Farrajak

 

Welcome to Wikipedia, Farrajak! Thank you for your contributions. I am WereSpielChequers and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! ϢereSpielChequers 17:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Its nice to have somebody new working on psychology. However, you have only been editing as User:Farrajak for 12 days yet I note that you are proficient at sophisticated Wikipedia concepts. After only 5 days you used Hotcat. On many edits you are inserting sophisticated tags such as:

• {{whom?}}
• {{primary sources}}
• {{primary source-inline}}
• {{undue|section}}
• {{refimprove}}
• {{unreferenced|section}}
• {{elucidate}}
• {{inappropriate person}}

In fact your very first edit was to insert {{citation needed}}.

You obviously have extensive previous experience of editing Wikipedia. To alleviate any suspicions of your motivations please explain what identities you previously used. --Penbat (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Penbat,

Thank you for the second welcome and for the compliment that I seem to have extensive previous experience editing en:wiki. I've had no prior names on en:wiki and I'm curious why you are so sure I did. And puzzled that you think the edits I've done show major knowledge and expertness in editing here ("proficient at sophisticated Wikipedia concepts). Wow! Have I done wrong things? Please tell me if I have.

The tags you list above are just little cleanup-type tags that are on the wiki cleanup tag page, really easy to use, about the easiest ways to try to help an article while figuring out what the sources say and stuff. I'm not understanding what you're trying to tell me or why you're so interested in my edits. I think my motivations that you ask about are the same as other editors.

Also, maybe you didn't know, but the Hotcat thing is just a gadget that you can check to use. And it's very simple and intuitive. It doesn't require reading complicated stuff to use it, and you don't have to know much at all to use it, especially on en:wiki. It's a little harder on the Commons but a super great help there because its category system is hard to figure. Really hard. Thanks!

Farrajak (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

By the way, I've removed two of the three tags you added here. "Primary" is not another word for "bad". Pop science books are almost never primary sources, and they can be reliable sources (at least for basic claims). You might want to read WP:Secondary does not mean good and WP:Secondary does not mean independent for more information.

If your goal is simply complaining that the currently cited source doesn't appeal to you, without finding a better one yourself, then {{Better source}} is an alternative for you. It makes no specific claim that the existing source is wrong or against any policy while indicating that someone would like a source that is better (however you choose to define "better"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Farrajak, please read my comments at WP:ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

What a joke! I don't take this seriously any more. Please retract the idiotic 24 hour block of User:Refusecollection as meaningless gesture that just makes me look all the more stupid. Farrajak (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to DSM-5 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Walter Mitty may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hag may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

A major proportion of your edits consists of just adding tags, for example you just did a {{isbn}}. You must have added a hundred or so in the last few weeks. Wouldnt it be more constructive if you actually fixed the problem (if there really was one) rather than just tagging and hoping that somebody else will fix it ? Also a lot of tags in an article look an eyesore.--Penbat (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I do fix when I can, but when there are no isbn's I can't look up the sources and see what's there. So I start out by doing what I can. It's frustrating when articles are poorly sourced, and makes it hard to build on them. Hoping that whoever added the sources will add the isbn's if they really care about the article. Farrajak (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Its pretty self evident that many articles need better refs. Just putting in many of your tags, for example {{refimprove}}, probably achieves very little. It is much more constructive to just go in and improve the refs yourself. One side effect of all this tagging is the huge number of articles you have tagged now look like an eyesore. Its also probably futile putting in {{isbn}} tags as they are missing for most book refs and the means exists for anybody, including yourself, to track down the ISBN of any book anyway - so you could fix it yourself. You seem to be addicted to tagging and categories. You seem to be concentrating on working on articles to do with dysfunctional psychology, suggesting that you have a particular interest and knowledge in this field. So you should able to improve articles rather than just tag them and move on. But I notice you have just created Category:People called pejorative terms which in itself is very dubious but even more so you have conflated it with narcissism-related content so I am having doubts that you have any expertise in this field at all. I note that you are keen to delete narcissism cats and templates in quite a few articles (wrongly in my view), even in one article where narcissism was quite heavily featured and named in a section heading - [1]. You also have an enigmatic non-committal message on your main user page - "I edit Wikipedia for some reason." User:Farrajak. --Penbat (talk) 08:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_26#Category:People_called_pejorative_terms --Penbat (talk) 08:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hey there, thought you should know that if you need to mark your own edit as needing a citation, it's best not to add it at all, or start a discussion on the talk page. Also take a look at WP:WEASEL. Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think you will find that he is addicted to tagging.--Penbat (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Penbat, you should take the WP:WEASEL comment of MusikAnimal to heart. Farrajak (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

And Penbat, I was reverted by MusikAnimal for trying introduce narcissism into the article. Farrajak (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hey guys, I do apologize for the confusion. I hope it is understandable that when patrolling recent changes this could easily be misconstrued as an unnecessary, but good faith edit. I don't see why you would ever mark your own edit as needing a citation. The goal here is verifiability, and adding unsourced weasel words doesn't help. As recommended in my reply, I think we should take this to narcissim template talk page and discuss it further.

As for tagging articles, however unrelated it is to this discussion, for me is a means to notify the reader of flaws in the article. Obviously not every editor can fix every issue he comes across. If it is a new article, it is also helpful to let the author know what he can do to improve, as a general practice in new page patrol. Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Farrajak. You have new messages at MusikAnimal's talk page.
Message added 20:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply

— MusikAnimal ^talk 20:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Farrajak. You have new messages at Talk:Grandiose delusions.
Message added 08:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lova Falk talk 08:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Antisocial personality disorder, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bipolar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Obviously splitting and borderline personalty disorder are separate concepts yet you insist on the idea that splitting is only to do with BPD. You stripped the section on narcissism in Splitting (psychology) which had 2 perfectly good cites. Narcissistic defences also has a perfectly good cite linking narcissism and splitting. You seem to have a downer on narcissism. You seem to have an agenda to reduce references to narcissism as much as possible. Also on the one hand you are hypercritical and put in tags all over the place yet on the other hand sometimes when there is a perfectly good cite you just delete it because it doesnt fit into your agenda. You also often make controversial edits without any edit comments. You were also responsible for this very strange category: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_26#Category:People_called_pejorative_terms which you bizarrely conflated with narcissism.--Penbat (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm a licensed psychologist, a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley. You are using narcissism as a pejorative term. You are relying on historical but out-of-date terminology that isn't consistent with MEDRS. You use blogs and self-help books and popular psychology books as sources, not review papers published in reputable journals. Your use of the Narcissism template is not correct. See Template talk:Narcissism Farrajak (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Farrajak, thanks for the note. I see you don't have email activated ... is there a way I can get the DSM-5 wording on tic and the new classification scheme for tic disorder, and anything else I listed on my talk for Tourette syndrome? If you activate email, even temporarily, I could email you. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sandy, I'm not very good at understanding emails. I've added some stuff including codes to the article DSM-5 and will add more.

I've added the codes for tic disorders (the definition doesn't include "stereotyped" but otherwise seems the same as DSM-IV); it includes 307.223 Torette's disorder (no longer a syndrome), 307.22 Persistent (Chronic) motor or vocal tic disorder that has never met the criteria for Tourette's disorder; includes multiple tics that are either motor or vocal but not both. (Specify if: With motor tics only; With vocal tics only) and 307.21 Provisional tic disorder (which includes single or multiple motor/vocal tics but has never met the criteria for the two other tic disorders).

Torette's disorder criteria include multiple motor tics and at least one vocal tic present (but not necessarily at the same time) for at least one year, starting before age 18, and not due to drugs or another medical condition.

Feel free to ask questions! Farrajak (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK, so the wording "stereotyped" has been dropped as I suspected. Did you mean 307.23 above for TS? You listed 307.22 twice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry! Yes, 307.23 Tourette's disorder, 307.22 Persistent (Chronic) motor or vocal disorder, 307.21 Provisional tic disorder, 307.20 Other specified tic disorder, 307.20 Unspecified tic disorder. Farrajak (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! There was discussion about something related to "due to another medical condition" or "induced by substance" or something of that nature ... what wording is there now in the DSM to account for any other causes of tics? Or is that all now included under "unspecified"? What is the difference between other specified and unspecified? Is that a matter of other medical conditions, unknown, substance abuse, medication induced ... that is what I'm trying to understand the new wording on. The rest is largely unchanged, other than the removal of "stereotyped" and the change from transient to provisional (which sure makes sense). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

All of the tic disorders include wording to the effect that the tics are not due to use of a substance (e.g. cocaine) or to another medical condition (e.g. Huntington's or postviral encephalitis). (A tic disorder diagnosis depends on the "absence of any known cause such as another medical condition or substance use".) "Other specified tic disorder" applies to characteristic tic disorder symptoms causing distress or impairment but not meeting the "criteria for a tic disorder or any specifc neurodevelopment disorder", with the specific reason given e.g. onset over the age of 18. "Unspecified tic disorder" criteria are the same as "Other specified" but the reason is not specified by the clinican for whatever reason. Under "Differential diagnosis", one of the rule outs is "Abnormal movements that may accompany other medical conditions and stereotypic movement disorder" such as motor stereotypies. It then goes into ways of distinguishing motor stereotypes from tic disorders e.g. age of onset, longer duration, constant repetition, fixed form and location of abnormal movement, stops when distracted etc. It also distinguishes those caused by chorea, substance-induced, myoclonus, obsessive-compulsive behaviors from tic disorders. It notes that tic disorders may be comorbid with ADHD, other movement disorders, other mental disorders etc. Farrajak (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Most helpful, thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Delusion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Euphoric

Sadistic personality disorder (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sadism

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Farrajak!

I notice that you've been updating the borderline personality disorder article with the new information from the DSM-V, which is fantastic. Thanks for doing that! One thing I've noticed though is that the phrasing you use to describe the experience of anger in BPD ("intense, inappropriate anger") is the phrasing from the DSM-IV, and since I know you're trying to update the info to the DSM-V, I thought maybe we could figure something out that reflects the new wording. In particular, the new wording has been changed to "persistent or frequent angry feelings; anger or irritability in response to minor slights and insults."[1] One of the reasons I think this wording was changed was to reflect the fact that calling someone's experience of anger "inappropriate" is an external judgment, and it's more specific this way as well.

Anyway, I wanted to change the wording to reflect the DSM-V version in keeping with the goal of your edits, but I also wanted to make sure you're happy with it too, since you've put so much work in. What do you think about replacing "intense, inappropriate anger" with "frequent anger or irritability"? Is there another phrase that you'd prefer?

Thanks, Firecatalta (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Firecatalta. I appreciate very much that you consulted with me and appear to want to work with me.

DSM-5 does contain Criteria 8: "Inappropriate intense anger or difficulty in controlling anger (e.g., frequent displays of temper, constant anger, recurrent physical fights".) (page 663). "Intense, inappropriate anger" is a way of conveying the meaning of dsm-5 without copyvio, but of course I'm open to improvement. I don't think "frequent anger or irritability" covers Borderline characteristics, since such expressions could be appropriate to normal people in certain situations and not necessarily pathological. I'm not clear why there's so much weight given to such words as "inappropriate" as being "external judgment"s (of course the whole manual is made up of external judgments), and in my experience clinicians and even most lay persons know exactly was is meant by "inappropriate". I've never experienced a situation in which anyone had a problem with the term. Part of the therapy is getting the Borderline person to recognize that their behavior is "inappropriate". Kindly regards, Farrajak (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Farrajak,

Of course! Two heads are better than one, and it’s clear to me that you have a great deal to contribute to this article.

I think your response has helped me identify one of the differences in our perspectives on this issue, specifically your comment that you’ve never experienced a situation in which someone had a problem with the term “inappropriate” when applied to anger (or emotions in general). From a DBT perspective, which is my background, part of the underlying theory is that emotions are a natural mental and physiological response – natural in the sense that for any individual, every emotion makes sense in the context of his or her learning history, unique brain structure and chemistry, vulnerability factors, and so on.

So in DBT, there is no such thing as an “inappropriate” emotion, or as currently written, "inappropriate anger." Rather, there are inappropriate behavioral responses (which is how you've written it above, as helping clients identify that their behavior is inappropriate). We call them inappropriate in the sense that these behaviors cause harm to self or others, or in that they bring the client further away from his or her long-term goals, e.g. by damaging interpersonal relationships or decreasing the client's self-respect. The goal of treatment then becomes helping clients understand that while their anger is neither “appropriate” nor “inappropriate,” and that their emotional responses simply are what they are, behaviors certainly can be inappropriate, as said before. We then guide clients to recognize and change those behaviors. Contrary to intuition, helping clients learn to validate their anger can actually decrease the intensity of their anger, and it also makes them much more willing to acknowledge and change their damaging anger-related behaviors. Hence the main dialectic of DBT: acceptance is central to change (at least for clients with emotional dysregulation).

Back to the word “inappropriate," though. You’ve pointed out a second important aspect of the issue – for almost any person in the right situations or under the right circumstances, intense expressions of anger can be appropriate and not necessarily pathological. Or perhaps even pathological, but we still don’t label it as inappropriate. For instance, as a clinician you know that clients with PTSD often suffer from intense, uncontrollable anger and irritability that looks virtually identical to the kind of anger expression we see in clients with BPD, even among those who do not have comorbid PTSD. Yet in the section on BPD, the DSM uses the word “inappropriate,” while in the section on PTSD it simply describes “problems with anger,” “irritability or outbursts of anger,” and so on. As we see in the way the DSM refers to BPD vs. PTSD, the same behavior is described one way when we feel we understand and sympathize with those who suffer (PTSD) and another way when we feel that we neither understand nor sympathize with those who suffer (BPD).

Most importantly, the word “inappropriate” doesn’t give us any new or more-specific information about the experience or expression of anger among clients with BPD. After all, what new information could "inappropriate" give us when as you’ve said, the same behavior could be appropriate or inappropriate in any person based on the situation or circumstances? Rather, it becomes a way of distinguishing anger that we disapprove of (exhibited by an individual because of his or her heightened emotional sensitivity) from anger that we are willing to accept or tolerate (exhibited by an individual with whom we are willing to empathize because of his or her traumatic stress).

So that’s why I try to steer away from labeling someone's emotions, and anger in particular, as “inappropriate." That being said, I can see your point that as long as we’re basing this section on the DSM 5, it makes sense to use its phrasing. I confess that I am still waiting for my copy to arrive in the mail, so I’ve been relying on the proposed changes that are available online, and I’m glad that you have access to the full version. In any case, would you be willing to work with me to find a phrasing that doesn’t use the word inappropriate, for the reasons above?

Thanks again for all the work you've put into this article. Much appreciated!

Warm regards, Firecatalta (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Of course I'd be willing to work with you! I do disagree about "inappropriate" regarding BPD individuals, though I'm unfamiliar with DBT and the particular person Marsha Linehan. The criteria for personality disorders in DSM-5 is unchanged from DSM-IV. (page 816).

The BPD anger is unique I think because it is frequently so far out of proportion to the perceived instigation (which may not even be reality-based) that persons in their life can't relate to it, (hence the criteria "pattern of instability in personal relationships" - people are driven away).

Anger in PTDS is a trauma- or stress-related disorder based on exposure to a traumatic or stressful event, not a personality disorder defined as "an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from expectations of the individual's culture" (page 646). Symptoms of PTSD are basically still a reaction to the original trauma in some form, or a "heightened sensitivity to potential threats" in general, which people in their life can learn to understand. So PTSD anger doesn't have the same roots though superficially may look similar to BPD hostility to those unfamiliar with PTSD history, and instability in personal relationships is not a feature of PTSD. But more importantly, we are discussing the DSM-5 definition which does use the word "inappropriate". My view is that we should seek to understand what their model of BDP is, regardless of our individual biases.

What do you think of my view here? Kindly regards, Farrajak (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think that's a good approach! It's certainly interesting to learn more about each other's views on these subjects (at some point I'd love to continue the discussion of anger in PTSD) but as you've said, the main goal for this article should be to find a way to explain BPD (including the perspective of the DSM) to a general audience. I think the way that you've put it here, in terms of the ease with which others can understand or relate to the experience of anger, might be an effective way of explaining it to those who don't have a strong background in clinical psychology or personality disorders. How about "intense anger and irritability that others have difficulty understanding," or another version of that? Another option might be to specify that this is from the perspective of the DSM. What are your thoughts?

Warm regards, Firecatalta (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think that's really good. (I tend to get too stuck on the dsm jargon!) Maybe add "intense anger and irritability that others have difficulty understanding the reason for" or "... difficulty understanding what they did to cause it" - or more elegant wording. Kindly regards, Farrajak (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I also get stuck on the dsm jargon: at some point we are going to have to go through the article and figure out what to do with all the "marked"s! (marked impulsivity, marked tendency, marked mood swings, markedly disturbed) In any case, I think your suggestions are great. I especially like that you put in mention of difficulty understanding the cause or reason, which makes it much clearer. Alright, brainstorming for various wordings in progress! Warm regards, Firecatalta (talk) 01:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Update: Edited the article with your first suggestion ("difficulty understanding the reason for"). Thanks for your collaboration! All the best, Firecatalta (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

You first started editing 6 days after sock puppet User:Star767 was banned. Your very first edits were to add tags which is unlikely for a brand new user who has never edited Wikipedia before. Like you, User:Star767 was also keen on tags. The similarities between the two of you are mounting up by the day. Both you and User:Star767 are working on dysfunctional psychology articles. There are many other similarities. Most of your edits are just not constructive, they are undermining the fabric of many articles, for example so many articles have been pointlessly littered with tags. You are also making changes to a lot of cited text where I am very doubtful your changes are supported by the source, also phrases are just deleted for no apparent reason. You are also making many controversial changes without edit comments. Many changes you make just arent rational or logical. I suspect you will not be around much longer.--Penbat (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I understand that you don't like my edits, but I am sourcing my edits mostly to DSM-5. I don't think accusations are the way to go to develop a working relationship. You've already said that you think I don't know anything about psychology, which feels like you're dismissing my work when my edits are basically accurate and sourced. It doesn't help the editing environment to insult other editors. Although I might occasionally make a mistake, most of my edits are fine, I think, as others haven't complained. As far as tagging articles, why don't you just fix the problems since you probably have the sources? Would it help if each time I wrote you a note on your talk page detailing the sourcing problems? Others have approached me more supportively on my talk page. Perhaps if you were more approachable and less defensive and accusatory, we could get along for the sake of the encyclopedia. Farrajak (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

You have not denied my central claim that you are User:Star767. I have a long list of evidence on this which is mounting by the day. I will shortly be submitting this evidence for others to assess. I did say "most of your edits are not constructive". A minority of your edits are constructive although I have doubts about the veracity of some of these. It is obviously useful for you to do some constructive edits from time to time give you a cloak of credibility, eg your recent DSM5 edits. --Penbat (talk) 07:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply