mean it isn't pro forma.

If you had taken the time to read the talk pages, you would notice that there are 4 "major players" re-writing this article; Zeraeph, Zora, Daniel, and myself.

The "Disputation" and "POV" tags qualify any major changes to be discussed before being inserted...that is policy. That's the invitation to the meeting. Try not to be sarcastic.

Zaraeph "swept in and made gross changes" when he, like you, was new to Wikipedia. --Mjformica 11:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, pardon me, but I suspect I might be just the TINIEST bit more familiar with my own motivation than anybody else is? Just my opinion, but I think "When I did it there was FAR more to it than just that (not least that the author of the work I moved had just done something far worse), and besides I restored a lot of material and shifted it to Multiple personality controversy, even so, I was pushing the envelope as far as I could go" (as above) MIGHT be more a accurate assessment? --Zeraeph 13:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...And I've had a huge problem with everyone working on this article since I noticed it, as our discussion and debate is not about the article, or it's content, but a battle of wills.

Good faith and don't bite the newcomers went out the window when you didn't follow the rules, and made changes that were agenda driven. I repeat, gross changes with discussion on disputed articles is considered extreme vandalism. You're new. Lurk for a bit before you just step in.

I didn't make a snotty comment., I made an observation. You are an attorney. You are trained to operate from positionality. You also deal in hard facts. Positionality, no matter the facts, lends your viewpoint, no matter how informed, to POV. I am a social scientist. I am trained to operate from observation and interpretation via the application of theory. My viewpoint, therefore, lends itself to conjecture.

My comment about your background was not meant to be critical. I am well versed in legal matters, know a fair amount about the law, have a background in forensic psychology, consult to the FBI, and local authorities, and provide testimony as an expert witness in all manner of court matters...but I wouldn't presume to go near these issues in a public forum. It'd be bad form, and in my opinion, arrogant.

Finally, re: Wiki-quette, kindly put your new comments at the bottom of talk pages, not the top, as it screws up the history bot, and also try to use ":" to show indents, so people can follow the conversation. And, when you put responses to posts on your own talk page, no sees it but you. --Mjformica 11:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to let you know that, in response to your post, I reviewed both the wikiquette and vandalism policies. I also looked at faux pas. I cannot find a single policy that says I should consult "major players" before editing an article. The policy says to avoid deleting large portions of text (which I did) and provide a summary of the changes you made on the talk page (which I did). If you can point me to a policy that does support your view, please do so. In any event, I'd appreciate it if you would be more civil in the future. JenniSue 21:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hullo

Allow me to introduce myself. I also sew and knit and crochet and quilt, etc. I also have the book Getting Things Done, which has been an enormous help to me in pulling ME out of depression and lethargy. I use a software program, Above and Beyond, which automates the GTD principles.

Both Zeraeph and mjformica are new to Wikipedia and for all of their self-assurance, they do not understand much about the way things work here. They've been editing for a little over a month, I believe; I've been editing here for two years. I assure you, you have not committed vandalism and you have not broken any rules.

You can get a broader view of Mr. Formica if you visit his website, [1]. IMHO, he's used to running his own site the way he sees fit and doesn't seem to be familiar with compromise.

Wikipedia can be a rough-and-tumble environment. However, there are also some amazingly bright and cooperative people here. Just when you think it's pointless, people cooperate in creating an article that is really better than any one of them could have done alone. Hope you stay around. Zora 04:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The clothing and textile-arts articles could use a lot more love. PKM is a great editor and has been doing more there than I have.

Backing off...

Your perception of animosity is about you. I was making a statement of fact. There is nothing to debate when one makes patently incorrect statements like, "...[borderlines don't stalk]..." .

I didn't demand your CV. I suggested that the combination of editing without consulting on a controvertial page (which, again, is not accepted etiquette), being new to Wikipedia, and making statements like that referenced above, make your contributions initially suspect.

I have no problem with anything you've contributed. I have a problem with the manner in which it was distributed. Stop taking things personally, otherwise you will not survive this environment...trust me.

And I didn't "follow you"...you showed up on my watchlist, which contains over 100 pages. --Mjformica 11:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recognized by about a half a dozen academic and professional organizations and their respective publications. Careful, hon, you are about to join Zeraeph in being a hair's breath from liable. --Mjformica 00:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, JenniSue, he can be banned from Wikipedia for legal threats. Not that he'd have a case, as you'd know better than I. Zora 00:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if JenniSue is worrying, as an accomplished Disability Attorney she is more likely to choke if she is eating or drinking when she sees his silly baseless threats...it's just a tantrum, because he can't get his own way and doesn't like being caught out...just as long as he doesn't hold his breath till his face turns blue and actually injure himself! --Zeraeph 00:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definately

I checked BPD talk, I see his nonsense. It's as though he knows a lot, but heaven knows how he learned it, convinced, as he is, that nobody but him knows anything, and that kind of attitude doesn't form overnight, it takes decades.

I find it hilarious that while he puts everybody here down for "not being sufficiently qualified" to even have the right to comment, he has a column on a page that must be the spiritual home of the "self appointed expert". Perhaps if we could show qualifications as practical nurses and/or financial consultants he would deem us "sufficiently expert" to participate?

Yep, I may take you up on that offer of half shares in a defence attorney yet *chuckles*. PS: I'm in Ireland not UK ;o) --Zeraeph 11:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Borderline personality disorder article

Hello JenniSue. I am cleaning up the BPD article in the hope of getting it nominated as a featured article. I could use any help and advise you care to give. Thank you. Billyjoekoepsel 00:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]