Even if you are experienced on Wikipedia, I suggest you read our beginners guide, as we do a lot of things differently on the Psychology Wiki.
It is important to understand that the pages of Wikipedia reproduced here are used as placeholders. We expect 2/3rds of them to be substantially editied or rewritten so do feel free to change them markedly to fit the needs of the site.
Tip: you can sign your username on talk pages (like this one) using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically produce your name, date and time-stamp. Three tildes will just produce your name.
If you have any questions, please contact one of our Administrators.
Some more pages of possible interest
Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 13:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your input
Just to say we appreciate your quality input. Do you have anymore references for the pages that you have done. eg more of Bowlby's Biblio. and do you know where any of this is available "full text" so we can link to it? Dr Joe Kiff - User:Lifeartist (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for getting back to me. What we are trying to do here is to gather together all the relevant references, say on Bowlby, and then to try to link these to Full text copies where available. Often in gathering the references together you can see that this leads to the creation of additional pages, say for example "criticisms of Bowlby", the "application of his theories in clinical practice" etc. We can go into more depth than a WP type encyclopedia building a professional resource for psychologists. There must be many different aspects of attatchment theory researched and we should have a page on each one. Try and use APA syle for references. The numbering of references is best avoided as this makes it difficult when we come to break articles up. come back to me if you need more advice.Dr Joe Kiff - User:Lifeartist (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm using explorer version 6.0.2900.2180 and have no problems. I think thats the uptodate version? Have you tried setting the "skin" in your preferences. I use monoblock, thats the default, but you might find one of the others improves the situation. If that fail you might like to raise the issue on the Forum at Wikia or on the IRC channel at Wikia. Hope that helpsDr Joe Kiff - User:Lifeartist (talk) 13:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in replying but we have had a holiday weekend here.
- I think in the long run the national societies will have an important role to play in the furtherance of the project. This is an ideal oppurtunity for them to develop a free and publicly accessible summary of research and theory for each area of the discipline where there is a substantive literature. This would meet many of their ambitions for making our knowledge publically accessible. The key moves here, guaranteeing the accuracy of the material, are that eventually:
A) Editing of the wiki becomes restricted to professionals B) That pages are peer reviewed and then locked, while improvements and updates proceed on a working copy. The peer reviewed pages can then be properly referenced. Probably only the societies could organise and coordinate this. I have had preliminary contact with the APA through the international section as I feel one of the many strengths of the project in the long term will be the translations into the languages of the world. I havent done more on this front, partly due to a lack of time. But I also feel that it is worth developing the structure of the site further before expecting professional contributors to work on it, particularly aligning it with the APA thesaurus. However I would welcome any efforts others might make to spread the word in professional circles. Dr Joe Kiff 16:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I think beginning to only allow editing by professionals or requiring peer-review is very important and edits by known persons. I'd suggest inviting professionals in to edit. For example, asking those registered (and who are professionals and identified) to invite two others. I can certainly ask some of my colleagues to contribute and register if that would help. How does that sound? Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 01:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Query for you on the RAD talkpage. Thanks Fainites 14:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Dear Dr Becker-Weidman,
you have not replied to my request on the RAD talkpage that you validate your sources for the statement that 'these children are likely to develop RAD' as I cannot find this statement directly or by implication in the two chapters from Cassidy and Shaver that you cite. Please provide the exact pages/passages/context that you rely on. You have also removed another editors sourced edit without discussion. Please discuss the reasons for your removal on the talkpage. Thank you.
Fainites 22:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- I did reply on the talk page that I was providing a summary and paraphrase, not a direct quote. I cleaned up the article some by removing lines that were unclear or not relevant. cheers. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 22:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
You have not really replied to my query as neither chapter you cite supports a summary or a paraphrase unless I am missing something. Please indicate the pages or paragraphs you are relying on to support the statement you make, as Lyons Ruth does not mention RAD at all and Greenberg only in a historical context. Also removing an editors recently added sourced quote with the edit summary 'cleanup' does not really count as cleanup I think you'll agree. It is not 'cleanup' just because you may disgree with the content.Fainites 22:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
You are still not replying to the query about your claim that these two chapters support your edit, yet you keep replacing the edit. Please provide the evidence/page numbers/passages that these chapters support what you say about RAD. Saying you've already answered is not acceptable as you have not. Fainites 18:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I note that you redirected Attachment therapy to the Attachment disorder page rather than the Attachment Therapy page, having first put your rewritten Attachment disorder article onto the Attachment therapy page. I have corrected this so that now Attachment therapy, with or without capitals goes to the Attachment Therapy page. Fainites 15:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I put the minimum of information on my user page and did that only at Joe's request. You may have some insight into why I did that. As for the IRS form, I've passed your request along-- I don't have the document. I assume you mean to provide yours for the Center-- or are you for-profit? J.M. Unsigned comment left by User:Jean Mercer 17:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by, "You may have some insight into why I did that" (meaning not put your substantial affiliation with ACT in your description of self...maybe you can explain what you mean? Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 20:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello from Tom Michael
Hi Dr Weidman,
Thanks for welcoming me back, it was a great graduation ceremony yesterday. I'm very glad to see that since I was last working on this project we have attracted more professionals such as yourself. I am applying for my PhD today, so am just starting my career.
I have tidied up the list of papers on your page and fixed the link to the graduation hat. I am thinking of creating a userbox to contain all the information of peoples degrees, work experience, professional qualifications etc so that the site looks more standardised, and as an easy template for people who are new to Wiki's but an old hand in psychology.
Thanks for being part of this project.