From Psychology Wiki

Contents 1 Welcome! 2 Some more pages of possible interest 3 Signature 4 Thanks for your input 5 Display 6 More activity 7 RAD 8 Redirects 9 ACT etc. 10 Hello from Tom Michael 11 The Washington Post 12 Removal of link 13 RE:Speedy Deletion 13.1 RE:Speedy Deletion Process 14 Archiving and deletion policy 15 Chat 16 Hazing 17 A note on Caps 18 How to contribute 19 IPP Employment perspective

[edit] Welcome!

• Our vision
• Community Portal
• Tasks To Do
• Chat
• Forums

Also:

• Beginners Tutorial
• Beginners Guide to Editing
• Help
• News

Even if you are experienced on Wikipedia, I suggest you read our beginners guide, as we do a lot of things differently on the Psychology Wiki.

Tip: you can sign your username on talk pages (like this one) using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically produce your name, date and time-stamp. Three tildes will just produce your name.

If you have any questions, please contact one of our Administrators.

• Dr Joe Kiff · Dr Joe Kiff · Talk · Email · Founder

• Jason Bessey · Jaywin · Talk · Email · General Administrator

• Wai Yen Tang · Janarius · Talk · Email · Self appointed Janitor

• Tom Michael BSc · Mostly Zen · Talk · Email · Code Monkey

Glad to have you on board! Jason Bessey - Jaywin (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to add one or more of these categories to your user page...Category: Psychology Wikians by interest. Jason Bessey - Jaywin (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some more pages of possible interest

• Category:Guidepage
• Forum:Index (Also on sidebar in community box)
• Standard Formatting Guide

Jason Bessey - Jaywin (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signature

Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 13:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your input

Just to say we appreciate your quality input. Do you have anymore references for the pages that you have done. eg more of Bowlby's Biblio. and do you know where any of this is available "full text" so we can link to it? Dr Joe Kiff - User:Lifeartist (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. What we are trying to do here is to gather together all the relevant references, say on Bowlby, and then to try to link these to Full text copies where available. Often in gathering the references together you can see that this leads to the creation of additional pages, say for example "criticisms of Bowlby", the "application of his theories in clinical practice" etc. We can go into more depth than a WP type encyclopedia building a professional resource for psychologists. There must be many different aspects of attatchment theory researched and we should have a page on each one. Try and use APA syle for references. The numbering of references is best avoided as this makes it difficult when we come to break articles up. come back to me if you need more advice.Dr Joe Kiff - User:Lifeartist (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Display

I'm using explorer version 6.0.2900.2180 and have no problems. I think thats the uptodate version? Have you tried setting the "skin" in your preferences. I use monoblock, thats the default, but you might find one of the others improves the situation. If that fail you might like to raise the issue on the Forum at Wikia or on the IRC channel at Wikia. Hope that helpsDr Joe Kiff - User:Lifeartist (talk) 13:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Yeah, I have the same problem. I upgraded to IE7 a few weeks ago, but I've only had the "tab-overlap" problem for a few days...weird! I posted a question about it over at the Wikia Help Desk [1]. Jason Bessey - Jaywin (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More activity

Sorry for the delay in replying but we have had a holiday weekend here.

I think in the long run the national societies will have an important role to play in the furtherance of the project. This is an ideal oppurtunity for them to develop a free and publicly accessible summary of research and theory for each area of the discipline where there is a substantive literature. This would meet many of their ambitions for making our knowledge publically accessible. The key moves here, guaranteeing the accuracy of the material, are that eventually:

A) Editing of the wiki becomes restricted to professionals B) That pages are peer reviewed and then locked, while improvements and updates proceed on a working copy. The peer reviewed pages can then be properly referenced. Probably only the societies could organise and coordinate this. I have had preliminary contact with the APA through the international section as I feel one of the many strengths of the project in the long term will be the translations into the languages of the world. I havent done more on this front, partly due to a lack of time. But I also feel that it is worth developing the structure of the site further before expecting professional contributors to work on it, particularly aligning it with the APA thesaurus. However I would welcome any efforts others might make to spread the word in professional circles. Dr Joe Kiff 16:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

that sounds really good. Love to help here. Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 18:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. So do you have any ideas about how we might procede?Dr Joe Kiff 23:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think beginning to only allow editing by professionals or requiring peer-review is very important and edits by known persons. I'd suggest inviting professionals in to edit. For example, asking those registered (and who are professionals and identified) to invite two others. I can certainly ask some of my colleagues to contribute and register if that would help. How does that sound? Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 01:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RAD

Query for you on the RAD talkpage. Thanks Fainites 14:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Dr Becker-Weidman,

you have not replied to my request on the RAD talkpage that you validate your sources for the statement that 'these children are likely to develop RAD' as I cannot find this statement directly or by implication in the two chapters from Cassidy and Shaver that you cite. Please provide the exact pages/passages/context that you rely on. You have also removed another editors sourced edit without discussion. Please discuss the reasons for your removal on the talkpage. Thank you.

Fainites 22:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I did reply on the talk page that I was providing a summary and paraphrase, not a direct quote. I cleaned up the article some by removing lines that were unclear or not relevant. cheers. Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 22:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You have not really replied to my query as neither chapter you cite supports a summary or a paraphrase unless I am missing something. Please indicate the pages or paragraphs you are relying on to support the statement you make, as Lyons Ruth does not mention RAD at all and Greenberg only in a historical context. Also removing an editors recently added sourced quote with the edit summary 'cleanup' does not really count as cleanup I think you'll agree. It is not 'cleanup' just because you may disgree with the content.Fainites 22:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You are still not replying to the query about your claim that these two chapters support your edit, yet you keep replacing the edit. Please provide the evidence/page numbers/passages that these chapters support what you say about RAD. Saying you've already answered is not acceptable as you have not. Fainites 18:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

I note that you redirected Attachment therapy to the Attachment disorder page rather than the Attachment Therapy page, having first put your rewritten Attachment disorder article onto the Attachment therapy page. I have corrected this so that now Attachment therapy, with or without capitals goes to the Attachment Therapy page. Fainites 15:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ACT etc.

I put the minimum of information on my user page and did that only at Joe's request. You may have some insight into why I did that. As for the IRS form, I've passed your request along-- I don't have the document. I assume you mean to provide yours for the Center-- or are you for-profit? J.M. Unsigned comment left by User:Jean Mercer 17:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by, "You may have some insight into why I did that" (meaning not put your substantial affiliation with ACT in your description of self...maybe you can explain what you mean? Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 20:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've yet to hear from your group regarding providing their 990 form as required by the IRS. Perhaps you can expedite this. Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 23:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello from Tom Michael

Hi Dr Weidman,

Thanks for welcoming me back, it was a great graduation ceremony yesterday. I'm very glad to see that since I was last working on this project we have attracted more professionals such as yourself. I am applying for my PhD today, so am just starting my career.

I have tidied up the list of papers on your page and fixed the link to the graduation hat. I am thinking of creating a userbox to contain all the information of peoples degrees, work experience, professional qualifications etc so that the site looks more standardised, and as an easy template for people who are new to Wiki's but an old hand in psychology.

Thanks for being part of this project.

Cheers

Tom Michael, BSc Mostly Zen (talk) 10:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Washington Post

Hello, What does The Washington Post has anything to do with psychology?--Janarius 15:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing, really. I got carried away with eliminating red-links by adding articles. Probably fine to just delete that one. I'll be more careful in the future. Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 15:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I found another way to eliminating red-links wihouth creating articles, if they are unrelated to psychology. I changed the links into like this: "wikipedia:Title of article|title of article" (with the double square brackets in place of the quotation marks) where it simply refer to wikipedia.--Janarius 13:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Very cool. I wonder, in instances such as these, do you think it better to link to wikipedia to just to removed the double-bracket links and eliminate the red-link? I don't have a strong feeling either way. It does occur to me that if the link isn't really related to psychology, maybe just eliminating the red-link may be better...if the reader is directed to wikipedia, we may loose the reader to browsing that site after following the link. What do you think? Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 19:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that removing the double-brackets seems best in order not to distract the readers from the article they're reading. In any case, most articles here are copied from wikipedia, so complete rewrites for these articles would eliminate most red-links and is more appropriate for this wiki.--Janarius 14:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That's true, but it's also a huge amount of work. Unless an article is clearly in the psychology area, I think it would probably be better to leave such links to wikipedia and sort though them once in a while for the ones that really need to be rewritten. Another approach might be to link to a historical version of a wikipedia article where the content is at least reasonable. Hkhenson 14:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of link

No, You did okay. Looks like spam to me anyway.--Janarius 15:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Speedy Deletion

Alright, in that case I can set one up. That may happen tomorrow though, as I'm working on a term paper tonight. Christine^Talk 00:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Everything is all set up for speedy deletions. I've created Template:D which can be added to pages to be deleted. It can be added to a page with:

{{D|Page is spam/broken redirect/unused image (etc.)}}

Any page which uses this template will be added to Category:Speedy deletion candidates which should be checked at least on a daily basis. Christine^Talk 02:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Speedy Deletion Process

Sorry, a bit of spying I suppose. The purpose of speedy deletion is simply for it to be speedy, immediate. This applies to spam and unused images. If you think discussion should go on about, say, an unused image, discussing what article to place it on should just go on the talk page, but otherwise it should be deleted immediately. AfD's (Articles for Deletion) are the deletions that should really be discussed and have a special process, where admins and the community must agree. I'm not sure if you guys have that though.. =\ Christine^Talk 18:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in. Yes, you make a good point and an important distinction. I agree with your thinking here. Speedy deletion should be immediate by an administrator. I don't think we have an AfD process, but we should get one in place so that we are prepared. Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 19:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to look into that Art and set it up Dr Joe Kiff 23:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk

I've written this on a category talk page, but maybe these are better. I found Template:Proposed deletion and Category:Pages proposed for deletion after (of course) I created similar pages and templates titled "Afd" and "Articles for deletion." Which name do you prefer? Christine^Talk 00:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the template "Articles for deletion" since this is clearer for the novice user. This is great work, thank you...you are a gem! regards.Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 00:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving and deletion policy

As I understand it the way to archive pages is to create sub-pages. We dont have a policy on it but it would be worth drawing one up for clarities sake. I dont know if WP has one we could adapy. The same too for page deletion policy. Lets see what you can come up with. Thanks Dr Joe Kiff 06:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC) Looks good to me Art. Go ahead on the redlinks and we can adapt those pages too. Thanks Dr Joe Kiff 07:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've fixed all the redlinks and will now move on to the linked pages that also have redlinks to fix those. Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 15:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chat

Hi!

After you log in, you simply type what you want to say in the bar at the bottom of the screen, and hit enter. After a second or two, you're message should appear on the screen where everybody else who is logged in can see it.

However, I have heard that the chat doesn't work very well for some people with certain browsers. I can't remember which ones. I use Internet Explorer, and I've never had a problem.

I don't imagine you'll find people on the Psychology Chat very often. You're best bet would probably be to schedule one with other Psychology Wikia users. If there's a certain time you'd like to schedule one, I would suggest posting a time to chat, (perhaps with some suggestions on what topics you'd like to discuss), at a forum I just created:

Forum:Schedule for Psychology Wikia Chat

You could then go to various user talk pages to let people know about your posting at this forum.

Hopefully this helps :) Jaywin 19:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Most cool. Thanks very much. Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 23:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hazing

I noticed you pulled Hazing over from Wikipedia. That article is a *mess* in its current version, it's been subjected to a number of uncorrected vandalisms. I suggest going back 20 versions or more to a decent version. Hkhenson 03:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be fine with me if you think that would be an easier place to begin editing. Do you want to do that or would you prefer I do that? Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 13:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A note on Caps

Hi Art. I've noticed that capitalizations are causing a problem. The format is to capitalize the first word and use lower caps for remaining words unless it is a proper name. So Working Memory redirects to Working memory etc. Its always worth checking if the lower case article exists as it can be an opportunity to update or improve it. Dr Joe Kiff 22:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see that now. Thanks for the "heads-up" on that. I will note that and be more careful in the future. Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 22:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to contribute

Hi Art. It seems a long time since we have communicated. I have just had my head down working on developing the structure. Danny has given us pause for thought though. How can you help - or more appropriately how could we make it clearer how people could help? I've appreciated your work on the red links, are there other things you would like to do? Could this page be improved? What do you think? Dr Joe Kiff 20:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I guess we've both been quite busy. If you think my continuing work on the redlinks is helpful and a good use of my time, I will continue...if you think I could be doing something else that would be of greater significance for the site, I'm happy to work on that instead. I will look at the Tasks to do list to see what else might grab my attention. However, I'd like to use my time in a way that you think will most advance the site. Regards. Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 19:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I find routine tasks are good for when I am tired but look to do more involved tasks when I feel fresh. Do you feel you could work more in depth on areas that you are familiar from in your work. Perhaps sort out sections on assessment in child clinical psychology or other things that interest you, that you are familiar with, and where your professional expertise can be brought to bear? Dr Joe Kiff 23:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, that sounds like a good plan. I'll focus on time on the clinical assessment of children articles (fixing, and adding content and new articles where necessary), as well as attachment theory, child welfare, and adoption/foster care issues. I'll leave the red-link fixing for those times I only have a few minutes. Best regards Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 12:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Art. It looks as if that page has been deleted now. Dr Joe Kiff 07:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IPP Employment perspective

Dr Becker,

This POC would have nothing to do with Employment. It is an idea, that requires a LOT of work, to create an infrastructure, and then would have applications. Not sure, if i am making sense to you, since the terms i am using are from Software development, but they are applied to psychology.

I am curious to know your interest in this subject, or if you have any insight/advice

Thanks, Nbismut 16:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Kamal.

No, I don't quite understand all you've written. I only wrote my comment to encourage you to write an article in my role here as an admin and to welcome you to this site and encourage participation. Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 18:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)