Hi Alpinist, I've been following your work on the Conversion disorder page. I've got a question I'm hoping you can clear up for me. If your position is correct, and conversion disorder doesn't exist, what article should there be for the long list of patients who arrive in clinic with obvious motor symptoms which have no obvious cause? I agree in some cases that means we just haven't looked hard enough, but would you accept that for at least some of these individuals there is a psychological cause? --PaulWicks 13:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the term should be functional (as in of unidentified aetiology).

I think the current statistics are 50% turn out to be MS 10% psychological 40% no idea.

Hi Alpinist, thanks for your response. This is exactly the kind of information I was hoping for. I think the individual journey of each patient is highly variable but the important thing is that we should be instilling hope from the get-go. To go from being wheelchair-bound to fully able to do star jumps is an incredible improvement, and one that I want to bring to out clinic. Can I ask you to start Functional neurological deficit? I hope it will form the basis of a debate which I hope to be able to inform with some research. I'd like to get something started in London later on this year to find out more. All the best, --PaulWicks 09:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon, is that Hurst piece a book or an article? Nothing on Amazon... --PaulWicks 11:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reference. Turns out we have a copy in one of our libraries, I'll pull it up this week. Yes the article needs some more attention, I thought I'd leave you to work on it for a few weeks before barging in with any input though! --PaulWicks 12:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alpinist, I'm not sure the full revert was the best thing for conversion disorder as it's now lost a lot of information that was factually true. For example, regardless of whether or not you agree with it, the DSM-IV criteria were set out there and that is the basis on which conversion disorder is diagnosed. If there is something specific about Charcot I think you should correct it but cite a reference. I'm going to dive in and try and integrate your two pieces on this, but only in the spirit of a 3rd(ish) party and certainly not in an authoritative way!--PaulWicks 12:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback =) --PaulWicks 20:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alpinist, I've put WalkerTexasRngr's contributions back up to see if any other editors wish to work on them over the next few days. I think there's no harm in leaving them up there for a few weeks to ferment and get better with others' input. I'm not quite sure the hodge-podge I put together can be considered a consensus! It was more like "take one sentence from column A, one from column B, simmer for 30 minutes, and "save page"... BTW we're starting to get somewhere with a functional neurological deficit service in London, will let you know how it goes... --PaulWicks 21:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Simon, thanks for the message. This is particularly interesting seeing as we're soon going to have the clinic set up. It's going to be called the "functional neurology clinic" and will run from King's. I've expressed an interest as being a researcher, doing info leaflets, and running a website for them. If there are some people you think I should talk to that would be very helpful.

Cheers

Paul --PaulWicks 14:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Simon,

Could I ask you to consider these comments in reference to your revision?

• "As a dissociative disorder in DSM-IV it should be viewed with caution." - At first glance this strikes me as being POV. Perhaps reword to something like "critics who refute the concept of dissociative disorders hold that..."?

• Frederick Crews stated that dissociation is the perfect psychoanalytic-style vehicle for creation of a pseudoscience, since there is no way to disprove its existence and recovered memories never need be tested by comparing them with conscious memories. After all, if children dissociate themselves from the experience, one could not expect them to have any memories of the event. Two things here; first of all without the use of quotation marks I can not tell which part Frederick Crews has said and which part you have stated. Secondly is there any chance you could find a source for this quote?

Thanks again for your contributions on this article.

Cheers

Paul --PaulWicks 16:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. Thank you. --PaulWicks 07:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC) --PaulWicks 09:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Simon, more dilligent work I see. Just so I can track down the quotes and references you're using, would you mind putting links to sources in your edits? If you scroll down to some of the later bits you can see how, it's basically just putting square brackets around a web link and the wiki does the rest.

Ta

Paul --PaulWicks 21:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:DSCN4420.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you.

Hi Simon, I must admit I hadn't heard of that, I presume it's this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postural_orthostatic_tachycardia_syndrome ?

Don't worry too much about the references, I am slowly churning through them, in fact I might have another stab at it today. I don't know if you saw the other bits that I did, I've tried to clarify why conversion/dissociation get confused (DSM-IV vs ICD10). I'll check the site out later too. --PaulWicks 09:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read your site; very pretty! What software are you using? There was an interesting talk by Richard Kanaan, who is leading on our functional neurology clinic, last week at the BNPA. The short version is a patient with functional weakness in the right arm had decreased blood flow in the corresponding area of their motor cortex when asked to recall a traumatic memory that preceded the onset of weakness. I'll ask if he can send you something. --PaulWicks 09:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there. 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. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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 18:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have temporarily removed your new addition until we can have a slightly better discussion about this topic on Talk:Simon Wessely. I again need to emphasise that this article is now so controversial that any addition of content without prior careful consensus-seeking is likely to be removed. This is not a personal criticism but rather a deep concern that we keep things neutral. I want to work constructively on this. Please do not readd your additions, but respond to my concerns on the talkpage. JFW | T@lk 23:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you are once again editing disruptively and violating policy on Talk:Simon Wessely, using IP's and at least one sockpuppet (User:Libraryofbabel) after the talk page was semi-protected. I've therefore reblocked your account indefinitely, as it was unblocked after extensive disruption on a promise to behave which you seem to have disregarded. MastCell ^Talk 19:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Alpinist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have logged in today having not used wikipedia for a number of months and I find my account has been blocked. I have not used a sockpuppet. If folk are meant to be encouraged to log in I don't understand why I can only edit when I don't log in

Decline reason:

You are blocked. You are not permitted to make edits while not logged in. This is a violation of WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK. — Yamla (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Alpinist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

thank you for telling me that you have to log in I didn't realise this. I thought it was just you weren't allowed other accounts which I haven't had. So please can you unblock my account

Decline reason:

Considering the fact that this has happened before, I doubt you weren't aware. Denied. — IrishGuy ^talk 22:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Alpinist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

but if my account is reactivated then I will be encouraged to use it. If it is not reactivated then I will just have to go on editing without logging in as I just do this for fun when I see something that is wrong or crazy I correct it. This will then annoy various other editors who prefer people to be registered. SO this is illogical. None of my edits have been disruptive since last time.

Decline reason:

Your threat to deliberately violate WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK if you don't have your way shows that it would be inappropriate to unblock you. And your continued abuse of the unblock template has lead to this page being protected. If you are caught continuing to edit via IP addresses, an abuse report may be filed with your ISP. — Yamla (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.