Talk:Dissociative Identity Disorder

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Dissociative Identity Disorder. This is also a forum for spreading libelous rumors about the article's subject. This is not a forum for general discussion about what you did last night. We have the Village Dump for things like that.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Uncyclopedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be Civil Assume Bad Faith Don't Be A Dick No Cyberbullying	Article policies How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid Satirical point of view Verifiability vs. Complete Bollocks

This article is sweet! lol The person who did it is probably on crack tho! lol

Wrong place?

Huh? This isn’t Chinese-pedia now. User:So So

Wtf?

How'd crap like this survive being edited by the admins so much? --User:Nintendorulez 18:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This is pure 100% columbian grade A crap... --Mindsunwound: (F@H) Peek & Pie Puppy Luff 18:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Check the revision history (the actual individual revisions) befor you make a judgment. —rc (t) 18:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, there! Sorry I QVFD'd this article. I seem to slip.--Jtaylor1 13:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

So it's another substub QVFD crap that you guys kept and protected? Geez, quit this crap already! --User:Nintendorulez 16:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No. Read it and the history one more time, taking the title into account. If you still do not get it, kindly give up and find something else to complain about. —rc (t) 16:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm very glad I took your advice Rc, because this article kicks ass once you understand it. The final revision could be better though... Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 12:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Deadend

The current top revision of this page is a deadend. To fix this I am adding an invisible link. If this is unacceptable please contact me on my talk page. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 02:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

pls 2006 category

can't put this on the article, and it'd spoil it anyway, here'll do - jack mort | cunt | talk - 20:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[[Category:PLS Entry April 2006]]

Changed. —Braydie 01:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Damnit

I wanted to write something here.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 03:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Just what the HELL is this?

This could be a great article, just move it a little more towards the recycle bin...

Seriously, this article needs a MAJOR fixing (as in neutering). Collin 21:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't see the point of this, either

Was someone trying to make another Euroipods with it? The joke works once, and only once. The mystique surrounding Fisher Price isn't even here. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 04:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Spam

dude, somebody screwed this thing over, now they are trying to penis enlargers, lawl.

Hmmm...

Would it make it more obvious if the past revisions were added to the current article using <choose><option> tags, or would that kill the joke? -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 22:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that means. Can you give me an example of an article that has that? --So So 02:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That actually makes sense, kind of. If you put the revisions in <choose><option> format, then it would randomly display one of the revisions each time you refresh the page. I can't think of an article that does this, but Template:Ad does the same thing, pulling up a random ad. --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 02:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah, wouldn't work for this one, and it has already been done in Dear John letter. Plus, each individual "article" in this is crap. Believe it or not, I do actually have a logic behind the way this article is, and to respond to Cs's comment (from about a year ago...): The final revision is supposed to be the key. The joke is almost entirely in the edit history page, so the goal is to get the reader to go there. How do you make them go there? Well, the final edit as it is appears to be vandalism. People should also find it strange that this vandalism is protected and want to check the edit history to see what the hell is going on. From there, the rest is up to the reader's detective skills. Yeah, I realize most people aren't going to get it, and that's fine with me. Thanks for the suggestion, though. --So So 04:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly, but I really think that there may be a slightly better way to do this without alienating people the way this has. Nominally Humane! some time

That idea's so crazy... it just might work! But I'm not gonna go through the trouble. This article is pretty much dead as far as I'm concerned. You can if you want to, though. --S0.S0S.0S.0S0 01:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Dissociative identity disorder (DID) is my middle name - but I can't do it while it's protected. I'm in the middle of something else but once that's done I'll take a crack at this. I'll keep the existing pages, maybe extended them somewhat, but add a few more in to make it really pretty, and then we can do a simple cut and replace. Pup

Okay. If we ever do this, I want to change the links from "Japan" to something else. Something along the lines of insanity or something. --S0.S0S.0S.0S0 03:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Given the page is protected I'll need you to go through the next step of moving the whole kit and kaboodle across... User:PuppyOnTheRadio/Dissociative Identity Disorder Pup

I like new headers

There's only one problem with your version: How will the reader know that they are supposed to click the internal links? I think if someone sees any of the versions they will just think it's some random crap and go elsewhere instead of clicking a link within. What makes the original version work is that the wiki-savvy reader will think the first page is vandalism and want to check the edit page to possibly revert. In retrospect, there were a few things I could have done to make it slightly easier to catch the joke, but it was actually kind of hard work doing this, I don't feel like redoing it. Think of way to drop the reader a hint to click the internal links and we'll go through with your version. Also, omg my riting is smal!!--S0.S0S.0S.0S0 08:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Okay, I have one idea. At the bottom of each page there can be a part where the author starts "talking" and says something like "No, wait. This isn't what I meant to write. THIS is!" and then it random links to another page representing a persona change in the author. This part would need an image of an apparently mentally unstable person, ideally the same person with a slightly different appearance on each page, so it will be immediately recognizable even on pages in different languages. What do you think? --S0.S0S.0S.0S0 08:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the stuff up with my sig - fixed now.

1. I had an idea at the end of the page we put something along the lines of a tremplate that says "suspect vandalism. If you believe this page to be vandalised then click here."
2. Rather than having the entire page being random chance have paragraphs being potentially changed around constantly, going from Arabic to influedzone to Chinese to Multiple personality to kitten, and random images bouncing around the place as well.

I'm assuming it was Arabic. Same as the Chinese I just cut and paste from the orignal text slightly at random. The arabic came from the Wiki article on DID, but not in quite the same order, so if you could read it then it would make some sense.

Third thing I wanted to do goes back to the "Redirected from" I'm not wiki savvy enough to be able to do this myself, but if the end of the link was "&source=blah" from each of these and the page able to read and place at the top "Redirected from blah"

We'll still call it a work in progress - I have no issue with working collaboratively on it - actually enjoying the feedback - but I'd like to have this done sooner rather than later as the last three things I've done have been "In the style of" and I'd like to get back to my continuing saga on "thought" Pup

Just relooked at third thing - scrap that concept, as it's php that I was thinking of and beyond what I can do with Wiki markup. I'm now playing with the below as a concept.

User:PuppyOnTheRadio/Template:Reload Pup

And the whole lot wrapped up together would look a little something like this. Pup

I really hate to say this, but the version you made is exactly the same idea that I rejected when suggested by Sydrome a year ago (see above). It is essentially a random series of VFD articles with no punch line at the end or reason for anyone to read what is written or check what's on each page. I'm not trying to protect my original version, by the way; rather I'm just objectively comparing the two versions, and my conclusion is: 1. The original version will only be understood by about 10% of people that see it, but it will be satisfying to those that get it. (see comments by RC and CS above) 2. The new version is just a poor man's Dear John Letter, and it's still a bit confusing what it has to do with DID. Or maybe I am biased. Maybe we can put both versions on pee review? I don't know a way to get third party input other than personal requests, and I don't think it would be an appropriate forum post. What do you think? I'm willing to hear you out. I'm really not very attached to this article and welcome change if it's an improvement. --S0.S0S.0S.0S0 04:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It's all cool. I'd actually come across this page when I was thinking about doing an article on Multiple Personality Disorder, and I loved your concept and the kernel of one that I had, so thought to combine the two. I don't think it's a rehash of the Dear John letter in that the DJ letter is a straight formulaic letter that has sections as option, and really only has one voice/personality but multiple situations. Whereas the idea of this is to have a completely different voice every time it loads. What we could do to separate the two is have your article as it stands, and throw mine into the mix as MPD, but I then feel that we would be being redundant.

So at the moment I'm going to put this back to sleep. I'm sure that there is a solution to this that would have both visions of this page mesh, and as a result end up with a superior end product - much the same way that Faith No More argued constantly but within that created some fantastic music. In the meantime I enjoyed working on this as an intellectual exercise and it's expanded on my MediaWiki skill set

Having said that, I'm also sitting here as a n00b that has had put out a number of articles, and was hoping to have been nominated for n00b of the month or become an adopted n00b, but had no success at getting either of these met. Is there anything you think you could do for me along those lines? Pup

Could some admin change the category on this?

This article has a single-use category. If you need to keep the name, its possible to put a fake category box over a real one, like on Unfomercials:ShamWow!_(Unrated). --Mn-z 04:04, September 12, 2009 (UTC)