Psychology Wiki

Lifeartist Old Archive 1

aka A Fandom User

copyn'paste muddle Edit

hi all! just copied & pasted Alfred Kinsey, but result's not so good (missing templates???). could paste only one JPG. can somebody with a clue (ie, not me!) make it better? thanx!!! a last question: at first, when copying & pasting (from Wikipedia), i thought that links for dates were not needed on a Psychology site, so i removed the [[ ]]. now i don't remove anything. what's best? Bri bri 16:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC) :-)

I copy practically everything in a Wikipedia edit box. Wikipedia templates are wonderful things, well worth keeping on a page you copy over (even if "commented-out" initially until they work). If you copy one that doesn't seem to do here what it does there, you probably don't have it here yet. So you or anyone can go back and copy it - the "Edit" screen of the WP page you copied from will probably list, at the bottom, all the templates used on the page. Go find it, and copy it in the same way as you copied the page. To acknowledge its origin without mucking up its display, there are two methods:
Acknowledge it on the Talk page - see some of my contributions, such as Template_talk:Neuroscience-footer, to get the idea
Acknowledge it on the Template page itself by using some tricky tags that look a bit like "<>". Too tricky for me at this stage.
Same with dates: copy them in case this wiki's contributors decide that a timeline of psychology events is eventually worth having.
The only thing I haven't usually copied is the bunch of interlanguage links at the bottom of a WP page. Joe says he can use them, so maybe they should come too. Robin Patterson 03:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you... Edit

Hi Joe,

Thanks for the kind comments... For what it is worth, I intend to post all of the papers that I wrote for my doctorate in the relevant sections... The paper on EMDR was as much a learning experience as anything.

My doctoral thesis is a much longer piece of work with tables etc... I would be grateful if you could remind me how to post a PDF (I can convert it to this format as I have the full version of Adobe Acrobat).

Best wishes


Illustrator wanted! Edit

Hello, Joe! A new logo sounds very interesting. I thought about your idea, then looked at the Wikipedia logo... here's a thought: Using the psi symbol, but 'curving' the top a little, so that it holds a sphere. Alternatively, the psy symbol could pass through or be inside the sphere. The sphere would symbolise both the Earth and the mind/brain. I think it would have to be see-through, looking like glass, so that the whole thing doesn't look too heavy. Actually, it would also resemble a crystal ball, which could be quite funny... I don't know what others think about this...

I doubt my own illustrating skills are sufficient to make it work but I'll give it a try within the next few weeks & I hope others can try too or have better ideas... Bri bri 10:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC) ;-)

Started Discussion for main page Edit

Hi Lifeartist,

Got a bit bored of revision, and so in between I've been looking at the Wiki and deciding how I can help, and what sort of stuff we need to be doing for it. It looks to me that you have done the vast majority of the work, and that much of it seems to be copying info from wikipedia, and then restructuring it to a sensible and consistent standard.

I think that you we now need to start building the community of editors more, in the same way that the community for wikiprojects has been built. I am starting discussion on the main page (discussion page) for this purpose.

Please let me know what you want us to help you with and add to the discussion and task list

Great idea starting this thing by the way :) Mostly Zen 11:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

- OK, one thing that has confused me was the Main Page link. There are these 2 main pages:

I think we need to stick with the first one? Because that is the one linked to from the navigation box (top left under the Wikia logo).

I'm going to watch the football now, will contribute some more later on.

OK I have changed the The_Psychology_Wiki to Redirect to the Main_Page. The Main Page link in the navigation box points here so it makes sense. However the 'Home' link in the psychology Box you have added to lots of pages still points to the The_Psychology_Wiki page, which is now redirected. If you change the 'home' link to point directly to the main page it will help the server load a little I'd guess... less processing.
PS dont worry I copied over all the information and discussion, nothing is lost. I'll start on the main page now. More of an intro I think Mostly Zen 12:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


Insomnia got the better of me Edit

Its my own fault for messing up my circadian rhythms (wonder if that article is there or not?

Anyway, I've done a massive edit of the Community Portal have a look and see what I've done there. Other than that I have:

  • Applied a template, the same colour as the community portal one to all the pages I have linked from there
  • Applied the same template to all the links from the navigation box (above the search box)
  • Started discussion pages on various of these links
  • Started the How can I contribute if i am a user of psychology services page and discussion there. Have a look at this one as I have a very big idea of how psychology/psychiatric users can help us by sharing their experiences. This is important as it is another way in which this project can be different from wikipedia
  • Ive copied a little bit of material over, but not much
  • Left messages on a lot of Wikipedians pages telling them about this project.

I'm going to go at this for a while. I apologise in advance if I run out of steam or enthusiasm later on, as this is something that I have a tendancy to do. At least my contributions won't go away :) Mostly Zen 02:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Continue restructuring

Psychology Wikians by interest categoryEdit

I just created a new category, Category: Psychology Wikians by interest, with several sub-categories, if you'd like to check it out. Users can pick a sub-category or sub-categories that they like and add them to their user page. If there isn't a sub-category that is of particular interest, then a new one can be created and added to the "Psychology Wikians by interest" category.Jaywin 03:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Site Map and other thingsEdit

Hi Lifeartist,

I have finished the page sitemap, but it is more of a structure guide really. I've fixed the box problem I had with that too. Do you like the idea of the different colours for the different page types? I was thinking it would help users to identify whether a contribution on bipolar disorder was being written by a professional clinician, or someone who has the condition and might be in a manic phase! (although we can all be a bit manic sometimes).

Keeping the main pages white background means we only have to edit the Guidepages, Experiences and Index, which shouldn't be too bad. If you think the idea is a good one we can go ahead and apply all the colour scheme. I'm setting up templates for the colours on my user page.

I was thinking that what we need to do now is slow down and decide what kind of structure would be a good idea, and then fix up one article so that it, and related articles follow that structure. For example, if we chose, say CBT as an example article, we could highlight it as a featured article and then have it as an example for future contributors. Its probably best if we choose something you are very familiar with.

I have a reasonably good understanding of depression and brain injuries, having done projects on these. I could get people to submit experiences of brain injury for that section of the site. I'll upload my project work soon.

My basic thoughts are that its fantastic we have so much content, but that the extent of it might actually be putting people off at the moment, ie 'theres so much I dont know where to start'

Its also a bit of a labyrinthe of dead ends, because its been cut from wikipedia. I can see your vision for the site though, and think it will really work. I just think we need to organise structure and fix up one article and related fields to a very high standard, as an example of how the whole wiki will work. This can then be used to attract more contributors.

Do you use MSN messenger? its very easy and is a good way to communicate on web stuff. You can get it here: [1]. If we chat on that we can communicate more quickly.

I'm really quite excited about this idea and would quite like to take up the offer of a placement that you made, perhaps just for 2 weeks in mid september? That way we could really get some work done on this, and I could get a better idea of whether clinical psychology is for me or not. In the meantime I have exams and will need some work that pays me for the rest of the summer, but I can contribute lots more once my exams finish.

Right, im all typed out now and need to revise some more (1st exam tomorrow) speak to you later

Tom Mostly Zen 16:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Invited a bunch of active users to main discussionEdit

Hi Joe, Ive invited people to get a discussion going on the Community Portal talk page with this invite:

We've changed the site around some more since you started contributing. Have a look at our New Main Page and Community Portal to see what we've done. Come and join the discussion on the Community Portal Discussion page and let us know what you would like to do with the Psychology wiki and how you think it could develop. Mostly Zen 16:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

PS I think that people should be quite likely to find the community portal now. I've put a fairly prominent link on the main page, and its accessible via the link underneath the main page link in the Navigation box.
PPS I have uploaded an image which we could use for a site logo perhaps? have a look here Talk:Main_Page

Summary of other minor stuff:

  • Changed talk pages on main page and community portal
  • Changed the orange background for experiences from orange to hint of rose as you suggested
  • Started example of a depression experience on User:Unhappy_Fred/Experience
  • Started applying lavender background to depression index
  • Read the depression article and had a good long think

Catch you later Mostly Zen 16:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I added lots of info about the Clinical Depression project on the bulletin board of the Community Portal and in the Talk Page for the Community Portal (which was where the invite linked to). I also changed the front page example index links to link to the clinical depression page, so more people should end up looking there. I'm just applying the colour scheme while i eat my pizza, and will just be revising later on. Will have a look at the depression page over the weekend perhaps.Mostly Zen
Oh my first exam went well, biopsychology of schizophrenia and depression. I wrote essays about neurotransmitters and drug action so I think i did well.. Mostly Zen 18:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Colour Not working on community pageEdit

Do you mean this page? Psychology_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal ? The colours are working for me on both Opera (which is a Mozilla based browser) and Internet Explorer. Maybe try refreshing again? I'll try to fix it if its broken.

By the way, if you want to break up the paragraph text in a conversation, add a ":" without the " that makes the conversation look like this:

Here... if you want to indent again add two colons, like "::" (but without the ")
Like this, etc... ":::"

It helps in long conversations. Took me forever to learn that on wikipedia! Mostly Zen

Put a white box there now for contrast. As I say its very pale, you can see it easily in contrast with the lavender and rose, but not well with white. Try swapping between the main page and the community portal to see the difference. Hope thats what it was anyway, cos otherwise im stumped. Mostly Zen
Yeah I'm sure there is a paper on this optical illusion, it stands out from the black text way more than white background. Anyway, have a look at this pale gold colour here: Psychology_Wiki:Community_Portal. Mostly Zen
Actually I've changed the colour again since that last edit to a light gold colour, check out the same page. I think that one is good, so I'm going to apply that one throughout. Mostly Zen

Getting MSN to workEdit

I've just tried to add you, but it says you need to get a Microsoft Passport account. If you have managed to get MSN working and are online with it then you should already have a Microsoft passport account, so im confused :( If and when you get MSN messenger working, you can add my email which is Mostly Zen

Thanks for the Welcome Edit

I'm very impressed with the good work you all have done here. Thanks for the welcome and for the tip on using the tildes.

SteveWolfer 02:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


I've got some suggestions at Psychology Wiki talk:Community Portal#What do you want to See on the Psychology Wiki, if you'd like to check them out. Jaywin 13:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Tree of KnowledgeEdit

Hey, 10,000 pages! that's great to see! Looks like things are coming along quite well. By the way, have you checked out the Tree of Knowledge System yet? (There are links to the official website and the paper at the bottom of the article.) Mostly Zen started the article, and I've added some to it. If you aren't aware of the ToK, I think you'll find it interesting. Maybe the three of us can get a good article going. Jaywin 17:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I just did lots on the ToK, heres what I posted on Jaywins page to save me typing twice...
I've just written loads on the ToK system. Have a read and proof read and see what you think. We still need more info for the second section. I was thinking we could have an Implications for the Psychology Wiki section, and point new contributors at this article for a read? Let me know what you think. Also, feel free to change what I've written if you think you can say it better or more clearly, or if I've made any mistakes. I won't mind, so long as the Jist of what I said is still there. I'll tell Lifeartist too. Speak to you later. Mostly Zen 22:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


  • I agree that establishing how we reference material is important, especially if we want Psychology Wiki to be at a professional level. Using a Fulltext or Abstract tag sounds like a good idea. When I look at references lists at the end of journal articles and college textbooks, the name of the article uses normal letters, and the journal article uses italics. The titles of books are italicized, as well. This is standard APA style, but I don't know whether or not it's done the same way in other parts of the world. If this format is how it's generally done, regardless of the country, then it seems to me that we should use that format in order to keep things as professional looking as possible. Jaywin 21:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
OOOOOoooops Jaywin has just mad me realise ive beeen doing my references wrong in all my reports for my whole degre. Ive been italising the paper title rather than the book or journal name. Ah well. He is right we should do this consistently as I did on the references page. One problem i thought of is that there are so many papers published that it would be difficult to index them all for discussion. What would we call the page? would we use the full paper name? Its a good idea but the mammothness of the task is beyond me at the moment. The reason why most paper .pdfs have such stupid numbers instead of the paper title is because that is easier for pubmed or ovid or Psychinfo or whatever to use than the whole title of the paper. Anyway I will think about this tomorrow when i am not drunk. Will think about the admin thing too. Zen [[User:Mostly Zen|Mostly Zen
Its amazing what you can learn on the wiki!! I think a reasonable solution is to use the Author(date)link for indexing, so if we search on an authors name all the papers will be listed Zen, M (2005), Zen, M (2006a) , Zen M {2006b) etc. This link also creates a record page for the paper where more indepth discusion can be had if people want it. I am clear that we should stick to APA format a lot of journals use it so theres less work to be done when copying references acrossLifeartist 05:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles from expertsEdit

I'm glad you like the Biopsychology:Ev Psyche page. And yeah, I think getting experts to write articles is the best way to go whenever possible. The few times that I've taken that approach, they've just sent me text, and I've copied & pasted it to the wiki site. I figure that way, you'll maximize the chance of getting a good quality article, (plus it increases the level of authoritativeness of the article!) I've sent out a few e-mails already. David C. Geary, (the professor that wrote the text for the evolutionary educational psychology article), wrote that he thinks the Psychology Wiki looks great and that he'll help out when he can. He'll be pretty busy for at least the next month, as he'll be serving on the President's National Mathematics Panel. I think I'll send one out to Gregg Henriques, as well. What better person to help out with the ToK, eh? Jaywin 11:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I think Jaywin has a good idea here. Attracting experts to contribute to the site is a very good idea and will increase both the quality of the articles and the credibility of the Psychology Wiki.
  • The referencing idea is good too and I think we can make the discussion page for published papers work well. I think we can set up the main page with the Abstract and publishing details and have the talk page for that paper as a forum for discussion. I'll set up a page for the ToK paper, as this seems to be our test example at the moment
  • Admin wise, yeah OK I will be an admin. I think this project is a brilliant Idea and am happy to contribute.
  • Depression Article: I will start doing some work on this article and keep you and Jaywin informed. I have a tendancy to suffer from depression myself, so perhaps I can offer a good perspective for potential users of the site who have more of a personal interest rather than just an academic one. Mostly Zen 12:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents Boxes for a subjectEdit

Had a look at your boxes idea at Content_boxes. I think it is a good idea, except we should keep the size of the boxes small, and have a link in them to another page which contains most of the information.

For the Practitioner Box we could make this quite large, at the bottom of the contents of the page, as detailed practitioner oppinion for various conditions is important. These boxes can be large and have lots of content.
For the Hypothesis box maybe just a statement of hypotheses is good, with a link to a page such as Depression:Hypotheses would be best, just to draw attention to the fact that there are hypotheses.
For the Speculation box I would either have a link to Depression:speculation or a link to the Talk page for depression, mentioning that 'speculative discussion is ongoing on this pages talk page'
We also need another box, for User Experiences.

I will get working on these and see what you think Mostly Zen 14:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've an interest in the speculation box cos i was trying to do a

piece for the debating chamber but it was too speculative and I wanted someway of showing that. Cos like a lot of my ideas they are off the wall for many people. like the user experience ideaLifeartist 14:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually to make it even more simple, I think that we should have ALL speculation and hypotheses on a section of the talk page for that article, otherwise it gets confusing. Your boxes idea on the main article is good though, because it can let people know and point to active discussion about that topic. Practitioner stuff should be on the main page, but deserves its own box. A link to user experiences would also be a good box. I'm sorting these out today at Standard_Formatting_Guide. Mostly Zen 15:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

From JaywinEdit

I've arranged the new info on the Biological psychology: Evolutionary psychology page. And thank-you for asking me to be an administrator. I've looked it over and thought about. I accept. Jaywin 20:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


Might have just had our first vandalism. Someone edited loads of Info off of the main page. Might have been an accident, but it was a single edit from a random IP address, which seemed odd. I changed it back again. I don't really want to protect pages just yet, as its not fair on other contributors. Apparently the best thing to do with vandals is ignore them, block their IP and revert the page back to normal. If we get lots of vandalism on a page then we can protect the page, but not sure its a good idea. Mostly Zen 22:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


I was thinking we could do with a general discussion forum, rather than using each others Talk pages all the time.

Why Don't we use the Community Portal talk page for general stuff, and sort out our various conversations under the correct topics? I'm getting lost with all these messages...

We could also have an Admin discussion forum somewhere for admin related stuff? As long as we check these 2 pages regularly things will be fine. Urgent messages still on userpages is fine. It also makes the wiki look more 'Alive' to other contributors if they can read what we're up to. See you on the Community Portal Talk page. Mostly Zen 22:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

From Jaywin: Reference & DepressionEdit

Thanks for the link to the Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology by David Buss. I happened to already be aware of it, but interestingly, I've been using his text, Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind, as a guide to help in some areas of organizing material. Also, I've been collecting articles from the page, list of publications on evolution and human behavior. Lastly, I'm not sure if you've noticed, but I have a link to an article at Talk:Clinical depression that you may find interesting. Jaywin 22:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the message I just left on Jaywins page:

I'm going to work hard on the depression page this week, to try and get it up to scratch. If you and I build on the work Lifeartist has done then it will work well.

Once the general article is in place I'm going to ask Wikipedians who are in the category User:Depressed if they would like to contribute an anonymous exerience of depression. I've suffered quite badly from it myself in the past and it still gets me (Daaark moods) every so often, so I'll make it a sensitive and friendly invite. After that is underway I think we should go on a serious recruitment drive. Lets discuss this on the Community Portal Talk. Mostly Zen 23:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Spam filterEdit

Hi Lifeartist. I found the string that was triggering the filter - looks like it was a leftover from an earlier attack (this edit). It's clear now. I generally do a page search using the text the filter mentions using my Goggle toolbar, but your browser search should help too. But if you get any more problems, just give me a shout. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Link at Psi ChiEdit

I sent out an e-mail yesterday to Psi Chi telling them about the Psychology Wiki, and today we have a listing here in the "Psychology Site Links" section. Jaywin 13:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

hi there Edit

hi there lifeartist, nice to see ya there. i've always liked the MBTI; it'd be interesting to start a category of users by MBTI like over at wikipedia. you'd be right on target if you are an INFP as you work in clinical therapy - just about all psychotherapists and the like are NFPs.

i'm starting out by moving over some names and such that are salient to me in psych that just haven't made it yet. i'll get a little more detailed as i get more comfortable here.

oh, and here is the best MBTI website i've found, if you haven't already: [2].

good idea with this wiki.... JoeSmack 22:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Just added MBTI userboxes, add {{User:JoeSmack/Userboxes/INFP}} to your userpage to get in on some of that action. It'll be interesting to see the types of people who contribute to this wiki by type (or, from the same coin, the types of people who prefer to type themselves who contribute to this wiki). The category pages could still use some info, but i'm going out the door right now for an egagement. Sleep well. JoeSmack 23:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Also on Fandom

Random Wiki