User talk:TauCeti2009

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see. Thanks, will do. :)

Oh boy, this is what I get for working late shifts. Here we go: TauCeti2009 (talk) 05:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL - love the unsigned first reply there! Oh and just for the record, SineBot is an automated process with no humans looking at the replies to it, as are most other accounts with the word "Bot" in their name. --RobinHood70 (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, right. Can you tell I'm new to discussions on Wiki? :) TauCeti2009 (talk)

Thanks

Welcome to Wikipedia, TauCeti2009!

I just wanted to say thank you for your recent explanation of the statistics being cited. It's great to have a second person on the article who has access to some of the various offline sources cited in the article, as that's something that's generally been lacking up till now. Clearly most of the editors, myself included, are limited to primarily online sources.

Just as clearly, RetroS1mone has been the sole person strongly advocating for the psych-side of the article, though sciencewatcher has some interest in it as well, but doesn't contribute very often. I think the article would really benefit from someone who can look at it relatively dispassionately and add the psychiatric/psychological arguments that most of us there now are less familiar with. Speaking only for myself, as a person with CFS, I most clearly fall into that group that the article mentions that strongly believes in a physical attribution to his illness (though I certainly don't deny psychological effects of it, nor do I deny psychological causation in some people). Anyway, I hope you'll stick around and continue to provide a "second opinion" :) on the various additions, both psychological/psychiatric and biological! --RobinHood70 (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Robin. :) The problem isn't so much Retro's citations of psych studies on CFS, it's his (or her) misrepresentation of the data which verges on deliberate manipulation that is grating my gears.

I wouldn't mind contributing to the article and providing a more balanced view on the psychological side, but I wouldn't expect it not to be edited or reversed. I just don't have the patience for edit warring and seeing the same contested statements being reintroduced into the text at every opportunity.

I have an interest in CFS and the problem is that studies often contradict each other or don't replicate findings. So in terms of balance, you often need more than one citation, and with hundreds of studies it would take days just to summarize them all. Some of the neuropsychological findings are really interesting, for example, I'd happily list a ton of those. I might when the discussion calms down, but I wouldn't be at all happy to have any of my entries being used to support bad conclusions.

Thanks again. I sent you my e-mail address. I agree there seems to be deliberate misrepresentation of sources and it is frustrating to deal with. If you have easy access to more sources it will help to have the full text. I notice that The cognitive behavioural model of medically unexplained symptoms: a theoretical and empirical review - Deary V, is also being used to source controversial material. Ward20 (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sent a reply to your email address thanks. Ward20 (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

More "Your recent edits"...

...except I'm not a bot. :) I just wanted to point out something that you may have already started to notice yourself. It's customary on Wikipedia, when replying to someone on a talk page or similar discussion-oriented page (like WP:ANI), to indent them by one level using a colon. You have to indent each paragraph in what you write, not just the first one (a common error by beginners and old-hands alike). Typically, however, things eventually get too indended, and people will outdent, either partially or fully. There are a variety of styles in common use, such as outdenting only to one more level than what you're replying to, or simply continuing to indent no matter what. See some examples below:

Always indent; full outdent indicated

Statement

Reply 1

Reply 2

Reply 3 (replying to Reply 1, but following "always indent" rule, so it gets indented anyway)

Reply 4

(outdent) Reply 5

Reply 6

Reply-based indent and outdent; full outdent not indicated

Statement

Reply 1

Reply 2

Reply 3 (replying to Reply 1, so stays at same level as 2...can be confusing if Reply 2 was several paragraphs)

Reply 4

Reply 5

Reply 6

Generally, whatever system you follow, people will figure it out. Really the only reason to specifically put some kind of "(outdent)" indicator on your posts is to say "I'm not unaware of indenting, nor did I forget - I did this deliberately", but if you're a long-time contributor, people will generally assume you intended to outdent, so it's really a matter of your personal preference. I'm anal retentive and prefer to be explicit, but that's just me. :) --RobinHood70 (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)