This is an archive of past discussions with User:Lova Falk. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi Lova Falk! I wanted to thank you for your encouragement, both when I first joined the community, and yesterday, for encouraging 173.81.148.252 – also me! I had forgotten both to log in and to source the info, and if I had been a new-new user, I might have felt very discouraged that my first edit had been undone. Your efforts to encourage new users helped me feel comfortable and welcome in the community from the very beginning, and I was touched that you took the time to reach out even when all you had to go on was an IP address. So, without further ado:
Thank you Firecatalta, you made the sun shine this morning! (And I'm also happy we didn't lose 173.81.148.252 who seemed to be such a good editor.) Lova Falktalk09:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I've just seen what happened on Motivation. I had no idea I'd undone some of your work - I thought I was just making a minor change! I think there must have been an edit conflict between us that I didn't merge properly, since we were editing about the same time. Not sure how this happened, but I'll take more care with edit conflicts in future. Apologies! MartinPoulter (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
No problem! When you didn't answer me, I figured out this much - including the part in which you were not aware of it. It has also happened to me, a minor edit resulting in a revert to a previous version. Lova Falktalk17:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Chart issues figured out!
Hi Lova, thank you for your recent work on the BPD article! I figured out the differences in our values: I had forgotten to add a row specifically for drug abuse/dependence, and then I mistakenly put those values into the "overall substance abuse/dependence" row. So, there's that mystery solved, and I’ll add a row for drug abuse in a moment. Also, thank you for checking and fixing the chart values for Axis II! I do most of my editing late at night, and the later it is, the more likely small details are to get lost. Thanks for catching them! Firecatalta (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Just updated the chart with 2008 values; still need to find some more recent values for eating and somatoform disorders. Firecatalta (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Firecatalta, you do such a great job! Mixing up a figure can happen to anyone, that's why it's so good we make Wikipedia together. Lova Falktalk07:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
You also do an amazing job, especially given how many articles you're working on! It's been a privilege getting to work with you. Can't remember what the time difference is, so either have a wonderful day or a great night! Firecatalta (talk) 07:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh no, I just saw this! Yes, it was night here (I'm over in the US), though now it's a beautiful saturday afternoon. Have a wonderful evening! Firecatalta (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello! I see that you reported this user. I don't know where, and I'd rather not lose much time on this, but user made rude comments on my talk page. Maybe could be added as evidence for possible block or ban? Thanks for helping.Tao2911 (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
(Talk page stalker) You don't need to explain yourself. What was that about? Is the use of heterosexual as a noun also problematic? While gay is now more commonly used, there's no problem with either term. Cheers, 99.12.243.171 (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay. I just found this thread [1], which suggests that the term is associated with a pejorative and judgmental clinical use in the past, especially in the US. If the use of homosexual as a noun is indeed broadly viewed as unacceptable, I plead guilty of ignorance, not for the first time. 99.12.243.171 (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Same ignorance from my part. Quite shocking though that this neutral term has become a pejorative. It reveals the prejudices of a narrow-minded society. Thank you for telling me. (I really like your talk page stalking) Lova Falktalk17:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Not that I'm determined to keep pace with what constitutes a slur in slang usage; it seemed to me that gay, while a widely accepted term, is also used pejoratively by those who are homophobic. But then, many years ago while visiting Maine I encountered local use of the term squid, which I took to be a withering reference to summer visitors. Cheers, 99.12.243.171 (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
As long as homophobia exists, any neutral term will get infected. As far as I know (and we know a degree of ignorance is not beyond us ), words like idiot and imbecile once started as perfectly neutral descriptions. Lova Falktalk18:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh, to clarify, I never said there was anything offensive about being homosexual, just being called a homosexual, which is a 1970s clinical word and currently used by anti-gay extremists. CTF83!01:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh my, the doctors again... I'm Dutch too; in Holland "homo-sexueel" is a rather normal word. "Homofiel" is more offensive, as if homo-sexuality is some kind of illness (or sickness, to stick to the negative idiom). Talking about doctors, there is a Dutch scientist, Freek Vonk, who's got ADHD, and doesn't use medication. He says, 'this is how I am, and I'm happy with it'. And he's "vet cool"! Check him out on Uitzending gemist (in Dutch). Ehm... what's it got to do with homo-sexuality? Nothing, except that he screws all the clinicians. And he's definitely "gay", in the sense of "having or showing a merry, lively mood: gay spirits; gay music. Synonyms: cheerful, gleeful, happy, glad, cheery, lighthearted, joyous, joyful, jovial; sunny, lively, vivacious, sparkling; chipper, playful, jaunty, sprightly, blithe." [3]. Greetings to all of you, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!05:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes CTF83!, we are completely resolved, and I understood from the start that you were discussing the expression. Is the word homosexuality still fine, or do gay people try to avoid using it? Lova Falktalk07:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
And I'm a bit shocked by your example Joshua Jonathan, because here in Sweden, as far as I know, lots of adults with ADHD don't use meds and it is not a big deal in any way. We would not make a television show about it. (I see now it is not a show about not taking meds) (And, now that I think of it, ADHD diagnosis criterium D states: "There must be clear evidence of clinically significant impairment in social, academic, or occupational functioning." - one could wonder if this is the case for Freek...) Lova Falktalk07:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
In that same discussion, which I took part in, it was made clear that there are some cases where the existence and/or use of the term "homosexual" is completely fine; also, no one objected (at least there in that discussion) to use of the word "homosexuality." There was agreement all around that there isn't much of an issue, or any issue, with using "homosexuality." Flyer22 (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Also made clear in that discussion, and like CTF83! touched on a bit above, the term "homosexual" was never originally neutral and it has always been pejorative in a way (or ways, rather). Flyer22 (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, no home internet. Flyer22 took care of my answer. Thanks for your understanding, Lova! CTF83!05:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
re: Unreadable nonsense
I agree that I could have used a nicer tone, but the fact is that the article had become un-understandable. Whether one agrees or disagrees with a practice or field, an article cannot start with an unexplained list of assumptions or hypotheses, with unexplained and unlinked technical terms that are claimed to be self-contradictory. I think that rather than merely reverting my rollback, you should have worked to make the article more intelligible. I see now it's (Vegetotherapy) a little better than it was. Finally, as you realized later, there appeared to be some sock puppets working on this obscure article.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Some sock puppets yes. Last time I counted they were twelve. However, about new editors. Even if they are hard too understand, I assume good faith and try not to chase a new editor away immediately. As for working more on the article to make it more intelligible, I usually start with putting a cn-tag and won't do any work unless a source is provided. The risk is too high that everything gets reverted... And I wasn't very friendly to you, I'm sorry for that. Lova Falktalk18:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
If I was reviewing the same article this morning, I probably would not have been so harsh, but it was past my bedtime, I saw all these new editors and IPs working on this obscure article and thought it was time for a restart from a littler earlier. In this particular case, if we had sock puppets working here, I don't think we want to welcome them. In general, I do like to welcome and help out new editors. And I certainly did not mean to offend you in anyway!--I am One of Many (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I have suggested a move at the article Talk Page. Do you know if Blum was a psychologist, psychoanalyst and/or artist? Or where he worked? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. You contribute to the article Classical conditioning very much. Unlike me, you’re a psychologist by education. So I’d like to ask your advice. The fact is any Russian textbook on physiology describes not only the concept of conditioned and unconditioned reflexes, but also their distinguishing features (for further information, see, e.g., the table at the end of an article in the Biofile journal). The article “Classical conditioning” had not contained such information before I added a new section expounding the criteria for a conditioned reflex. But a problem occurred. A property that distinguishes unconditioned reflexes from the conditioned ones is the presence of a definite receptive field. I wikified this word combination at first. Then I learned that the article “Receptive field” deals with the receptive field of a neuron. This is not tantamount to the concept “the receptive field of a reflex” (syn.: reflexogenous zone, reflexogenic zone), yes? --SU ltd. (talk) 09:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for asking me, but I am sorry, I cannot help you, because I don't know enough about classical conditioning. With friendly regards, Lova Falktalk07:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for attention. It seems that foreign textbooks do not expound this subject as often as Russian textbooks do. Best regards, --SU ltd. (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
A number of these fine distinctions can be attributed to Pavlov, whose work is probably more broadly familiar to Russians than to western Europeans. Looie496 (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm very glad to have received a professional neuroscientist's answer. Great to meet such specialists in WP where lay people (like me) are the majority. Judging from your replies and Db4wp's explanation, my wikification of the words "receptive field" is improper when they refer to a reflex. I should correct this misunderstanding and create a stub about reflexogenous zones when I have free time. Besides, I've just found a confirmation of your words about Pavlov's work and added this information to the article "Classical conditioning". Perhaps the citation added answers my question as to why the topic "Criteria for a conditioned reflex" is obligatory in Russian education and remains unknown to Western professionals at the same time. --SU ltd. (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I don't know. I saw that you seem to have a fruitful dialogue but your discussions are way over my head, and it is impossible for me to see either if he is or if he is not Paul Joseph. It's also a bit funny, because both of you seem to wonder if the other is Paul Joseph... But why not sending him a mail and maybe find out more? Lova Falktalk08:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Kind of "whodunnit", isn't it? Maybe I should send him an emain, if only to warn him to be carefull with advertising his own publication. He looks quite smart, and promising, and it would be a pity to have this juvenile kind of behaviour haunting him when he's on a rewarding academic career-path. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!09:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I've sent him an email. Thanks for your kindness; you keep reminding me to search for non-confrontational approaches in the interaction with other editors (though that's not always what you eeks, I meant "I"!!!!! - do, as you've noticed...), just by your personality. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!06:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much Lova. I am working on a school project at the moment. I am not to far into the project at this time, but myself and my partner do plan to add to the Autism and working memory page. Later today we will plan to have a more definite plan on how we will approach the project and decide which parts of the article we would like to add to. We have both gone through the training tutorial for students and have a pretty good grasp on how we should add to the page, but nonetheless we are new to editing on Wikipedia. Once again thank you for your help.
Wefogg (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you too for your friendly message and don't hesitate to ask if you wonder about anything. I'm looking forward to learn more about autism and wm! Lova Falktalk07:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Ecological psychology
Aloha, in response to your query about the eco-psychology "criticism" entry "not being neutral," I would like to ask for clarifications about what the author means by "neutral" since "cosmic spirituality," as a form of ideology, seems to infuse and pervade her entries. The point is very basic no?: If "eco-psychology" cannot adderes these criticisms it does not merit the sub labels "eco" or "psychology." Perhaps then, "eco-psychology" as presented by the author is merely her subjective take and not an inclusive presentation deemed "neutral" Wikipedia." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.144.165 (talk • contribs)
Aloha! What I mean with "neutral" is representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Please see: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. In your edits you expressed your own opinion, for instance when you wrote "Ecopsychology" ... often neglects a full explication (deconstruction) of the basic terminology it uses to advertise its endeavors. A neutral way of describing criticism against ecopsychology is for instance writing: "Ecopsychology" has been criticized for neglecting a full explication..., ending the sentence with stating the source. With friendly regards, Lova Falktalk05:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry if I caused some trouble... My plan is also to give mainly advice on sources, with the exception of the stroop effect article, where I will closely monitor editing so the articles is as improved as possible. --Garrondo (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
You may have not noticed, but the the course page has been changed to emphasize use of secondary sources. Morevoer, the teacher has assured me that this has been talked in class and that we must be patient both with him and students since they are all new to wikipedia. He also seemed a bit intimidated by all our messages, so it might be a good idea that we let him now that we have noticed the change (I have already done it). He has also said that the project is until summer, so that there is going to be time to go little by little with students, and that things online might go a bit slowly at first since many things are first treated offline. Finally, while I fully agree with you on the use of secondary sources and I will strain it endlessly, I have to say that that I am not sure if it is in accordance to policy to direcly eliminate content based on primary sources, specially so when most of this articles are already based primarily in primary sources. Nevertheless lets hope that we do not have to get to that. Bests. --Garrondo (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Ups, I have just noticed that you had just done that... sorry again (problem of writting before clearing the full watchlist :-). Bests. I have just seen (12 hours later) that I forgot to sign.--Garrondo (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree that in some cases there might be a good reason to let primary sources stay. And I am four days behind on my watchlist so thank you for telling me this. Lova Falktalk05:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Lova Falk. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help desk. Message added 12:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thank you for your help, still very new to this and am very interested in improving my skills on editing, would love any advice. sorry for the mix up on the article
What is your take on this edit (which I tweaked soon after) changing the wording to "many older sources"? It's not just "many older sources" stating that; the sources for that part of line aren't too old (one's from 2004; the other is a health website that, among older references, cites a 2001 reference and a 2004 reference; though the latter 2004 reference likely doesn't mention anything about investigating premature or delayed menarche), and the source used to contrast that part of the line (from 2006) isn't that much newer (than the 2004 references at least). I've tweaked the editor's changes to that line in a different way before as well, by keeping what the editor removed while contrasting it to what the editor added.[8][9][10][11]Flyer22 (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry Flyer22, but I don't know the first thing about menstruation and I do not know if the text about newer sources indeed reflects updated knowledge or not. However, not knowing this, and seeing that Hillarpa doesn't provide sources that makes this clear, I would say the more neutral "some sources - other sources" should be used. Just my two cents... Lova Falktalk08:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, Lova Falk.
By the way, as I watch your talk page, and would check back even if I didn't, you don't have to leave me a "talk back" message on my talk page. I can't remember at the moment if I relayed that to you before, but, yeah, you're free from having to notify me of any reply you make to me on your talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 08:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Curing phobia with hypnosis
Thank you so much for finding the hypnotherapy source. I was having trouble finding another one. Thanks for the help, now with this source my section would turn out great!
-Wendy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmiguel08 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I guess I should clarify that I didn't intend to use just "my own words" to re-do the Traffic Psychology article in my sandbox2. The original article is taken completely from here: http://vplno1.vkw.tu-dresden.de/psycho/download/ttp3_0.pdf
I did not want to edit a plagiarized article, so I thought wiping the slate clean (just for my sandbox and grade) would be best for now. I sent my sandbox 2 link to the group that is working on the same article to get their input. I also spoke with my professor who told me to go ahead with what I am doing since I have been working with the article for weeks now.
I intend to use the article linked above, but not verbatim. Any more input?
Hi Stephanie! I will copy this text to the talk page of Traffic psychology, so we don't get discussions about the same article all over the place. Lova Falktalk17:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks and question about catastrophic schizophrenia article
Hi Lova, thanks so much for all the assistance you gave my students in our class project. I was wondering about your thoughts on the current quality of Catastrophic Schizophrenia after Ashley Suk's edits to it. It's definitely not Stub-class anymore, nor Start-class, but I don't want to overstep my social psychology background by putting it in C, B, or A. Do you think it's worth nominating for Good Article status, even? I posted on the Talk:Catastrophic schizophrenia page too - would be fine to continue the conversation there. ScottPKingPhD (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I find it a problem that throughout the entire environmental enrichment article, there is never a clear definition of the concept. The most it says in the way of a definition is that it "concerns how the brain is affected by the stimulation of its information processing..." Our brains process information constantly, but obviously that is not what is meant by "environmental enrichment." How can we fix this problem in a way that fits the topic of "neural" environmental enrichment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlyoung34 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Mlyoung34! Did you see Behavioral enrichment? That article starts with a definition of environmental enrichment. Maybe you can integrate the definition from that article into the lead of Environmental enrichment (neural)? Lova Falktalk07:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I am modifying the article on Shyness and you mentioned two primary sources. I could not find any secondary sources related to these, should I rewrite the sections?
Thank you Csing (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
No, if no reviews can be found, there is nothing you can do about it, it is fine to have them. However, in the introduction of the primary sources, do the authors mention that there is a lack of cross cultural studies? Such remarks are qualitatively comparable to secondary sources, because they are from scientists who make a reviewing remark about other studies. So, in case there is such a remark, could you add a sentence about it in the beginning of the section? Such a sentence would also implicitly explain your use of primary sources. Kind regards! Lova Falktalk19:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I found a secondary source that mentions the study I used and modified my edits based on it. Apparently I was typing in the wrong words when searching for reviews of the study. I am sorry for pestering you. Thank you again Csing (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I feel as though I've done the Wiki version of seeing you in passing a few times, so I thought I'd drop by and say hi. How are things? Also, it goes without saying, but thank you as always for all the work you do around here. Much appreciated! Firecatalta (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Hello, Lova Falk. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Thanks for letting me know you reverted my editing on communication and why. As you've probably guessed I am new to this and still finding my way. I have reread the MOSINTRO link and understand what is supposed to happen there. But I am unsure how to proceed. Can I please clarify something with you first? Are you objecting to my use of academic words or to the thrust of the changes? I am slowly trying to resolve contradictions between various communication-related entries in as neutral a way as possible and hoped my first edit would at least set the limits for that take on communication. Can we resolve this between us for now? or is best to take it the talk page for communication? Many thanks
Penperson (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Could you hold back on feedback for a week or so?
Hi Lova Falk! Thanks for the help you are offering numerous of my students! Heads up that we are at a critical time when students will be doing some peer-reviewing of each other's work. If you could hold off on your comments until that is done (reviews are due by 3/29), we would all greatly appreciate it. Be assured that your feedback is valued, but the students need some time and space to work with each other. I'm sure you remember how hard it is for many students to enter a conversation when an expert they do not know well is part of the space. Again, we value your feedback but right now it is stressing the students out to the point of being counter-productive. Thank you! CogPsyProf (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Students everywhere on Wikipedia
I know that you're on a Wikibreak, but I've never seen such an influx of students editing Wikipedia. I'm seeing them at sexual topics, different kinds of social topics such as the Youth article, medical topics, but especially at psychology topics, or articles heavily relating to any of these topics, and it's a bit tiresome correcting their edits or reverting them because of whatever valid reason. I'm sure that you are dealing with this as well. I've seen you recently revert an editor at one article who I'm sure is a student who was assigned a Wikipedia editing task. I'm not even sure that that's Nancydarling's class currently editing the Adolescence article. Sometimes, seeing Wikipedia used as a class project is not a good thing, which we've both expressed before. Other Wikipedia editors have stated the same thing. Flyer22 (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
One of the main reasons of my wikibreak is that I felt overwhelmed with the amount of job just to work through my watchlist. I felt as if all I did was clean up other editor's mess: copyedit text so it fits in with the rest of the text, fixing references, writing messages to student editors. So I decided to take a break and give myself some time to figure out how I want to continue participate in Wikipedia. Lova Falktalk08:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Very understandable break. I wish you all the best in enjoying it. It seems that, since this aspect of Wikipedia (the students) has already been talked about for years by others without a development of a better way of interacting with students, all we can do on this matter is continue to clean up after them and/or guide them...or not. Flyer22 (talk) 09:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I heard about your taking a break, and I wanted to stop by to give you my best wishes for whenever you look back here again. It saddens me that any good editor like you would find editing less enjoyable as a result of student projects. You might want to consider that no editor here has to be an unpaid teaching assistant, and most certainly not if it comes at the expense of burnout. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Enjoy your break. Wikipedia is supposed to be only fun and if it ever is not fun, then something is going wrong. I regret that the education program participants often create messes and I am not sure how to deal with it at this time. I will share what you said with other participants. Blue Rasberry (talk)17:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Hope to see you back editing soon. I to have no idea what to do about these issues. While a few classes have had hugely positive effects others simply create content needing to be cleaned up afterwards and make editing less enjoyable for those who stick around. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you all! I'm trying to find my way back to joyful editing, and it feels like groping in the dark. I think that one part of my problem was this sentence from WP:NOTTA: "student editors should be treated in the same way any new editor is treated". Now I would very much like to see more good editors who edit psychology pages, and when I spot a promising new editor, I try to encourage them best I can. And I have done the same with the students. Welcome templates, welcoming them on talk pages of articles, etc. A lot of efforts when most of them disappear as soon as they have got their grades. And I don't blame them, but ´for my own good I should be more reserved next time. Lova Falktalk08:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Welcome back, Lova Falk, whether back full-time or just the right amount of time that will allow you to function properly here. And, yes, I fully understand what you mean again. Flyer22 (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes welcome back. These are issues we all struggle with. A group of us a trying to figure out what to do about it and we all agree that what has happened cannot happen again per [12]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I decided to check back here to see where things stand, and I am so very, very happy to see you back. Warmest welcomes! I'm grateful to Flyer22 for pointing out the edit I made, but I also feel some responsibility for where Lova quoted something that I think I might have first written on the same information page: that student editors should be treated like any other editor. Although I think that it's factually true, even undeniable, I realize now that just about anything can be understood more than one way. My intention was to emphasize that student editors aren't entitled to be handled with a special set of kid gloves not used for any other editors. If they write something that should be reverted, revert it. What I'm trying very hard to get established as a behavioral consensus is that we should always, first, make a constructive, non-WP:BITEy, attempt to tell students what they need to fix, but having done that – once! – it's done. Sometimes students don't listen, and sometimes they collect their grade, leave, and don't look back. It's not established editors' fault if the students don't clean up after themselves, and editors should never feel bad about it. There's never an obligation to keep repeating helpful advice in the face of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. And if anyone doesn't have time to fix up a page, either revert it or tag it for someone else to fix (sooner or later someone else will!), and walk away. I'm going to go back to WP:NOTTA, and see if I can clarify these things. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you all for this welcoming back. It is very, very much appreciated. I still don't know really how to handle my editing of Wikipedia, but I do want to be here. And Tryptofish, I have always experienced you as supportive, so don't blame yourself. Lova Falktalk19:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually quite funny in retrospect. And what the article doesn't say is that apart from the 1900 students came on top of the regular student projects that kept us very busy... Lova Falktalk07:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Feedback on Cognitive psychology page modification
Hello Lova, I wanted to stop by and thank you for your input on my work with the Cognitive psychology page. I will definitely make the additions/modifications you have spoken of. I am going to be uploading my current changes today, but will be continuing my work on this article for the remainder of this semester. Please continue to provide feedback as you see necessary and I will be happy to work toward getting those changes instituted. I hope you have been able to/continue to find the relief you need to be able resume your work within the Wikipedia community. It appears that you are a vital part of the community and it would be a substantial loss if we were to lose you. Thanks again! Snagglepuss24 (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Lova Falk. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard. Message added 02:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thank you Joshua, and I will. It was no particular problem that made me leave - I was overwhelmed and stressed out by the sheer amount of work that needed to be done every day. At this point, I am very happy checking a watchlist that is two weeks old. Lova Falktalk07:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
For your excellent work on psychology related articles. This is one of the most difficult subjects to work one thus my extra appreciation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I have no opinion on this. The thing to do now is to ask your question on the talk page of Catastrophic schizophrenia and invite other editors to give their advice. With friendly regards
A kitten for you!
For your work on the psyc articles, in the face of all those students.
Another thanks from me, too! I was browsing some of the students' psychology articles and saw a lot of great feedback from you on the talk pages.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Lova,
Just saw your message about my edit to the Dysprosody page. I assure you that I only looked at that one journal article before making my edit, and did not copy and paste. So I had no knowledge of the link you sent me. Do you mind sending me the parts that are identical? Now I am curious. Thanks for the concern.
I messed up! I think. Let me check once more. Yes I did. I apologize! It was not your text that was the same as the text on the site that I found - and most probably, the text of that site was copied from us and not the other way around. Lova Falktalk13:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Flyer22, I didn't know about the indefinitely-part but I did find out that s/he was blocked. Take a look at this. Oh well. I moved on and edited the added text of a student who did a great job. Nice for a change! Lova Falktalk14:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. And, yes, that student editor did a significantly better job than most students editors. I also, of course, appreciate that you were there to tweak that editor's text. Something that I note about the article is that the Major research areas and Influential cognitive psychologists sections that already existed there are like See also sections before the See also section. Flyer22 (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
You are right, and some of the influential cognitive psychologists are already mentioned and wikilinked previously in the article. However, it doesn't bother me and I let it be. I'm working hard on becoming a Wikisloth. Lova Falktalk16:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! I do watch this article, however, I have a two week lag, so without your message I would have seen your note until two weeks from now. I'll check things out to see if I'll change my edit. Lova Falktalk14:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I answered you yesterday, but I must have forgotten to save it... Anyway, it all started with my two week wikibreak, and actually, I like it. Almost all vandalism has been taken care of, and if there is a doubtful edit by an unexperienced editor, I no longer feel bad when I remove it, because it's been alive for two whole weeks. Also, the day's list is much shorter, which gives me time to edit a couple of articles more thoroughly - which is more rewarding. Lova Falktalk19:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I thought that the lag was due to your Internet connection. I was confused because I was wondering how you might see your user page pop on your watchlist in real-time, but not an article or rather not specific articles. But it sounds like it's about you playing catch-up with articles that you weren't watching for two weeks. Flyer22 (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, today I checked the latest changes of April the 4th. But I do peek on today's changes on my watchlist as well... Lova Falktalk20:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you too for your response! Convincing new editors to use secondary (or tertiary) sources can sometimes be quite a battle. Lova Falktalk07:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I reverted your revert of Cluebot's deletion of what I considered an unhelpful contribution: [13]. If you think that text improves the article please feel free to add it back. Cheers. Jojalozzo16:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Even if the information is not "useful", if it's relevant and a real controversy, the material should be in the article. Bearian (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Am I incorrect in believing thast while Wernicke's aphasia patients have intact grammar they tend not to be able to produce meaningful language (lacking semantics and pragmatics) or understand others? The few Wernickes' patients I have met spoke grammatically correctly but used apparently random lexical material so that their sentences made no sense. In contrast to the Broca's patients I've met who can choose meaningful words but are unable to produce grammatically correct sentences. As the article is now it seems to say that Wernickes aphasia makes it possible to speak clearly and intelligible but without being able to understand what others say. I have never heard of such symptoms. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·13:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, in theory, receptive aphasia is that the problem is with understanding, whereas expressive aphasia is a problem with expression. But I agree with you that in reality this is rarely (or ever) the case. I was too quick in reverting you, I apologize and I'll revert my edit back, but change the sentence. Thank you! Lova Falktalk13:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps the problem is that Wernickes aphasia and receptive aphasia is not the exact same thing, but is currently covered in the same article?·ʍaunus·snunɐw·13:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
As far as I know, Wernickes aphasia is the older term for receptive aphasia that is less often used nowadays, plus that the term receptive is a bit misleading, because as you pointed out, there are also expressive difficulties. Lova Falktalk14:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello Lova and thank you for your respond and comments!
I do work with a class project. The information is from textbook
and the proper refrences are provided. Thanks again for the additional
information you provided me with!
Aaleksanian (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Lova Falk! First of all, I would like to thank you for all of your wonderful feedback and encouragement on my recent edits to the article on emotionality. I have really appreciated your support and it made my day when I saw that my article was "not a stub anymore" thanks to my hard work! My only question for you is regarding the section of "Examples of emotionality." You posted that the section needs references, but I used common knowledge and past experiences to provide this information, so I did not feel this section needed sources. I spoke to my professor about this and she agreed with me. I am curious to know what kind of references you are looking for, so that I can try to find them. I searched for quite a while today but did not have any luck finding references basic enough for this type of information (with the exception of textbooks, as you have advised not to use). Most studies were regarding physiological distress during complex situations or illnesses, etc., but not to describe basic emotions. If you have any suggestions on where to find these references, I would really appreciate your help. Thank you again for all of your feedback and support! Laurenrampey (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Lauren, good argument, I removed the tag. I have another comment though, but I'll write it on the article's talk page. Lova Falktalk07:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Letting you know that I reverted this. Likely a student editor. If you see anything in that revert that you think should definitely be in that article or should definitely be excluded, I would like to know your thoughts about it. Flyer22 (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Flyer! There might be content that should be in this article, but I don't have the time nor the energy to start editing this wall of text... Lova Falktalk20:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for the reply; I somehow missed it on my watchlist. I'll probably restore some of this editor's text at a later date (but in a tweaked fashion). Flyer22 (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Test anxiety
At this same moment I was thinking in eliminating the category learning section, when suddenly it was gone... You have done a great job in the article. Bests.
--Garrondo (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
How about moving section "cognitive interventions" to the treatment section? Does not make much sense to have 2 separate sections on treatment (and a subsection on management)... I do not do it myself since you seem in a wiki-rage, and we will probable get editions conflicts. Moreover, you seem to have really "grasped" the article by now, while I have only take a few edits at it. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Garrondo and I am very happy that you made the changes. However, I doubt if "attentional cognitive bias modification" really is notable enough to get its own article, but I leave that question to you. Lova Falktalk16:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey. It seems there has been some rough movements in this talk page in the last few days. I hope everything is solved now. I have just seen your comment regarding your lack of access to some sources. My institution has access to many journals (although I know it does not have access to APA journals for example), so if you need an specific source you can send me an email and I will try to get it. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
How about using people-first language (a child with autism, etc., rather than an autistic child). Indeed, "it reveals the prejudices of a [person who is] narrow-minded" to restrict the identity of a person and then to plead ignorance in the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.190.80.40 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 1 May 2013
I do not appreciate you insinuating that I am prejudiced or narrow minded. If you would like to point out something, you can do so politely. And please refrain from messing up another section by putting your comment in the middle of it. Lova Falktalk19:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
No one is insinuating anything about you; it might be better to view the comment more constructively. Did you forget that a gross generalization was made about the narrow mindedness of society. This type of statement is insinuating that the populous is narrow minded. And, that populous is composed of individuals, which supports my original point. If you are going to put yourself out there by making edits, revisions, and comments to Wikipedia (created for all people); it might be best to remain objective and knowledgeable, otherwise leave the change to someone else.
I've viewed many of your editing comments and you often attack the editing attempts of individuals or the work they cite. Please stay objective when making comments, revisions, or edits. If you are unsure then don't make the change -- take time to research the problem. If you do make the change, then it is unnecessary to make comments that are unconstructive and lack objectivity. Simply state your change and move-on... If you dish it out then please be willing to take it; this was never about you. Please smile and be happy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.190.80.40 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 2 May 2013
Hi there. I noticed you put the 'alternative explanations' section back and was wondering why. I was making the first paragraph of the section consistent with this later: 'In general use, the term 'Freudian slip' has been debased to refer to any accidental slips of the tongue.' This tends to be a problem with Wiki articles dealing with Freudian/psychoanalytic concepts in general, since there is so much misinformation. Perhaps you have a different view? --Quadalpha (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Quadalpha, thank you for asking! I put the title 'alternative explanations' back, because I thought that in an article on Freudian slip, a section titled "a slip of the tongue" doesn't give any information about the section. As it is now, first there is the History part, about Freud, and then the Alternative explanation part, about other ways to interprete a slip of the tongue. For me that makes sense. If there would be a History section followed by a section called slip of the tongue, the reader wouldn't know what to expect in that section. With friendly regards, Lova Falktalk19:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense. Perhaps we need another solution, since right now, it looks like the 'alternative explanations' are for Freudian slips specifically, but really the alternative explanations are for slips of the tongue. This distinction is important because I'm trying to clear up actual Freudian/psychoanalytic theory from 'what people think Freudian theory is' whenever I come across it. Perhaps we can put in a related link to speech error, and instead of 'alternative explanations', have a section on generic/imprecise uses of the term 'Freudian slip'? --Quadalpha (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Notifications box replacement prototypes released
Hey Lova Falk; Kaldari has finished scripting a set of potential replacements available to test and give feedback on. Please go to this thread for more detail on how to enable them. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Message
Left you a message on the talk page, please do not change things without discussing it. Rather than a contributor, you are becoming a dictator — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.190.83.40 (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Sigh.
I leave the BPD page alone for ~1 week, and when I come back there is an edit that BPD is associated with familicide, based on an article in a 10 year old journal that cites a study with N=16 non-randomly selected individuals with no control group. *facepalm*
Sigh! and hi! Luckily it's easy to undo. Things are fine, we are in Marrakech, and after a couple of very intensive days, we have had a lazy day at "home". And I *do* like to edit Wikipedia, so here I am again ... Lova Falktalk21:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm so glad you're having a great trip! I'm also glad you're around wikipedia, but sorry to have interrupted your vacation with grumbling about silly edits. Enjoy the day at "home," and I hope the rest of your journey there continues to be wonderful. You deserve it!! :-) Firecatalta (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Great place for vacations. As a hint: if its the first time you go there, and they offer you a trip to some waterfalls in a nearby village do not go (I do not remember the name), they are quite crappy and only meant to get the money out of the tourists IMO. Have the rebuitl the caffe in the main plaza that was bombed two years ago? It was a great place...--Garrondo (talk) 06:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Garrondo, we actually did consider such a trip but we'll think twice. And there are no ruins left on the plaza, but next time I'm there, I'll have a look if there is an Argana caffe, or something else. Lova Falktalk16:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Garrondo, now I have looked everywhere, but I cannot find any Argana caffe. It must have been rebuilt in another name. And we're not going on the trip, thanks to you. Lova Falktalk21:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Its a pity... food was great. Not as cheap as everything else but still really cheap. Hope you end well your holidays.--Garrondo (talk) 07:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
No, quite incomprehensible. Maybe the editor thinks it is a primary source??? Anyway, it should be reverted... Lova Falktalk21:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Because you also watch that article, I waited to see if you were going to revert that removal. Since that didn't happen, I decided to ask you about the removal. I have reverted it. I know that you've given this editor some advice, as seen on her talk page. She states on her user page that she's not very good at editing Wikis, so the "not very good" part seems to be the case with that removal. Even if a primary source, that wouldn't make the source invalid.
Thank you for trying to sign! Actually, sexual assault is one of the hundreds of pages I have removed from my watchlist, trying (but not succeeding) to get it below 3000 pages. Also, I am very much behind on my watchlist, yesterday I got finished with 1 May. So it is always better to ask me here (whether a page is on my watchlist or not) than to wait for me to revert... Lova Falktalk09:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey I'm sorry, I think I might have accidentally deleted the wrong thing. There's a citation on the article that links to something unrelated to sexual assault. Shiningroad (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Flyer22! However, discussions will have to wait until my holiday is over. I still haven't even started on May 2nd yet... Lova Falktalk21:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
No, no
I don't know anything about this message calling you a dictator, but I have a feeling that I might upset some people here and somebody might think it was a good idea to prove that I am a JERK. Hafspajen (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
added page number
Thanks for your advice and editing of my contributions. As you suggested I added page numbers to the book references according to the topic it referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dribrook (talk • contribs) 21:05, 20 May 2013
Dont know if it interests you or not but DSM-5 needs quite a lot of work to knock it into shape now it has been launched. --Penbat (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I see the article IQ reference chart has been tagged for expert review since October 2012. As part of a process of drafting a revision of that article in my user sandbox, I am contacting all Wikipedians who have edited that article since early 2009 for whom I can find a user talk page.
I have read all the diffs of all the edits committed to the article since the beginning of 2009 (since before I started editing Wikipedia). I see the great majority of edits over that span have been vandalism (often by I.P. editors, presumably teenagers, inserting the names of their classmates in charts of IQ classifications) and reversions of vandalism (sometimes automatically by ClueBot). Just a few editors have referred to and cited published reliable sources on the topic of IQ classification. It is dismaying to see that the number of reliable sources cited in the article has actually declined over the last few years. To help the process of finding reliable sources for articles on psychology and related topics, I have been compiling a source list on intelligence since I became a Wikipedian in 2010, and I invite you to make use of those sources as you revise articles on Wikipedia and to suggest further sources for the source on the talk pages of the source list and its subpages. Because the IQ reference chart article has been tagged as needing expert attention for more than half a year, I have opened discussion on the article's talk page about how to fix the article, and I welcome you to join the discussion. The draft I have in my user sandbox shows my current thinking about a reader-friendly, well sourced way to update and improve the article. I invite your comments and especially your suggestions of reliable sources as the updating process proceeds. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi WeijiBaikeBianji and thank you for your invitation. Great job! However, as I am 16 days behind on my watchlist, plus I have my own "to do"-list which contains about 40 wikipedia articles that need attention, I have to decline your invitation. Kind regards! Lova Falktalk08:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I suspected there was no discussion... and I have seen your comments on Farrajak's talk page and I agree with your position. Lova Falktalk09:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar
For your excellent work on psychology related articles. This is one of the most difficult subjects to work one thus my extra appreciation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I have no opinion on this. The thing to do now is to ask your question on the talk page of Catastrophic schizophrenia and invite other editors to give their advice. With friendly regards
A kitten for you!
For your work on the psyc articles, in the face of all those students.
Another thanks from me, too! I was browsing some of the students' psychology articles and saw a lot of great feedback from you on the talk pages.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Lova,
Just saw your message about my edit to the Dysprosody page. I assure you that I only looked at that one journal article before making my edit, and did not copy and paste. So I had no knowledge of the link you sent me. Do you mind sending me the parts that are identical? Now I am curious. Thanks for the concern.
I messed up! I think. Let me check once more. Yes I did. I apologize! It was not your text that was the same as the text on the site that I found - and most probably, the text of that site was copied from us and not the other way around. Lova Falktalk13:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Flyer22, I didn't know about the indefinitely-part but I did find out that s/he was blocked. Take a look at this. Oh well. I moved on and edited the added text of a student who did a great job. Nice for a change! Lova Falktalk14:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. And, yes, that student editor did a significantly better job than most students editors. I also, of course, appreciate that you were there to tweak that editor's text. Something that I note about the article is that the Major research areas and Influential cognitive psychologists sections that already existed there are like See also sections before the See also section. Flyer22 (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
You are right, and some of the influential cognitive psychologists are already mentioned and wikilinked previously in the article. However, it doesn't bother me and I let it be. I'm working hard on becoming a Wikisloth. Lova Falktalk16:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! I do watch this article, however, I have a two week lag, so without your message I would have seen your note until two weeks from now. I'll check things out to see if I'll change my edit. Lova Falktalk14:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I answered you yesterday, but I must have forgotten to save it... Anyway, it all started with my two week wikibreak, and actually, I like it. Almost all vandalism has been taken care of, and if there is a doubtful edit by an unexperienced editor, I no longer feel bad when I remove it, because it's been alive for two whole weeks. Also, the day's list is much shorter, which gives me time to edit a couple of articles more thoroughly - which is more rewarding. Lova Falktalk19:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I thought that the lag was due to your Internet connection. I was confused because I was wondering how you might see your user page pop on your watchlist in real-time, but not an article or rather not specific articles. But it sounds like it's about you playing catch-up with articles that you weren't watching for two weeks. Flyer22 (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, today I checked the latest changes of April the 4th. But I do peek on today's changes on my watchlist as well... Lova Falktalk20:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you too for your response! Convincing new editors to use secondary (or tertiary) sources can sometimes be quite a battle. Lova Falktalk07:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I reverted your revert of Cluebot's deletion of what I considered an unhelpful contribution: [16]. If you think that text improves the article please feel free to add it back. Cheers. Jojalozzo16:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Even if the information is not "useful", if it's relevant and a real controversy, the material should be in the article. Bearian (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Am I incorrect in believing thast while Wernicke's aphasia patients have intact grammar they tend not to be able to produce meaningful language (lacking semantics and pragmatics) or understand others? The few Wernickes' patients I have met spoke grammatically correctly but used apparently random lexical material so that their sentences made no sense. In contrast to the Broca's patients I've met who can choose meaningful words but are unable to produce grammatically correct sentences. As the article is now it seems to say that Wernickes aphasia makes it possible to speak clearly and intelligible but without being able to understand what others say. I have never heard of such symptoms. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·13:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, in theory, receptive aphasia is that the problem is with understanding, whereas expressive aphasia is a problem with expression. But I agree with you that in reality this is rarely (or ever) the case. I was too quick in reverting you, I apologize and I'll revert my edit back, but change the sentence. Thank you! Lova Falktalk13:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps the problem is that Wernickes aphasia and receptive aphasia is not the exact same thing, but is currently covered in the same article?·ʍaunus·snunɐw·13:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
As far as I know, Wernickes aphasia is the older term for receptive aphasia that is less often used nowadays, plus that the term receptive is a bit misleading, because as you pointed out, there are also expressive difficulties. Lova Falktalk14:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello Lova and thank you for your respond and comments!
I do work with a class project. The information is from textbook
and the proper refrences are provided. Thanks again for the additional
information you provided me with!
Aaleksanian (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Lova Falk! First of all, I would like to thank you for all of your wonderful feedback and encouragement on my recent edits to the article on emotionality. I have really appreciated your support and it made my day when I saw that my article was "not a stub anymore" thanks to my hard work! My only question for you is regarding the section of "Examples of emotionality." You posted that the section needs references, but I used common knowledge and past experiences to provide this information, so I did not feel this section needed sources. I spoke to my professor about this and she agreed with me. I am curious to know what kind of references you are looking for, so that I can try to find them. I searched for quite a while today but did not have any luck finding references basic enough for this type of information (with the exception of textbooks, as you have advised not to use). Most studies were regarding physiological distress during complex situations or illnesses, etc., but not to describe basic emotions. If you have any suggestions on where to find these references, I would really appreciate your help. Thank you again for all of your feedback and support! Laurenrampey (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Lauren, good argument, I removed the tag. I have another comment though, but I'll write it on the article's talk page. Lova Falktalk07:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Letting you know that I reverted this. Likely a student editor. If you see anything in that revert that you think should definitely be in that article or should definitely be excluded, I would like to know your thoughts about it. Flyer22 (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Flyer! There might be content that should be in this article, but I don't have the time nor the energy to start editing this wall of text... Lova Falktalk20:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for the reply; I somehow missed it on my watchlist. I'll probably restore some of this editor's text at a later date (but in a tweaked fashion). Flyer22 (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Test anxiety
At this same moment I was thinking in eliminating the category learning section, when suddenly it was gone... You have done a great job in the article. Bests.
--Garrondo (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
How about moving section "cognitive interventions" to the treatment section? Does not make much sense to have 2 separate sections on treatment (and a subsection on management)... I do not do it myself since you seem in a wiki-rage, and we will probable get editions conflicts. Moreover, you seem to have really "grasped" the article by now, while I have only take a few edits at it. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Garrondo and I am very happy that you made the changes. However, I doubt if "attentional cognitive bias modification" really is notable enough to get its own article, but I leave that question to you. Lova Falktalk16:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey. It seems there has been some rough movements in this talk page in the last few days. I hope everything is solved now. I have just seen your comment regarding your lack of access to some sources. My institution has access to many journals (although I know it does not have access to APA journals for example), so if you need an specific source you can send me an email and I will try to get it. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
How about using people-first language (a child with autism, etc., rather than an autistic child). Indeed, "it reveals the prejudices of a [person who is] narrow-minded" to restrict the identity of a person and then to plead ignorance in the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.190.80.40 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 1 May 2013
I do not appreciate you insinuating that I am prejudiced or narrow minded. If you would like to point out something, you can do so politely. And please refrain from messing up another section by putting your comment in the middle of it. Lova Falktalk19:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
No one is insinuating anything about you; it might be better to view the comment more constructively. Did you forget that a gross generalization was made about the narrow mindedness of society. This type of statement is insinuating that the populous is narrow minded. And, that populous is composed of individuals, which supports my original point. If you are going to put yourself out there by making edits, revisions, and comments to Wikipedia (created for all people); it might be best to remain objective and knowledgeable, otherwise leave the change to someone else.
I've viewed many of your editing comments and you often attack the editing attempts of individuals or the work they cite. Please stay objective when making comments, revisions, or edits. If you are unsure then don't make the change -- take time to research the problem. If you do make the change, then it is unnecessary to make comments that are unconstructive and lack objectivity. Simply state your change and move-on... If you dish it out then please be willing to take it; this was never about you. Please smile and be happy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.190.80.40 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 2 May 2013
Hi there. I noticed you put the 'alternative explanations' section back and was wondering why. I was making the first paragraph of the section consistent with this later: 'In general use, the term 'Freudian slip' has been debased to refer to any accidental slips of the tongue.' This tends to be a problem with Wiki articles dealing with Freudian/psychoanalytic concepts in general, since there is so much misinformation. Perhaps you have a different view? --Quadalpha (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Quadalpha, thank you for asking! I put the title 'alternative explanations' back, because I thought that in an article on Freudian slip, a section titled "a slip of the tongue" doesn't give any information about the section. As it is now, first there is the History part, about Freud, and then the Alternative explanation part, about other ways to interprete a slip of the tongue. For me that makes sense. If there would be a History section followed by a section called slip of the tongue, the reader wouldn't know what to expect in that section. With friendly regards, Lova Falktalk19:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense. Perhaps we need another solution, since right now, it looks like the 'alternative explanations' are for Freudian slips specifically, but really the alternative explanations are for slips of the tongue. This distinction is important because I'm trying to clear up actual Freudian/psychoanalytic theory from 'what people think Freudian theory is' whenever I come across it. Perhaps we can put in a related link to speech error, and instead of 'alternative explanations', have a section on generic/imprecise uses of the term 'Freudian slip'? --Quadalpha (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Notifications box replacement prototypes released
Hey Lova Falk; Kaldari has finished scripting a set of potential replacements available to test and give feedback on. Please go to this thread for more detail on how to enable them. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Message
Left you a message on the talk page, please do not change things without discussing it. Rather than a contributor, you are becoming a dictator — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.190.83.40 (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Sigh.
I leave the BPD page alone for ~1 week, and when I come back there is an edit that BPD is associated with familicide, based on an article in a 10 year old journal that cites a study with N=16 non-randomly selected individuals with no control group. *facepalm*
Sigh! and hi! Luckily it's easy to undo. Things are fine, we are in Marrakech, and after a couple of very intensive days, we have had a lazy day at "home". And I *do* like to edit Wikipedia, so here I am again ... Lova Falktalk21:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm so glad you're having a great trip! I'm also glad you're around wikipedia, but sorry to have interrupted your vacation with grumbling about silly edits. Enjoy the day at "home," and I hope the rest of your journey there continues to be wonderful. You deserve it!! :-) Firecatalta (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Great place for vacations. As a hint: if its the first time you go there, and they offer you a trip to some waterfalls in a nearby village do not go (I do not remember the name), they are quite crappy and only meant to get the money out of the tourists IMO. Have the rebuitl the caffe in the main plaza that was bombed two years ago? It was a great place...--Garrondo (talk) 06:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Garrondo, we actually did consider such a trip but we'll think twice. And there are no ruins left on the plaza, but next time I'm there, I'll have a look if there is an Argana caffe, or something else. Lova Falktalk16:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Garrondo, now I have looked everywhere, but I cannot find any Argana caffe. It must have been rebuilt in another name. And we're not going on the trip, thanks to you. Lova Falktalk21:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Its a pity... food was great. Not as cheap as everything else but still really cheap. Hope you end well your holidays.--Garrondo (talk) 07:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
No, quite incomprehensible. Maybe the editor thinks it is a primary source??? Anyway, it should be reverted... Lova Falktalk21:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Because you also watch that article, I waited to see if you were going to revert that removal. Since that didn't happen, I decided to ask you about the removal. I have reverted it. I know that you've given this editor some advice, as seen on her talk page. She states on her user page that she's not very good at editing Wikis, so the "not very good" part seems to be the case with that removal. Even if a primary source, that wouldn't make the source invalid.
Thank you for trying to sign! Actually, sexual assault is one of the hundreds of pages I have removed from my watchlist, trying (but not succeeding) to get it below 3000 pages. Also, I am very much behind on my watchlist, yesterday I got finished with 1 May. So it is always better to ask me here (whether a page is on my watchlist or not) than to wait for me to revert... Lova Falktalk09:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey I'm sorry, I think I might have accidentally deleted the wrong thing. There's a citation on the article that links to something unrelated to sexual assault. Shiningroad (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Flyer22! However, discussions will have to wait until my holiday is over. I still haven't even started on May 2nd yet... Lova Falktalk21:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
No, no
I don't know anything about this message calling you a dictator, but I have a feeling that I might upset some people here and somebody might think it was a good idea to prove that I am a JERK. Hafspajen (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
added page number
Thanks for your advice and editing of my contributions. As you suggested I added page numbers to the book references according to the topic it referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dribrook (talk • contribs) 21:05, 20 May 2013
Dont know if it interests you or not but DSM-5 needs quite a lot of work to knock it into shape now it has been launched. --Penbat (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I see the article IQ reference chart has been tagged for expert review since October 2012. As part of a process of drafting a revision of that article in my user sandbox, I am contacting all Wikipedians who have edited that article since early 2009 for whom I can find a user talk page.
I have read all the diffs of all the edits committed to the article since the beginning of 2009 (since before I started editing Wikipedia). I see the great majority of edits over that span have been vandalism (often by I.P. editors, presumably teenagers, inserting the names of their classmates in charts of IQ classifications) and reversions of vandalism (sometimes automatically by ClueBot). Just a few editors have referred to and cited published reliable sources on the topic of IQ classification. It is dismaying to see that the number of reliable sources cited in the article has actually declined over the last few years. To help the process of finding reliable sources for articles on psychology and related topics, I have been compiling a source list on intelligence since I became a Wikipedian in 2010, and I invite you to make use of those sources as you revise articles on Wikipedia and to suggest further sources for the source on the talk pages of the source list and its subpages. Because the IQ reference chart article has been tagged as needing expert attention for more than half a year, I have opened discussion on the article's talk page about how to fix the article, and I welcome you to join the discussion. The draft I have in my user sandbox shows my current thinking about a reader-friendly, well sourced way to update and improve the article. I invite your comments and especially your suggestions of reliable sources as the updating process proceeds. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi WeijiBaikeBianji and thank you for your invitation. Great job! However, as I am 16 days behind on my watchlist, plus I have my own "to do"-list which contains about 40 wikipedia articles that need attention, I have to decline your invitation. Kind regards! Lova Falktalk08:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I suspected there was no discussion... and I have seen your comments on Farrajak's talk page and I agree with your position. Lova Falktalk09:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the edits made by me. I was planning to find and modify them anyway. As a matter of fact, subconscious motor tract had been created by me but it was nominated for deletion and deleted thereafter. You can find the references in the userified version on my talk page. DiptanshuTalk18:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Your talk page seemed to be too long. I took the liberty to set up automatic archival on your talk page and also set up a new archive. Hope that you do not mind. In case you do, you may feel free to revert the edits. DiptanshuTalk18:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey, Lova Falk. I know that you are behind on your watchlist, but are you still watching the Asexuality article? Judging by this, this, and this, I don't trust that editor, Nathan Johnson, not to hold a grudge against me for this matter and resume fouling up the Asexuality article or possibly following me around to cause me trouble (despite having previously edited that article productively). With regard to that Asexuality diff-link (the first diff-link in this paragraph, an editor should not act like that (what he did) on Wikipedia. Ever. And his response with regard to being called out for vandalism about that Asexuality article edit is bizarre, most assuredly him and not some compromised account; it's a mock. The reason I'm asking if you still watch the Asexuality article is because I may need your help watching it. I would have emailed you about this, just like I've been in discussion with others via email about it, but you and I have not yet talked via email, I'm not sure that you want to start discussing things with me via email, and I don't care if Nathan Johnson sees this section or not. Flyer22 (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay, Lova Falk. I was more so asking for help in watching the article. I take it that you are no longer watching it? Either way, your answer is understandable, even if you simply didn't feel like watching yet another article. I know that you have a lot on your watchlist, and, like you stated, have recently removed a lot due to that. So have I (removed a lot months ago), though my watchlist is still in the 2000s. But at least I don't see most of those articles pop on it (most of them are apparently very inactive). Flyer22 (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes Flyer22, it's off my watchlist that is still not below 3000, but if I would have had the time, I would have looked into it anyway (because you asked me). Lova Falktalk16:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
LOL, did you link my name so that I would get a notification that you replied? I'm still watching your talk page, so there's no need for that. But it does remind me how the new notification system can be useful. Flyer22 (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm curious: Had the new notification system worked for you in any other form yet, such as when someone reverts you? Flyer22 (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and I immediately turned it off in Preferences. It works much better for me to find out about a revert when it shows up on my watchlist fifteen days later, because by then I have forgotten the edit and don't get upset by the revert. If I find it out immediately I am still too involved in the article and the edits I made and can get angry. Lova Falktalk20:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
That's a nice plan, which would work well for a lot of people. I've definitely been thinking that the new notification system, with regard to reverts, has made WP:Edit wars more prone to happen. Flyer22 (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi guys! Just passing through, so to speak, and wanted to say that I can add the Asexuality article to my watchlist if that would be helpful. I don't know enough about asexuality to make edits, but I do know vandalism and will keep an eye out. Hope you're both doing well! Firecatalta (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Firecatalta. Nice to meet you. Yes, your help watching the article, and/or offering whatever other help you can with it (such as weighing in on the talk page with regard to anything you think you can help with), would be greatly appreciated by me. Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I once tried to add information about Gordon Neufeld to your Attachment theory article and you said: 'Removed attachment researcher - in order to be in this section, there should be text on what contributions this researchers has made to the development of attachment theory)'
So I finally found the link with such a text: [19]:
He also developed a comprehensive theory of attachment that includes six stages in the development of the capacity for relationship, the construct of polarization that explains both shyness and defensive detachment. His model of attachment is universal in both its application (adults as well as children) and implementation (school as well as home).
I don't want to bother you with deleting my stuff again ;) So I'm asking you to decide yourself whether this information and the person belongs to this article. Thanks in advance!
Irenru (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Martinevans123! Thank you for asking me and for your mail. I have now left my comment. I'm afraid it's not what you hoped for, but it is as it is. With friendly regards! Lova Falktalk08:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I am surprised. But I'm glad you have been able to express your view. I'm not sure if your and Garondo's comments will be counted as against or abstention. But thanks for not accusing me of having any "hidden agenda"! It's all a bit trivial, I guess. A clearer policy on MOS would be better, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Martinevans123, I am neither for nor against and I don't accuse anybody of anything. I'm 25 days behind on my watchlist and my "to do list" has more than 50 articles that each will need at least half an hour of serious work. I just don't have the time! Lova Falktalk08:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to stop by and say hello and that your heroic efforts to catch up with your watch list have not gone unnoticed. Good luck; you can do it! Firecatalta (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I see you've recently had an overview of Psychological projection. In the section Counter-projection, I can't seem to make any sense of the sentence "When addressing psychological trauma, the defence mechanism is sometimes counter-projection, including an obsession to continue and remain in a recurring trauma-causing situation and the compulsiveobsession with the perceived perpetrator of the trauma or its projection." Is this just me? I think there's something there, but there's no source, and I can't quite see what's meant? Any ideas? Jacobisq (talk) 10:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jacobisq! I didn't understand either. It was added by User:Janice Rowe who stopped editing in March 2008, so we cannot ask her. I have googled quite a bit but cannot find anything even remotely close to this sentence. So please feel free to remove it. With friendly regards! Lova Falktalk20:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
REPLY to "I removed the following text from the article"
This Sciacca text that was removed comprises the history of dual diagnosis treatment (not just a nice model); it is an important element and the foundation of dual diagnosis treatment and integrated programs. Sciacca designed and initiated the first treatment interventions and the initial model of integrated treatment when there was "no" treatment available anywhere for people who suffered symptoms of dual disorders, co-occurring mental illness and substance disorders (rather they suffered neglect); this was accomplished by Sciacca and colleagues at the New York State Office of Mental health. Official reports such as the New York State Commission on Quality of care's scathing report documented the downward spiral into homelessness and incarceration for clients who had every right to treatment but in many cases were ostracized. This did not only occur within New York State, or the United States, it was an international problem. All systems and services of care were discrete, either mental health or substance disorders. No one had integrated treatment for co-occurring mental illness and substance disorders in 1984.
TIME magazine became aware of the commission's report, the national statistics by Talbott, the Sciacca model and the New York Statewide initiative and published an article about all of it in 1987. This work began in 1984 and was well developed by 1987. A variety of small publications noted this work and then it became more public and reached larger journals. Seminars, lectures and workshop presentations of the Sciacca model were requested and presented. This was another forum for educating large groups of providers in various levels of detail.
In response to your wondering about a program you know about in Sweden, please note that administrators, psychiatrists and psychologists from Sweden visited Sciacca in New York where they requested and were presented a seminar on dual diagnosis treatment. As a result, they invited Sciacca to Stockholm where she provided training for approximately one week to a very large number of treatment providers from a variety of disciplines including administrators who were invited by the initial group. This training consisted of dual diagnosis client profiles and their specific treatment needs, dual diagnosis treatment and dual diagnosis program development. This model was manualized and included all clinical materials, treatment and program materials. It would not be surprising if dual diagnosis programs in Sweden were initiated through that training. The training was held in Sabbatsbergs hospital.
Initially when Sciacca's work was written into the Wikipedia dual diagnosis piece there were many references to document the work through SAMHSA (the workforce competencies report by Sciacca) and numerous initiatives across states, cities, in various communities that adapted this approach. Someone edited the original version of the Wikipedia text and removed many of the references. Key elements of the Sciacca best-practices model have evolved into evidence-based approaches and remain the best practices of today - one in particular "integrated treatment." This was a very difficult and laborious approach to accomplish. Very few people accepted the premise that their system would now be responsible for client' symptoms that had been designated to another system since their beginning. It took stamina, persistence and indirect approaches to achieve this initially and then to nurture the integrated premise along to acceptance on a large scale - one treatment program at a time; one community at a time, one city at a time, one state at a time, one country at a time and throughout numerous systems. More than a nice approach - dual diagnosis treatment represented major change from a systems perspective and from the perspective of the individual practitioner. Education, training, practice and acceptance were implemented initially and went on to become essential elements of this change. We are still far from providing the amount of services that are needed for many who so sorely need them.
The few sentences that were left in the Wikipedia piece that you have since removed do not adequately describe the extent and intricacies of this initial work: for example what integrating systems really entails; what the process of educating and training providers in this area is about and how to do so initially with resistant participants; what developing treatment for people who had co-occurring symptoms entailed -notably for people who had never had these symptoms treated before. Every element needed to be created, designed, tested until a working model emerged. Clinical and program materials such as screening, assessment, interventions, outcome measures needed to be designed and implemented; staff curriculum and training; program implementation strategies and materials. All of this was new, all of it required new initiatives.
Dual Diagnosis is a young field and its history needs to remain in tact; no history should ever be rewritten or eliminated. This Sciacca segment needs to be put back into the Wikipedia dual diagnosis piece. It could have more references and perhaps more detail - there are many references to be drawn upon. A good author or editor could perhaps do this historical segment justice and convey the importance of the transitions and major change needed to accomplish dual diagnosis treatment and integrated care. It should be given its proper place in the history of this field. (108.58.58.122 (talk) 06:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)). 24.215.246.197 (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I removed the following text from the article:
Sciacca reported a key early integrated treatment approach which began in 1984 in New York state.[16] This began in an outpatient mental health clinic and expanded to a state-wide initiative. This initiative crossed systems to include substance abuse programs, homeless services, and criminal justice services. It included inpatient, outpatient and residential treatment. This initiative addressed screening, assessment, outcome measures and treatment. This treatment approach, along with its training curriculum and program implementation model, was also adapted across systems in various states including Michigan.[17] In 1993, evidence based interventions such as motivational interviewing, the stages of change and cognitive behavioral therapy were integrated into the dual diagnosis treatment model and comprise the treatment approach and integrated care model that exists today [18]
16. Sciacca, K. 1996 "On Co-occurring Addictive and Mental Disorders: A Brief History of the Origins of Dual Diagnosis Treatment and Program Development" American Journal of Orhtopsychiatry (66) 3, July 1996.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16684317/On-Cooccurring-Addictive-Mental-Disorders-a-Brief-History-Kathleen-Sciacca
17. Sciacca, K., Thompson, C.M., 1996 "Program Development and Integrated Treatment Across Systems for Dual Diagnosis: Mental Illness, Drug Addiction and Alcoholism, MIDAA" The Journal of Mental Health Administration, Vol. 23, No.3, Summer 1996, 288-297.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17223077/Program-Development-and-Integrated-Treatment-Across-Systems-for-Dual-Diagnosis-Kathleen-Sciacca
18. Sciacca, K. 2009 "Best Practices for Dual Diagnosis Treatment and Program Development: Co-Occurring Mental Illness and Substance Disorders in Various Combinations" The Praeger International Collections on Addictions, Editor, Angela Brown-Miller, Vol.3, Chapt.9, Pgs. 161-188, Praeger Westport, CT. London,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21801032/BestPracticesForDualDiagnosisTreatment-ProgramDevelopment-Co-occurring-Mental-Illness-Substance-Disorders-Kathleen-Sciacca-2009
My reason for removing this text is that the treatment section is a general section with broad information. No doubt that this is a nice approach, but it is way too specific for this article. This is an encyclopedia for the whole world. I know a similar initiative in a treatment center in Sweden, and I guess they exist throughout the world. Please, before putting this back into the article, tell us why Sciacca's approach is notable. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 10:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC) 24.215.246.197 (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Your reversal and restoration of Sciacca text in the dual diagnosis article does not appear in the article.
Have you reversed it yet?24.215.246.197 (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Are you planning to respond to the dual diagnosis response to your text eradications?
Your reversal and restoration of Sciacca text in the dual diagnosis article does not appear in the text.
Have you reversed it yet? 24.215.246.197 (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi there! Lova Falk put the information back in, and I've taken it out again for reasons discussed on the article's talk page. I look forward to continuing the conversation with you there, and hope all is well! Firecatalta (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Your page (life) is inspiring... saw that you've edited
Hi Wikicello, and thank you so much for the barnstar!! Very much appreciated. I did not add that edit but I have changed it now. Neuron sometimes is spelled as neurone, but neuron is more common, plus words should be spelled in the same way throughout the article, so I changed it. With kind regards, Lova Falktalk18:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Lova, there has been a suggested merger of the Sensory processing disorder and Sensory integration dysfunction articles, and while i have been look at the citations I have discovered that some of the content of both articles mirrors this web page Sensory Integration Dysfuncion. I am not well versed in how to proceed with possible copyright violations, and i was wondering if you could help. I have added the copyright tag to both articles but not too sure where to go from there dolfrog (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi dolfrog and thank you for asking me. However, I'm on a summer holiday with extremely limited possibilities to connect to the net, and therefore I am not able to help out. Lova Falktalk19:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Glad to hear it, and welcome back! I am doing well and enjoying the warm weather. I can't believe it's August already; it feels like summer just started! Firecatalta (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I thought this was uncontroversial per WP:TALKO's line about section headings - a descriptive section header is more useful than an unclear and jokey "you are all idiots" personal attack. (The irony wasn't my main objection, it just amused me that somebody was boldly and wrongly accusing another editor of illusory superiority.) --McGeddon (talk) 08:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
