User talk:Tomcloyd/Archive 2

This page archives material from the year 2010.

---

DSM (copyright issues / cultural references sections, etc.

Wanted to be sure you saw this piece. [1] MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

And on a different (but related) topic, this one as well. [2] MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

As you'll notice, no doubt, there has been a section blanked at the PTSD piece due to a complaint of copyright infringement concerning the DSM. My guess is that this is overkill, but I'm not an expert. I have read the feedback, though, and your input would be invaluable. Just follow the links from the message by moonriddengirl on the PTSD talk page. Thanks!MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yikes! Didn't know about this. This is nonsense. I know US copyright law right well (for a non-lawyer). There is NO violation in the disputed section. One is ALWAYS allowed to paraphrase, and that's what's done there, except for very brief, clearly marked and credited quotes. And if they're going to flag this section, by not article's lead-off section - "Signs and Symptoms", which contains a far more detailed discussion of the diagnostic criteria. Someone's just shot themselves (and us) in the foot. Gonna go investigate. I don't see how this could have happened, unless someone's letting their kid drive the truck.Tom Cloyd (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, have concluded my review. I find no basis for issue, and have said so, in detail, in the appropriate venue. It'll likely be a while (a few days) before this is resolved. I've requested that the original objection be published so we can see who and what is behind this action. At best, it's overkill. Tom Cloyd (talk)14:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I find it ironic the folks behind the DSM go this far out of their way to prevent dissemination of such useful information. Having worked in publishing for many years, I do know that no one likes to see their hard-earned prose ripped off; at the same time, when it comes to such seminal work as the DSM, I would hope the authors and editors would see paraphrasing as proof that they were doing their job and getting the information out to those most in need of it. Best,MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I saw your talk page comments on the 'cultural section' of the PTSD piece. I have responded there. I also used up my two reverts trying to keep that distraction out of the piece. Ah, wonderful wikipedia. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

[Tom] Yeah - this guy doesn't get it. He's headed for dispute resolution real quick. I need to go study up on the process. Don't know much about it. I will NOT allow this crap to be here, if I can. Thanks for chiming in.Tom Cloyd (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I fully support you on this, and have left another comment to that effect. MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Many, many thanks for the barnstar. It's been my pleasure working with you on this. Heck, you're doing all the work. I'm just riding shotgun. lol Thanks again. Best,MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, in terms of the discussion going on about films on that talk page, I find it most peculiar that a new name shows up out-of-the-blue and begins pushing for the inclusion of films. I have a feeling about this one and it isn't good.MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

[TC] Yeah. Doesn't look like a sockpuppet - but what do I know? In any case, the argument is now fully formed in my mind, in terms of [a] secondary sources are needed and haven't been produced, and [b] the article is already long, and ancillary sections aren't justified. I'm not too worried about the outcome, if we have to call in some dispute resolution. For now, we'll keep watching things, and today I intend to move forward with major primary work on the article. Enough nonsense, say I (although it's always good practice). We'll see what each day bring us (which we likely won't be able to predict.Tom Cloyd (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

PTSD change (editing of "DSM-V proposed changes")

What do you think? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. No problems whatsoever, to my eyes. Thanks for pointing it out to me. Tom Cloyd (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Good, thanks. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome

Thanks for your comment on my removal of the term "post traumatic stress syndrome." (Me impulsive? Never!!) I think it's a good article, and I certainly don't dispute that the word "syndrome" was probably used instead of "disorder" at some point. My concern is that the inclusion of such a minor variant is confusing in that particular context, because it makes the list of historical names look circular. Also, I doubt that anyone is going to think "post traumatic stress syndrome" was a different condition. By contrast, "shell shock" and those other phrases in the list clearly need to be pointed out as obsolete names for PTSD. Dratman (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You make a decent point. Probably few people NOT in health care know the syndrome/disorder distinction, so it would be confusing to many.

I think that whole 'obsolete names' section needs to be moved to the historical section. It's NOT summary information. At some point, I'll surely move it, if someone else doesn't beat me to it. Have higher priorities though. Tom Cloyd (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

PTSD: Images - Vietnam memorial

Hello, hope all is well. I added a couple of images from the Vietnam memorial in Washington (courtesy of the Library of Congress), as I thought the long bits of text could use a little breaking up. Are you okay with the images? I was hoping to maybe find a few more, if there's something you feel might work. Anyway, take care and enjoy your weekend. As always,MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

BREAKING NEWS - see bottom two sections of this page, which show the relevant sections of PTSD with your images as I've suggested they be edited, for your perusal. I suggest you open the original in another browser window so you can do a side by side comparison (if you like). (Also, if you click the image and go to the uploaded file you'll see my edit notes.)

These sections have been deleted now, as the images in questions have been moved to the article.

Following is my response before I figured out I could do this...

I noticed the images a couple of days ago (if my memory serves me, which I can't always assume!), and was delighted. A definite plus!

Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Washington, D.C. - I was a professional ceramist for a number of years, and still yearn to be a painter. My eye tells me that this image has four design flaws which can likely be remedied with a little cropping. I'd like to propose an alternate presentation of the image. If you like it, we have a fix. The flaws I see are:

• overly strong converging diagonals, which make the image unnecessarily abstract, when in fact it's an image about people, living and dead.
• the edges of the photo have what appear to be unexposed film borders, and this lends nothing to the image. I'm well aware that in some art photos these edges are preserved for effect, and that it can work very well, but I don't think it does here, at all,
• the center of interest necessarily is the visitor - that's just the way our brain works, I think. Also, the converging lines take you there - you have little choice. Yet, it's so small that one cannot make it out. This is a scale effect: the problem would likely disappear if the image were significantly larger (the other problems would not, however).
• the center of interest is actually centered vertically - definitely a design no-no. Moving it off center just a bit would be a major improvement.

Statue, Three Servicemen, Vietnam Veterans Memorial is a great image, which, however, suffers from tonal balance issues, I think. In short, it's too gray. Small as it is, the definition that would come from lightening the highlights would help give it more "snap" (or maybe it's the mid-range which needs to be moved toward the light end - I need to examine the original to tell). Also, it has those same unexposed film borders as the other image. In this setting (which is not an "art" context) I don't think these are an asset at all. Again, these are easy problems to fix.

Now, my main thought: This article surely benefits from images. Yours are the first which have PEOPLE in them, and people is what PTSD is about. I really like the effect, and think we need more. Specifically, I think we really need to reach for images of WOMEN, since they are the principal victims of PTSD, and are chronically shortchanged in virtually every discussion of PTSD I've ever encountered. We do not have to perpetuate that grave error here. (I know you asked me for documentation of this gender differential, and I'll be adding that to the article this weekend, I think.)

It seems a bit difficult, initially, to imagine how we might solve this problem, but here are some thoughts:

• We need to be clear what we're illustrating with images. Your soldier images don't even depict emotional disturbance (although the Memorial implies it, certainly), yet I think the article clearly benefits from their presence. So, I conclude that precise match of image to content is not needed to produce a positive effect.
• Images of men and women in distress of various sorts which relate to PTSD should not be all that tough to find. Some possible sources:
  • Classical art, images of which may be in the public domain (although I don't know where they might be at this moment).
  • Image repositories which offer licenses that would allow our us. (I don't have a list at the moment, but I know these exist, from my work in web site design, and can quickly locate them).
  • Images on public sites (Flickr and the like), by amateurs, which we might be able to get permission to use in the article.

Those are my thoughts for now. I'll be most interested to read yours in response. Tom Cloyd (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The two images look great, thanks. The editing looks good. I will look around for more along the theme we both agree are important. I have uploaded something like 1000 images to Commons, and am often perusing various web sites of all kinds for images so I will keep my eyes open. I have also used images from Flickr after contacting the owner as well, so I'm familiar with how that works. When I find a suitable image, I'll drop it here on your page. Thanks for your thoughts, as well. Best,MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Great. Glad you liked them. I've replaced the images in the article with these.

Didn't know you had such a commitment to image location and storage in Commons. That's fantastic. Sounds like I've passed this idea to exactly the right guy.

I'd love to work on this image problem more myself, but I really do have my hands full with working on the article itself, so I'm afraid my own contributions to image location aren't likely to amount to much any time soon. I took the time to edit these two images not so much because I felt a pressing need as because I had new software I wanted to become more familiar with (DigiKam, on Kubuntu Linux) so I could use it for image management relative to my professional website and blog. It turns out to be pretty good stuff, so time well spent - plus it served our purposes here, hopefully.

Have not retreated from the field on that External links dispute. Just wanted to catch up on my reading of WP Policy, etc. My impression so far is that WLU is being a bit of Legal Harpy, and doesn't really understand this article and its somewhat unique audience. I need to finish my reading, but my impression so far is that the links are going to be restored. "Policy" isn't legal code; it's guidelines and recommendations, to which exceptions are explicitly allowed. We'll see. No rush...Tom Cloyd (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

PTSD: Images - Guernica

Hello again. I've been working on some other things, but I noticed the discussion on the depression piece about a Van Gogh work. That brought to mind the Picasso work [|Guernica], which seems to me to best represent post traumatic stress disorder. . I wish the image were larger, but I think the image would work well here and was curious about your thoughts. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

---

That's a really stunning idea. It may almost be too creative for some folks, but, still, I like it very, very much, as an illustration for the article. To the degree that it's a risky choice (and they probably all are, really), I personally think it's a risk well worth taking.

FOR

• If ever there were a depiction of affective flooding (a psychotherapy term denoting the emergence great feeling, leading to its domination in the brain, with a simultaneous inability on the part of the victim to bring things quickly under control), this is probably it. It's overwhelming, viewed from that perspective.
• There's a very prominent female victim in it (far left), and multiple women and men. An excellent balance, addressing a very real problem with the public perception of who is victimized by PTSD.
• There are multiple species depicted (quite possibly the only such painting of multi-species trauma that many people will already be familiar with.
• It's a war memorial/depiction image, and many people already associate PTSD with war, so the association of the image with PTSD will come easily to many readers.

AGAINST

• It may well depict affective flooding, but how about the other PTSD symptoms? (REJOINDER: It's probably an impossible task to find a single image that depicts the full range of PTSD symptoms. We do well to find any well depicted.)
• That it's a war image supports the erroneous notion that PTSD is strongly associated with war. Much PTSD has nothing at all to do with war, even when the female and child victims are counted. (REJOINDER: Granted, but the same thing may be said here as was said to the last objection: to find any PTSD-related depiction isn't easy, and while incomplete depiction can mislead, the correction can be found in the article text. Again, we likely will have to settle for an artful (!) compromise.)

So, I say that you've made a genius-stroke in this choice. This famous, overwhelmingly powerful, crushingly human painting somehow, for me, gets right to the tormented heart of PTSD. The more I think about it the move I'm simply moved by the choice. Stunning. I can only hope that other react the same way. They likely will. Thank you for the idea, and by all means go ahead with the notion. I'm very excited by it. Tom Cloyd (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Glad you enjoy. I think every illustration should guide the reader's eye, engender interest in the text and, hopefully, connect to the reader's gut as well. I am enjoying this collaboration with you. Take care and have a great weekend. As always,MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"Note that" (about editorializing and other alleged transgressions)

WP:EDITORIAL and WP:PEACOCK. Try asking nicely next time. Colin°^Talk 22:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the more specific references (but you could have done even better by referring me to the relevant sections of the pages).

What did I say/do that was (in your view) not "nice"? Perhaps you are confusing directness, which is my style, with rudeness. In some cultures, directness IS rude (for example, Japanese, British Isles, etc.). But I am an American, residing in the west. We value directness here (well, OK, many, but not all, of us do). I intend no offense, but I also will not apologize for my directness, which I like. It's certainly fine for you to prefer something else - your values, not mine.

As for asking for specificity in citations: I shouldn't have to. It's a basic principle. A vague citation is no citation at all-it's merely citing for effect. A shabby practice.

Finally - I see no "peacocking" in my edited sentence ("Note that..."). I'm also NOT editorializing. I'm directing attention, which is a completely different thing. I think you're clearly misleading your references. I leave the edit unreverted for the reasons I've already given. Tom Cloyd (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Saying "note that" is editorialising. The give-away is your explanation: "I'm directing attention". You shouldn't be apparent to the reader at all. The WP:PEACOCK guideline section is "Don't peacock your facts". If you don't see the error in what you've done, there are better editors, with greater writing experience than me, who can help you on those guideline talk pages.

You called the editors at "Major depressive disorder" "illiterate". You said, of Dabomb87, "it looks like you're either lazy or trying to brush me off". You implied a highly experienced editor was erroneously citing the MOS, "Please direct me to the relevant section, if it actually exists", when some humility and respect is in order. You said Dabomb87 offered a "sloppy justification". These are all insults. Not directness. They cause hurt to people's feelings, even if you append the text with some "no offence meant" get-out clause. You may intend no offence but you are offensive nonetheless. If you don't understand the difference, I can't help you. Even if the issue was cultural (which it isn't: I call a spade a spade) this is an international endeavour so you need to respect cultural sensitivities too. If you feel this behaviour is an unchangeable part of your personality, then IMO, you don't belong here. This encyclopaedia is built collaboratively. It might not come naturally, but you have to work at getting along with other people here, or else you get shown the door. You have already caused damage to the project by behaviour that led a highly experienced medical editor to unwatch an important featured article. Even if you feel you are right on the point of dispute (and it is a petty point), it is far more important that editors work well together than that the subheadings are perfect. Colin°^Talk 09:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: editorializing - OK, point ceded. I finally understand what you're seeing, and agree with you. Thanks for the lucid explanation. I think I didn't quite grasp the meaning of the world "editorializing". I have a better grasp of it now. My error. (As I said elsewhere, we all have problems with illiteracy - see my next paragraph - and here I'm showing a bit of mine.)

Re: "illiterate" - I believe I referred, at least initially, to an action, not a person. As I've said before, it's not about people, at least not in my mind. To be literate is literally, to be well-read. When one reverts a proper correction of an egregious (because it's so elementary) error in outline structure, then justifies it with vague reference to two very lengthy documents, and when asked for detailed references merely huffs off...well, if that's 'not' illiterate, what is? Then when I not only obtained documentation of my view, but put it in an article so that it could benefit the community, someone else tried to paint me as some kind of underhanded person. That's all just nuts.

"Sloppy justification" / "lazy or..." - I don't mind at all being legitimately corrected (you just did it, and it was fine by me - and always will be). I absolutely DO mind when someone is trying to shut me down with while not bothering to adequately justify their position. I may not always justify mine, but I most usually try to. I don't mind at all being disagreed with. I mind very much when it's done badly, then I get criticized for asking that it be done according to the customary conventions of argumentation.

I completely agree with you about the value of editors working together. And those who don't take "unread" positions will not be called illiterate by me. The editor to whom your refer who quit that article because I called her bluff (quite legitimately), whereupon she folded. All she had to do was grant me my point, as I just did yours. It simple. She was trying to "win". I was just trying to get the thinking straight. It's a critical difference. I respect the one, but not the other. How about you talk to her a bit about this aspect of "getting along": when someone offers reasoned argument for a position, go to meet the argument. Refute it or yield, if it matters. She did everything but that. What's the point of spending decades working on your thinking if people are just going to try to bully their way past you? Was I pissed about this? What do you think? Can you see why? How about some sensitivities for MY cultural values, which I've just expressed? They are hard won, and don't give them up easily.

I truly did not seek to offend. But I certainly was dealing with behavior which I didn't expect and did find offensive. I always will. And yes, it would be wonderful if I could advocate my positions with silky smoothness. It's frankly not my first priority, but I'll work on it. That's the best I can do.

I appreciate it that you took the time for the dialog. THAT I respect as well, regardless of your position. It's what reasonable people do, I think. Tom Cloyd (talk) 10:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

We have a longstanding essay called Bold, revert, discuss. You were bold (made the edit), Sandy reverted (she disagreed, rightly or wrongly doesn't matter), the next step would be to discuss if you feel the original edit is worth repeating or some compromise can be found. Instead, you reverted Sandy's revert, which means the dispute over the heading/subheading has become an edit war. That was the first mistake and enough to make some editors walk away. The second was to browbeat Sandy into submission by insults and a tl;dr essay combined with lecturing edits to our article on the subject. Now we have another reason for someone to conclude "I don't need this". Lastly, Sandy made a number of points about the state of the article and the lack of progress at resolving them that don't concern you but reflect her already fed-upness with it. You were simply the last straw.

Some people (mostly men) like to argue until one side wins. Others wisely realise that some arguments aren't worth having/continuing. If you have a point to make on a talk page, keep it short, polite and respectful. I'm no angel myself. I'm glad to read that you plan to make an effort. Colin°^Talk 15:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

edit war - As I've suggested elsewhere, I think you're being overly liberal in applyingthis label. I did not break the"3-reverts" rule, nor carry on with repeated reversions across several days. I reverted, while documenting my action well (I knew my position was correct, and to this date it remains unchallenged). I asked Sandy to document hers; instead, she left the discussion, and the article. I see no mistake on my part.

browbeating & insults - says who? Looks to me like you're lapsing again into name-calling. Sandy was challenged, respectably and appropriately, by me. That's what one does in argumentation. It's how one reaches consensus. She couldn't manage her side of the argument and left. End of discussion, apparently.

'zero-sum games vs. win-win games - Your last point is correct, re: men (psychology of gender is one of my specializations). But it doesn't apply. I desire to be "in the right", not "right". It's not about me, it's about what I think, and whether or not it's well-founded. Give me a better argument than the one I hold, and I'm yours, with pleasure. Many people don't understand this distinction, and I, in turn, am baffled by their incomprehension. I'm not struggling to "BE" right, but to be "in the right position" which means that that needs to be determined, so that I and others can move to it.

re: continuation of argument - As to whether or not "this argument" (the one about correct outline form) is worth continuing to resolution - I say it is, and have acted accordingly. I've given good reasons for considering the issue important-summed up by my assertion that outlines with single elements in any level look illiterate. That point, too, has not been challenged. Any idea why? Not possible, perhaps?

re: brevity and my lack of it - I'm detailed, thorough, articulate, and only occasionally brief. No one's required to read what I write. I aim for brevity, but the world appears complex to me, and complexity is not well represented by a few words, except in poetry, which is probably why I write a lot of it (...to finally get to brevity). In any case, my exposition is not often brief. I cannot please everyone. Tom Cloyd (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I see that Colin-- a most highly respected editor IMO-- has already been here and tried to reason with you, but that doesn't seem to have improved the tone you used at User talk:Ling.Nut#revision '377559696' to PTSD-- an issue about which you were completely wrong, btw. Please try to be more collegial and collaborative; when dealing with anyone, but in particular with long-time well-respected editors who know policy and guideline as well as Colin and Ling.Nut, it doesn't behoove you to behave rudely. Also, please try to conform more closely to WP:MEDRS in your editing, and reduce reliance on primary sources. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

If what I write in PTSD is not in conformity with WP:MEDRS, that's probably because the topic is psychological, not medical. Admittedly, there are aspects of the disorder which reflect the organic nature of the brain, and the fact of its residing in a body, but PTSD is NOT an organic disorder, but rather an information processing disorder. It is a psychological phenomenon. To the best of my knowledge this is the clear consensus of the professional health care community. In short,PTSDis clearly a topic in psychopathology, which is a topic in the study of psychology, not medicine. Surely many disciplines contribute to the study of mental health and the treatment of mental illness, and the relative contributions and involvement of any one discipline tend to differ across the commonly accepted diagnostic categories used in clinical mental health practice. In PTSD the is scant reason to doubt that psychology contributes far more than medicine.

As for my alleged reliance on primary sources, please give examples, or withdraw the allegation. (I do know a primary source when I see one, and very much doubt that any of my contributions to PTSD reference primary sources. That would be an utterly sophomoric error.)

Tom Cloyd (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Fair use of Guernica

the painting - I've only just started to research this - but having a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:PicassoGuernica.jpg (you must already be familiar with this), I don't immediately see documentation on the image page of its copyright status. It's in Spain. It's owned, no doubt, by the Picasso estate. I rather expect that Spanish law applies, and Spain is likely signatory to the Berne copyright convention. Copyright may well have expired. It's been 70+ years since it was painted. Further research is needed.

the photograph - How about the photograph? There are copyright issues there as well (not often appreciated by many folks). That is not addressed at all on the image page. We're more likely to have issues there, as it is not likely that the photograph has been placed into the public domain.

fair use - If other articles can make unchallenged fair use claims, why cannot we? I don't know the answer to this question, yet. I also am not convinced of the legitimacy of those fair use claims. I'm a bit familiar with "fair use", and this doesn't look like an appropriate application of the concept, to me.

default position - I'm quite confident that the default position relative to any intellectual property is that it's copyright. One then must build an argument that it's not. That hasn't been done.

Bottom line: more research is needed. If we can build an argument, I'll fight for the use of the image. (It amazes me how many little issues get in the way of my making major progress on the core content of this article. Some days it seems like all I do is swat flies...)

Editor Hammersoft may be a problem. Looks like he may be an committed one-trick-pony re: "fair use" issues. That's OK. IF we have a good case for use of the image, I'm not known for my lack or resolve or endurance. I like this image a lot.

You may know more than I about how to check the questions I've raised. Your thoughts? Tom Cloyd (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I think there's a compelling case for fair use of this image. I have posted one message to the Talk page of the piece with a source. And I will post more. I simply can't imagine a more compelling rationale than the use of this image on that page – and it is most certainly not decorative. Have a great weekend.MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, this statement appears under fair use rationale for another work on wikipedia: "It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone." I believe that summarizes the reason Guernica is essential to the article: the painting conveys emotions that cannot be conveyed by words alone.MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I just responded to the fair use thing on your talk page - letting you know I'm still headed that direction. As for your comment here - I don't think that's an argument that's easily made. As art, you and I agree that it's a powerful representation which can be easily related to PTSD, but it's not about PTSD, and is not essential to understanding PTSD in the same way that, say, a particular brain section might be essential to understanding environmentally induced brain damage in children resulting from poor attachment relations. I don't yet see its essentialness. You know, what would be great would be if we could find an illustration of a flashback, as that's the symptom most people associate with PTSD. Now, there's a challenge for you! Arghhh!Tom Cloyd (talk) 04:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

---

UPDATE Thanks for the update, and glad to hear you're going to be working on the PTSD piece. I'll keep my eye out. I've recently been spending most of my time on wiki adding images, some of photographs, some of documents (Library of Congress), but mostly of paintings that I upload. I think I'm up to something like 1,375 contributions at Commons. So I've had my mind on images lately. But right now i've sort of abandoned my impassioned quest to use Guernica. It looked so good on that page that I hoped to keep it there. But I can't see any way to make the fair use rationale work. So I was trying to think of other images. Of course The Scream came to mind, but that's already in use on a psychology-related piece. Then I started to think along the lines of Hieronymous Bosch. But I haven't been able to locate anything satisfactory so far. If I do, I'll let you know. Enjoy your weekend and I'll look forward to seeing your handiwork on the piece. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I recently came across another fair use situation that was bizarre. I stumbled on a dust jacket for Hitler'sMein Kampf. The illustration on the main wikipedia page for the book features a cover that is used under the 'fair use' rationale. But the dust jacket that I found at the New York Public Library digital collection[3], was adjudged by the administrators at Commons as not falling under copyright laws as it didn't have any original content outside the lettering itself. So I have used that cover to illustrate a couple of articles. Sort of interesting. MarmadukePercy(talk) 19:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Glad you focused on the image question. I'm up to my neck in other issues, as will soon be apparent here. Cannot focus on everything! Bosch sounds like an inspired idea. You may know that there were others also working that style at about that time. I wonder is there's anything to be found in that general region of art history?

As for the copyrightability of a book cover - for pete's sake, that's a design, and as such is clearly copyright fodder. Typography itself is copyrightable unless released. The design is the original content. Any informed artist would assert that. Ignorance of this suggests to me that the copyright mavens at WP may not be fully cooked. Do I sense an open door?Tom Cloyd (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. I'm still mulling over the image question. There were some edits today to the PTSD piece on 'Third Generation Treatments" that looked a bit dubious to me, but I resisted reverting them until you had a look. Best,MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much for the update. Have a great time on your (I'm sure) well-deserved vacation. I'll have my hands full from Thursday onward with a project, but I'll make sure to keep a close eye on the PTSD piece. As always,MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox

Text

(Ritter 2002) likes Oxford style, and even says it's the style of the future (Ritter 2002:23)

Reference list

Ritter, R. (2002). The Oxford Style Manual. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198605641.

Linking to templates (use internal linking when possible)

Templates may be linked just like any other Wikipedia page - there's no need to go through external linking. I've fixed your last edit to Template:Citation/core/doc, see here. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, my bad habits are seizing control of my brain again. Arrgh. Too much time working on web pages. Thanks for the catch.Tom Cloyd (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Image

Looks like it is working to me.Doc James (talk·contribs · email) 16:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I can see the image as well - what do you see in the section in question? WLU (t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Glad there's no problem, now. There sure was at the time I posted my original call for help. I could not get the image to display in the article in either Firefox (fully updated, etc.) or Chrome. All I saw was a box with a small vertical line where the image should be. I can only guess that there was a server problem, but who knows? Thanks to both of you for responding.Tom Cloyd (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you're still marking all of your edits as minor. I'm guessing this is not deliberate, it's an option you can turn on and off in your preferences. In order to turn it on or off, you go in the Your Preferences screen (at the top of the screen, next to "my watchlist"). From here, choose the Editing tab, and in the Advanced options area the 8th box down is "Mark all edits minor by default", which should be clicked. I don't know why the default option is to mark edits as minor. There's a couple reasons why to do so, check out the wikilink for more info. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Nuts. My fault. I set that option, but then I keep forgetting about it. Not good. Will switch it back. Thanks for the heads up.Tom Cloyd (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Checking in and a link

Hello again. I haven't forgotten about the PTSD piece, but have been busy with some other things lately. I'm still mulling over how to solve the graphics problem, but haven't given up on it. And I do hope to do some editing on the piece as well. I also saw this story (as I'm sure you did) [4], and didn't know whether there was any angle of it to post within the PTSD wiki piece (probably not), but wanted to bring it to your attention. Hope you're well, and take care. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Warm greetings! In brief, this summer for me has been life changing, and time-consuming. The end result will be good for the article, I believe. I'm in the process of relocating from the northwest to southern Utah, which process should be completed by approx. Aug. 1. The article will rise in importance on my schedule, at that point, for many good reasons. Until then, I'm necessarily focused on making the move. Can't do everything at once, it appears!

Have been out of town for a week; returning tomorrow. Will look at that article then. Be well! Tom Cloyd (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's a biggie. From Bellingham to southern Utah? Was it the rain? ;-) Seriously, I wish you well with your move. You're moving to an interesting part of the country. I'll look for your return around August 1, but before then try to get in some hiking and fun. It's summertime, after all. :-) Best regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Clarification: I'm moving to southern Utah - as in leavng from Bellingham! It wasn't the rain. I just have an exceptional opportunity I want to bring to fruition, and for that I must relocate. THEN I hope to get in some hiking, while working, of course. My street address will change, and my work on the PTSD article is likely to intensify; otherwise, little will change, I suspect, relative to Wikipedia.Tom Cloyd (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

EMDR

Hey Tom, I remember you discussing this in relation to PTSD. The subject recently popped uphere on the fringe noticeboard. You might like to check it out. There are allegations of it being fringe or quackery and allegations of an editor misrepresenting papers to make EMDR appear to be robust evidence based practice. Perhaps you are too busy enjoying the summer or working on PTSD stuff but thought I would bring this to your attention.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I actually know a great deal about this pseudo-issue, which I won't recount here. I will visit the link you provide and see if I can make a useful contribution. Keeping things fact-based might help prevent the problem of people's messing with the topic elsewhere due to ignorance. Thanks again for the update - will always be appreciated! Tom Cloyd (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome Tom. I have posted a reply to you on the fringe noticeboard.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tom, I replied,Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Eye_movement_desensitization_and_reprocessing_.28EMDR.29.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

PTSD image

Hello, and thanks for the message. Actually I had had that thought awhile back, as I've uploaded quite a number of images of paintings and the like to Commons. Ever since I've been looking for the right image of Leda, or something along that line, but haven't yet found it. Nevertheless, I'm glad we're on the same track, and I'll let you know when (and if) I find the right thing. I'll be on a bit of a wikibreak for a bit, but will be checking here periodically. Best,MarmadukePercy(talk) 20:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

An editor added an image of a Marine with the "thousand yard stare" as the image for the infobox. I don't like it as much asGuernica, obviously, but it may do for now. Would be curious for your thoughts.MarmadukePercy(talk) 22:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

My concern is that we'll end up with images that all have males in combat. While a major cause of PTSD, I'm afraid we'll be ignoring the women suffering from the malady as well. MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Just got back to this after my big move. I agree. I find the caption both wrong and misleading. Will attempt to fix it later today. Tom Cloyd (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The more I look at that image, the more inadequate it seems. (Not that I have any better candidate right now.) I'll keep rummaging though.... MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm right with you on this one. Even correctly captioned (and I'm back now and about to fix THAT problem), it's off-center and plays into the PTSD=soldier stereotype. That greatly annoys me. For now, I'm leaving you with this image location problem, as I think you're far better equipped than I to solve the problem, and I'm only beginning to get the chaos created by my move enough under control to be able to give some time to the content problems in this article. At this point in my calendar, working on the article is a top tier priority for me, finally. Tom Cloyd (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Your behavior and personal attacks

After reviewing your MOST rude post to User talk:Ling.Nut (not only were you rude, but you were blatantly wrong),[5] I've been looking at some of your other contribs, and I'm concerned not only about your lack of understanding of Wiki policies as they relate to medical articles--I'm also concerned that I see a pattern of rudeness and failure to collaborate collegially with others, as evidenced by the exchange above with User:Colin,[6]thewith another knowledgeable and respected editor, DaBomb87, and by this most alarming and disgustingpostto another editor. I do hope this behavior will stop-- four times that I'm aware of, and that I found without too much looking, is too much of a pattern. It is simply not appropriate for you to toss around credentials-- which are irrelevant here, what is relevant is reliable medical sourcing-- in telling another user to get help. SandyGeorgia(Talk) 00:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, make that five,since with further review, I now see we've crossed paths before, and I had already expressed concern about your difficult editing style and disregard for WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS, and reliance on opinion over policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that the post pointing a user seeking mental health advice to seek professional help is disgusting and inappropriate; it is the same advice given in the banner at the top of Wiki medicine project. However, I do think the aggressive and insulting post to Ling nut which seems to be over a trivial matter was disgusting and inappropriate. The other diffs are also worrying. Sorry for butting in, I have Tomm's talk page watch listed.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I also profoundly disagree with the characterization of Tom's remark urging the poster to seek out mental health counseling. I read that remark at the time and saw it in a completely different light as portrayed here. As far as other remarks to other editors, I am supposing that Tom is a busy man, and that in his haste he has been short with other editors. That is regrettable, and should be avoided at all costs, as this is a collaborative effort, and every attempt at conciliation is to be valued. I hope Tom will see these comments as helpful suggestions, and not personal attacks. He is a valued contributor here and I'd like to think that he can reflect on this and perhaps be a bit more collegial. MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

LG, my point is that using his alleged "credentials" on Wiki to give medical advice is absolutely inappropriate, particularly when combined with his tendency to throw them (and his opinion) around. Who we allege we are in real life has no relevance here, nor do our opinions, which Tomcloyd seems to toss around pretty freely (for example,Fringe noticeboard). We all can be anyone on the internet: for all you know, I'm the Queen of Sheba :), and that kind of attitude has no place here. Of course, "expert" attention to content can be helpful, but our most helpful and experienced and humble medical editors never tout their "real life" credentials, and instead use the highest quality reliable sources to substantiate their edits and talk page comments. In combination with a demonstrated poor attitude, I'm not seeing that kind of understanding of policy or highest quality WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing from Tomcloyd, and I hope he'll tone down his attitude as well as improving his content editing, and understand that his alleged "credentials" have no place on Wiki, much less for giving medical advice. At Marmaduke, the busy editor excuse doesn't cut it-- this pattern goes back several months, and all of us medical editors are overworked and quite busy. If Tomcloyd can't operate collaboratively, he may benefit from a break. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, at this point, I'm more concerned about the integrity of the article (PTSD) and a potential WP:COI, givenTom's dominance of the edit count there. I'm worried that personal opinion is creeping in via the over-reliance on primary sources to the exclusion of correct use ofreliable, secondary reviewed sources. There are far too many medical articles that overrely on primary sources, and this article is yet another for concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I still don't interpret his post as giving medical advice, but rather urging an editor to seek medical (or professional) advice. Although I have noticed the same as what you have noticed Sandy and that is Tom's tendency to use his credentials much too freely, as if to say that he owns the truth, when as you quite rightly point out, only references matter for an encyclopedia; mixing credntials with opinion in general conversation may also come across as a form of arrogance, i.e. my opinion is better than yours because,,,,(on wikipedia it should be my references, are better than yours). Since the issue of credentials has come up, I may use it if I may as a way of resolving this dispute (or perhaps unintentionally escalating it), Tom as a professional, finds peoples flaws/problems, points them out to people, hope they listen and gives them professional advice. So I think Tom needs to eat humble pie, and be in the reversed role where people offer criticisms of his flaws and accepts advice. I think Tom's problem is that he is very analytical, at least on wikipedia and can split hairs, takes things the wrong way too easily and respond in a condescending fashion to his fellow wikipedians, at times with little to no provocation at all. I am not sure how much of this is his nature and how much of it is to do with an enthusiasm for his interest but I am sure that some reflection on Tom's part could lead to improved behaviour. There should be plenty of reviews, meta-analysis, systematic reviews etc for sourcing for such a widely researched subject as PTSD. With regard to editing on the PTSD article, there is certainly room for improvement, with a larger use of secondary sources, but to keep things in context if one looks at the state of the article before Tom arrived, and how it is now, it is much better (and why I awarded him a barnstar). The article was a mess and not very substantial prior to Tom's editing, so while sourcing is not ideal, we should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, he has been a net positive on the PTSD content side of things but a net negative on interaction side of things. I think the main problem is condescending tone when interacting with his fellow wikipedians which Tom unfortunately has not been able to thus far see in himself. I have not read the article for a few months but from what I have observed, I do not get the impression he is distorting the medical literature in the topic area. I feel sad to be leveling these criticisms towards Tom because I do see a good side to him in that he seems to be the only person for the past 5 or 6 years to ever show an interest in developing PTSD articles and I think at heart he cares deeply for people who suffer from PTSD. However, the comment to Ling was too much, for me over something so trivial combined with the other complaints.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Just in case Tom isn't aware of the mistake he made with Ling.Nut, the Nutty One's edit literally and only removed a space that was incorrectly placed between refs (there should be no spaces between refs). Even if Ling had done more, Tom's post to him was rude, arrogant, and inappropriate, but it's made worse by the fact that Tom was simply wrong. I hope Tom will consider all of the disclaimers on Wiki about medical advice, and understand that article talk pages are no place for him, or anyone, to be dispensing it by touting credentials. We have some truly fine medical editors on Wiki-- experts in their fields--who exercise humility and rely on sourcing for everything they post. Thanks for the collegial attempts to sort through this, LG!SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

"behavior and personal attacks" - my response

This is a temporary post, simply to inform anyone interested that I am aware of the material in this section of my talk page. In the past three weeks I have moved my household and professional practice across 3 states and am now working as fast as I can to recover and to re-establish a normal life and work situation. It's a slow process.

I'm usually time-challenged, but am even more so now. I have tried for 3 days to find the time to respond here and to the edits and documentation thereof at the PTSD article. Each day, pressing issues have intruded and kept me from responding. Yesterday, for example, after 17 hours of work I had a new ISP, and a functioning cable modem, router, and 3 functioning computers. I then worked on client-related paperwork until 5:30AM. I will respond here and at PTSD absolutely as soon as I am able. Thanks for your patience.

Tom Cloyd (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been very slow getting back to this, as I consider it a tempest in a teapot married to an abortive attempt at character assassination, the point of which eludes me. If I was overly brusque with the editor in question it was because I was annoyed to see someone be so apparently sloppy, when their history of edits suggested no need for such carelessness. If I misread what it was the editor in question actually did, why could not that simply have been pointed out to me? People do make mistakes, although I'm agreeing that I did so in this case. The reaction elicited seems wholly out of proportion, and that's surely a problem. We all have better things to do here. And now I'm off to do them. Tom Cloyd (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

COI

My concerns, combined with Tomcloyd'spersonal opinion and a possible COI or bias wrt EMDR, about the PTSD article can beseen in this series of edits; please read carefully what those sources have to say about efficacy and whether it is actually *proven* and feel free to paraphrase and improve the text-- I added direct quotes so that others could reword. As an avowed and declared proponent of EMDR, who possibly earns a living from it (??), I'm concerned about Tomcloyd's COI on the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

With regard to your response to this user,Tom, it would have been preferable for you to have pointed to their talk page and replied there. There is a COI problem, though. Your name and the general location of your practice is on your talk page, along with links to your blog and, until recently, your practice website. If I were that user, my next step would be to ring you for an appointment.

I understand the humane instinct behind your post. But if there is a next time, can I suggest you log out and post as an IP and point the editor to the appropriate section of a Wikipedia article or, ideally, an accessible WP:MEDRS-compliant secondary source, that says what the user needs to hear, rather than saying it in your voice? I know that probably breachesWP:SOCKPUPPET, but in this instance, I would say WP:IAR applies.

As for working in a field = COI, welcome. But be aware that other editors will, reasonably I think, scrutinize your editsvery, very carefully; especially statements about efficacy, especially where there is any controversy over efficacy.Anthony (talk) 06:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

A review of thecontroversy may provide context. While there is a Tomcloyd who works in the field of PTSD (and promotes EMDR-- a controversial treatment), our readers have no proof that our Tom Cloyd is that Tom Cloyd. It is best for Wiki editors to avoid touting their own credentials or perceptions of themselves as "experts" in a field, and rely instead on published reliable sources. In the area of medicine, this is even more critical, for the reasons pointed out by Anthonycole, and the problem of a COI in this area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

But again, I'm more concerned now about the article. IMO, a poorly written stub has the potential for less harm to our readers than a fully developed article that may appear to be accurate and well researched, but in fact is based on primary sources, from which personal opinion, original research, synthesis and bias often flow (these are Wiki policy concerns, and we create the potential to harm readers when these exist in medical articles). It is particularly important that medical articles rely on secondary reviews, to avoid these problems. In the case of the EMDR-related articles, reliable secondary reviews are not well represented, nor is the controversy, and PTSD needs to be rewitten to conform to MEDRS. It is a field for which there is an abundance of secondary reviews, hence no need to be stringing together primary sources. My quick review of only a few sources identified too many issues. SandyGeorgia(Talk) 10:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

On the matter of the "disgusting and alarming" post, by the time I came across the comment to the IP, suggesting that s/he get help, I had already read through a number of rude and insulting comments from Tomcloyd, as well as his opinions expressed on the Fringe noticeboard, framed as an expert speaking although his opinions may not be in line with the secondary reviews; since others don't seem to have interpreted the "medical advice" post in the same context I did, I was perhaps predisposed by Tomcloyd's other negative comments to read it wrong, and I will (next) strike those portions of my comments, and hope that Tomcloyd meant well, while reminding him that a response based on published, third-party publications is always better than using one's credentials to dispense medical advice on Wiki. If I misinterpreted or overinterpreted that post, I extend my apologies to Tomcloyd. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

On the collegial response below, I'm sorry that one editor appears to have not reviewed Editcountitis and also missed the *twat* controversy and the humor, but I find his remarks sexist: I suppose it's OK for a male admin to taunt a male editor by calling him a "twat", but not OK for a female editor to reference that incident in jest? On the "clique" allegations, please see other ArbCom cases of editors who made similar statements; the concern here is that medical editors comply with WP:MEDRS, and the deficiency in so many psych articles is just that-- an overreliance on primary sources. We have a number of truly fine medical editors who do conform to policy; if that makes them a "clique", I guess that's a good thing.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

In Tom Cloyd's Defense

• Note: This comment is currently part of a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. TeamZissou (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I just came across this by happenstance when reading about another troublemaking know-it-all who want's to be an administrator. I prefer just to contribute and not to get involved with the petty bureacratic nonsense on here but after reading this I can't help it. Wikipedia can be an incredibly valuable resource for providing information that can actually help people, the proper information can steer people in the right direction and it's not far-fetched to say even save lives. I think it's a shame that there are these little cabals on here that seem hell bent on ruining what could be a good thing for society in general.

User:SandyGeorgia Did somebody die and leave you mother hen? Who are you to leave this; You're behavior and personal attacks on this guy's page. It seems like a blatant effort on your part to degrade and humiliate him. Your opinions seem biased, prejudicial, and hypocritical and from way out in left field.

Somebody who is obviously suffering leaves a comment on the PTSD talk page, so Tom Cloyd offers him a ray of hope by telling that person that treatment is available and does work, he mentions that he has succefully treated it to reinforce that. What rationale sane person would look upon that [7] as alarming and disgusting? Would it have been better to tell the person to scratch their rear end?

• Your comments are pretty imperious, you reviewed his comment to User:Ling.Nut. Who are you LingNut's mother? Itwas a rude comment. That's between him and user User:Ling.Nut. Everybody is human, maybe he stubbed his toe and was in a pissed off mood at that moment. The other alleged rude comments are a non-issue, he merely responded in a similar tone to what he was treated with; Dont tell people to note, another boss, a comment like that would piss off a lot of people.

• Throwing his credentials around: he is a psychologist specializing in PTSD, should he say he is the Tooth Fairy ?
• Adding this:
• Do you think that's helping the issue? It detracts from the article, by making it appear that the information is not based in fact but on someone's personal opinions. Is somebody supposed to see it and say, oh crap, let me re-write this?
• Tom Cloyd is the one who put the time and effort into writing most of the article on PTSD in the first place.
• I added an image and the section on Foster care, he asked me for a better reference and was POLITE about it.
• You dont express any concerns about anything until your series of manic know-it-all edits. Then you leave a comment on the talk page.Talk:Posttraumatic stress disorder You come off like you own Wikipedia.
• You've crossed paths before, I'm crossing your path right now so what's the point behind a comment like that? Are people supposed to kow-tow to you?
• Wikipedia is not supposed to be a bureaucracy, you sure act like a bureaucrat. Most of your "contributions" seem to be on talk pages.
• Little newsflash, this guy is not hiding behind a childish made-up user name.
• I've gone through a few of your user contribution pages, leaving snide rude comments on edit summaries and people's talk pages doesn't seem like an uncommon behavior and there are more than a few on your talk page and low and behold you initiated the exchanges.
• I've read some of the medical articles that the alleged experts are writing on here, a lot of them are written like trash or tacitly approved through inaction by the same people that have the audacity to degrade others. Someone goes the time and effort to write something professional out of altruism, and you try to make an ass out him over the internet. Considering that he is using his real name and photograph and that he is in business for himself, even if your concerns were valid, which they are not, you should have had the tact and commonse sense to contact him via e-mail.
• You left a comment on your talk page: "I don't argue with twats. Pretty classy for a woman, and you are going to preach etiquette? To borrow from your school of thought that's Balls.—Precedingunsigned comment added by 7mike5000 (talk •contribs) 01:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, in essence, with your points. I found the repeated posts by SandyGeorgia, into the wee hours, browbeating. Sure, Tomcloyd could have been more collegial in some of his replies, but we all make mistakes. Before Tom arrived, the PTSD article was a mish-mash. Tom undertook many edits on it. Now he's penalized for those, with claims he made more than his fair share of edits. He is a valuable contributor, and for all the preachifying by SandyGeorgia about manners, he deserves to be treated with some respect and dignity. This was overkill. MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You know what, no condecension on my part but at least someone else has enough of a pair to say the right thing. The fact that there are little cliques on Wikipedia is a known fact that has been commented on in publications like the New York Times. The fact that one of these little cliques seem to think they control the medical and psychology articles on Wikipedia is disturbing, especially considering that alot are written like crap. Maybe if not for the penny ante B.S. a more professional caliber, and therefore helpful quality of medical articles would be written like PTSD. Most professionals don't want to be bothered with the inane childish nonsense, and who loses out? Everybody does. 7mike5000 (talk) 07:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

AN/I notice.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which your name was discussed. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility / harassment by User:7mike5000. 7mike5000 (talk) 10:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)7mike5000 (talk) 10:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply....

reply to your note on my talk page, sorry for the delay, thanks for the note!

Pete318 (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)