Psychology Wiki


This new YouTube feature is terrific, I think. I just put one on the evolutionary psychology page. For now, I just stuck it right above the table of contents. We'll have to come up with some kind of formal policy as to what to do with this new feature, wouldn't you agree? Jason Bessey - Jaywin (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Avoiding captcha[]

Hi Sparkla I've just change my user name on the Psychology wiki from lifeartist to Dr Joe Kiff as it gives a more professional look. Could you arrange it so that I do not have to keep going through the captcha process when I use my new name. I think it was you who organised it for me last time. ThanksDr Joe Kiff 13:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC) [1]

You should use Special:Makesysop (while logged in as Lifeartist) to make yourself a sysop and bureaucrat. This will (should) then disable any captchas for you on this wiki. Captchas on all other wikis should disappear after your account has aged a few days. --Splarka (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

New record card[]

Good work on the YouTube stuff. I like your ideas. I just made a Professional organisations record card, but it only has categories at the bottom. How about we standardize it for use of each of the articles at Professional organisations? Jason Bessey - Jaywin (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End-of-article record card & Sidebar[]

Hi Joe. I just created an End-of-article record card. I think this will be convenient for much of our editting.

I also added the Standard Formatting Guide to the "Help" box in the sidebar. (It might need to be tidied up a little.)

I was also thinking that perhaps we should add a "Professional items" box in the sidebar. Since we want to attract professionals, this might be a nice feature. It could include things like

If we do add a "Professional items" box in the sidebar, I was thinking that we could place it between the "Navigation" box and the "Community" box. This way, if professionals come to the page, it will be seen without even having to scroll down.

Comments? Jason Bessey - Jaywin (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I like the current end-of-article format. I think it's a nice way to organize the info. (Besides, it would be a real pain in the neck to go back to all of the articles and change them to a new format!)
In regards to the "professional items" topic, how about this for an idea: check out Wookiepedia. Notice how they have a running head at the top of every page that says "Going to Celebration IV? Let us know!" Now I don't know how they do this, but perhaps we could do something like that with things like Journals currently calling for papers, Upcoming events, and Expert articles running at the top of all of the pages at the Psychology Wiki. Comments? Jason Bessey - Jaywin (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Site Notice[]

Someone from Wookiepedia showed me how the site notice is done. Go to MediaWiki:Sitenotice. What do you think of something like this? Jason Bessey - Jaywin (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you like the running header idea. And I agree that the three sites listed aren't too hot right now. Here's some of my thoughts:

  • I wanted to include things that would be of particular interest to professionals. Hence, the call for papers and the upcoming events. (Perhaps "upcoming events" should be changed to "upcoming conferences") I think these two things would be of primary importance for most professional psychologists. But again, they need lots of work!
  • From our perspective, I thought of the "call for papers" and the "upcoming events/conferences" as "bait" to try and reel some of them in for the "expert article" feature. (Maybe that should be changed to "expert featured articles".)
  • An article describing the concept of an "expert featured article" could not only archive the expert featured articles (of which we only have one now!), but also describe what it's all about in such a way as to attract expert contributers.
  • The reason I used bold lettering was for the specific reason of attracting attention to it (though maybe, at the very least, we don't want to draw too much attention to those articles until they're straightened out!)

What is your professional opinion on these matters? Jason Bessey - Jaywin (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

General Wiki advice?[]

Hello. I am impressed with the success of your wiki. It seems like the most-active wikis are usually about either technical or entertainment topics. I founded Journawiki, about journalism, but have attracted few contributors. I was wondering whether you might post your story, some advice or Q&A at the central Wikia. Best, Maurreen 21:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

SVG bug fixed, maybe[]

w:Help:SVG --Splarka (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


Did you fix your pages that were jumping to the India Wikia? They would, "of course", in the same way as a page starting with "w:" goes to Central Wikia. An easy alternative could be a slash instead of a colon. I have occasionally wondered whether your use of multiple colons was unnecessary in view of MediaWiki's category potential. Locking a small "category" into a fixed path risks inability to climb another path that leads to it equally validly. I've not looked hard enough at your recent developments to judge whether it's worth discussing; and with 20,000 pages it may be too late...

Robin Patterson 00:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

New ID[]

Hello, Joe. You'll see I tinkered with your User page, because the wishlist seemed to be much the clearest place to offer ideas on some of its points.

From a quick look at the old ID's talk page, it seems some people are still talking to you there. If you would rather have them all here, you could add a note at top and bottom of that page urging them to come here instead.

I may not visit here again for a while, so I suggest you try me at Central if you want anything specific.

Robin Patterson 00:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year[]

  • Happy New Year to you as well! Jason Bessey - Jaywin (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Google analytics[]

Hi Joe, the bug that was upsetting the Google Analytics has been found and fixed. You code should be working again now, alongside ours. Please let me know if not, but hopefully all will be OK now. I'm sorry for the delay in this, it was quite a difficult one for them to find. Regards -- sannse (talk) 08:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

from David N. Andrews M. Ed.[]


Thanks for your welcome... I apologise for the delay in responding, but I'm trying to find my way around the functions here.

I'm just kind of silently watching until there is something I might have the expertise to respond to. I hope this is an okay way to do things. I'm trying to avoid stepping on toes.

Underused category system[]

I'm writing some comments and suggestions on Forum talk:Categories - How to use them. Robin Patterson 05:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you help me with an issue at Wikipedia?[]

Hi Joe. Awhile ago, I copied the Tree of Knowledge System article to Wikipedia [2]. However, the ToK diagram was not allowed for reasons listed here. Since you have a lot of experience with uploading images, I wonder if you could help me here. Also, I'm trying to get members of the Wikipedia Psychology Project to rate the Tree of Knowledge System article [3]. Chat with you later! : ) Jason Bessey - Jaywin (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Actually, Tom uploaded the photo from somewhere quite awhile ago, but I'm not sure from where. Would sending an e-mail to Gregg Henriques to ask for permission be sufficient? Also, you should check out the discussion page for the ToK at Wikipedia. It's been ranked by the Psychology Project and a little discussion has started. Thanks for your response! Jason Bessey - Jaywin (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I've been looking around. I'm assuming that Tom got the ToK digram from this location:
would it be sufficient to place this address on the ToK image page? Jason Bessey - Jaywin (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Im not sure its entirely the same diagram. But if it is, to upload it we need to be able to release it under GFDL and therefore need the authors permission. Otherwise the best we can do is to link to it. Would the people at JMU give their permission, assuming they are the authors (because that isnt clear) or does Gregg have images we could use?
Because most of the images we have have come in via WP I feel we can rely on their procedures for clearing copyright. This problem shows me we need to be more careful about the copyright that comes with original images on our own site.Dr Joe Kiff 16:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Permission granted on ToK image[]

Hi Joe. I sent an e-mail to Gregg Henriques about the ToK image, and he gave permission to use the ToK image. Now what do I do exactly? Jason Bessey - Jaywin (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

How's this? Check under File History. Jason Bessey - Jaywin (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message[]

Thank you for leaving me a message on my talk page. I have a Master's Degree in Library Science. I work at a public library in Long Island, New York.

I don't work in the field of psychology. I am interested in psychology, especially psychotherapy, social anxiety and learning disabilities.

As a child, I had some learning disabilities. I needed extra help in school. I needed extra time on exams. However, I overcame my learning disability, went on to college and graduate school. When I went to graduate school, I only took one course each semester. Otherwise, it would have been too much work. I completed my master's program in 5 years.

Growing up, I had very few friends. By the time I entered college, I did not have a social life. I had trouble making friends. I had not even gone out on a date. I was suffering from social anxiety.

I began individual and group therapy with a psychotherapist named Jonathan Berent, who has an office in Great Neck, New York. I also joined a few social groups.

Today, I am a completely different person. In the past 18 and a half years, I have had several relationships with women, including my current girlfriend, Asha, whom I have been dating since June 2005.

JAltman752 15:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Templates from Wikipedia[]

Has the work you spoke of at Talk:Visual_cycle been done? I've been copying and adapting lots of templates for Genealogy. I might tackle one for you. (Best to send me a message at Genealogy: as now noted on my talk page here.) Robin Patterson 05:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what a diagram! Started on the necessary copying and adapting of templates and categories. Currently reached Category:Wikia templates. Back in a few hours. Robin Patterson 01:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling you may have to ask the original authors of Template:MetabolismMap how to fix it. It seems to use only templates that already exist here. I've not checked every single one in detail, though. I'll look in again "tomorrow". probably. Nearly 2 am! Robin Patterson 13:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"Recently absent" good contributors[]

Noting that the contributor rankings and edit totals inthe main statistics tables suggest that this is a one-man band, with over 80% of the edits yours, I thought I might assemble some user-names in case you feel it could be time to approach some users and revive their interest. (Of course, the rankings here are really one place higher because 1 and 2 are the same person.)

When you've done as much as you feel you can about contacting them, ask me for more names or do a lucky dip yourself!

PS, I would have emailed this, but your email for this site (a link on the Admins template) seems to be not available; mine has had problems with various sites; please see Preferences to check that all permission boxes are ticked.

Robin Patterson 04:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Listing free online full texts[]

Hi Joe! How have you been? I came up with another idea which you might like. I started listing articles (with links) that have online free full texts at their respected journal pages. So far, I've added some links to the following:

Developmental Psychology (journal)
Developmental Review
Evolution and Human Behavior
Journal of Clinical Psychology
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Psychological Bulletin
Psychological Review

So if you ever come across a full online text, perhaps you can just add it to the appropriate journal article (even if it's not one of the ones above.) Have a good one :) Jaywin 19:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like things are going well. There are two ways that I go about finding the full text articles:
  1. Go to the homepages of scholars, (e.g., university professors). Quite often, they have some of their papers uploaded to their website in pdf format for others to download. (For example, check out Dave Geary's page.)
  2. Go to the journal site, copy an article title, paste it to the search engine, and hit enter. Sometimes, a pdf file for the article will come up. (That's how I got the 2007 articles for Psychological Review.)
Jaywin 22:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
So the way I see it working is that we get the list of articles available and then insert them into the bibliography of existing articles eg from the Pschological review list the Kohlberg morality ref wouuld find a home at Kohlberg's stages of moral development. While the evolution of memory ref would seed an article of its own.
Its amazing the number of papers put up as full copies by scholars, yet many of these are hidden well down the list on the search engines. I think it is one of the services we perform to maker these more accessible. Although on thing I have noticed is that many of these are not archived and we are losing access to them as people retire People need to be more aware of the long term value of making them available of off their university sites, although there are copyright issues around this in some cases.
I've also found it useful to search for topic+pdf as this can list useful papers.Dr Joe Kiff 22:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

A journal as a Featured Article?[]

Should we fix up one of these articles on a particular journal, and make that a Featured Article? Perhaps something like Psychological Review? Jaywin 17:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I made a skeletal framework for the journals here: User:Jaywin/Journals of the century (I got the name and the list from a website.) Jaywin 02:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  1. We could keep adding more links to full text articles
  2. Create pages for the redlinks
  3. Add more general info

Perhaps when this site starts getting a lot of regular contributors down the road, we might want to even consider having a Featured Article and a Featured Journal. But that's probably still a ways off. Jaywin 19:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi Joe. I've replied at w:c:psychology:Psychology Wiki talk:Traffic. Angela talk 20:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely on the same subject, but definitely related to the "Statistics" link that I see on most pages' sidebars: : possibly needs more prominence from somewhere on this site. And/or you could edit your MediaWiki:userstatstext and MediaWiki:sitestatstext (one or both of which will still appear when one hits the Statistics link) in the same way as I did on Genealogy: - to delete the page views (which doesn't look good at "0"), clarify the "registered users" number, and refer readers to the abovementioned WikiStats. Robin Patterson 23:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I/O Category[]

Hi Joe. I noticed that you created Category:Organizational & industrial psychology. Did you know that we already had Category:industrial & organisational psychology? Jaywin 00:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jason. I had realised the mistake and emptied the category but then got distracted and didn't delete it. Thanks for pointing it out. I do appreciate the monitoring as it's such a complex task creating this that its easy to get a bit confused or overloaded at times.Dr Joe Kiff 07:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Category redirect[]

There are arguments for not deleting such a category. Looks like a prime example of where you should use template:category redirect (which I have just created for you) as a permanent pointer to the correct category for anyone else who inadvertently uses an incorrect or near-duplicate category. Robin Patterson 23:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Good idea Robin. ThanksDr Joe Kiff 23:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Link to paper O.K.?[]

Hi Joe. I was wondering if it would be OK to create a link to this paper on this site. I ask, because it says on the first page that "posting on open internet sites is prohibited". Does that include posting a link? Jaywin 13:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Videos, tabs[]

I'm glad you liked the idea. I did the same thing at David Buss/Video. I got the tab template from Campaigns Wikia. (I've been over there a little bit lately...Presidential season over here in the U.S., and I turn into a little bit of a political animal at about this time every four years!) Funny thing, though, I always find myself liking the candidates that don't stand a chance! Just for fun, you should check out Mike Gravel (Democrat) and Ron Paul (Republican). I've got links to their YouTube sites, as well. It would be interesting to hear what someone from outside of my country thinks about our politics here in the U.S. Jaywin 14:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

More Activity[]

I wonder what we can do to increase activity and utilization of this? Any way for APA to be helpful, for example? Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 23:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions and titles[]

Hello, I was on my clean up duties and I noticed some divergent naming conventions of which there are two types:

  1. Title: Sub-title
  2. Title - Sub-title

I was wondering if we could have some agreement on how article titles are constructed. I noticed the first type throughout the wiki, but the second type showed in the depression articles. Here are some article examples GAD:Epidemiology, Depression - Assessment, PTSD - Biological factors and PTSD:Theoretical approaches--Janarius 13:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I accept your offer, thank you.--Janarius 22:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you[]

Thanks for the warm welcome. I am new here and try to understand more about this wiki. Regards. --Bhadani (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Dr. Thanks for the tips. I will surly make myself familiar with this wiki before doing any edit. Regards. --Bhadani (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thanks[]

I was afraid you might find my replacement of whole articles a bit radical. There is quite a history though as the attachment articles on Wiki have been the subject of a recent lengthy arbitration which resulted in the banning of the editor and his 5 socks from Wiki. Since then Attachment Therapy, Attachment disorder, Reactive attachment disorder and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy (which were controlled and distorted by the sock army) have all been almost com-pletely rewritten. I wasn't aware until just now that psychology wiki contained copies of Wiki. I assumed they were written by psychologists! The sock army also affected a number of other articles which I would also propose to correct. If you would like to see details of the arbitration to understand what I am rabbiting on about its all here[4]. Please don't hesitate to contact me for more details, (or indeed user:FT2, an admin who whilst not involved in editing the attachment pages was very involved in the arbitration). Fainites 17:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

For ease of reference if you do want to glance at the arbitration, the socks were DPeterson MarkWood JonesRD SamDavidson JohnsonRon RalphLender. The last appears to be registered here on psychology Wiki aswell. Fainites 17:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

response to your comment on my page[]

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 01:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You are in England. Do you do any work with the Tavistock clinic or have any contact with Sir Richard Bowlby? I've met him a few times and have been impressed with how he is carrying on his father's (John Bowlby) work. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 01:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in replying I have been taking a rest after the 20000 article waypoint. We would welcome contributions from all qualified psychologists so please feel free to do what you can to recruit people.
Yes I trained briefly at the Tavistock in the early 1980's but have not had the pleasure of meeting Sir Richard. Dr Joe Kiff 22:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Not in Keeping with Site's aims[]

Please take a look at the following as I think these really don't fit the aims and purposes of our site. [[5]] [[6]] [[7]] [[8]] Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 15:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

People are free to ignore it if they wish - or read the sources which I think you would agree are pretty mainstream. Presumably most editors here have access to scientific databases. All Wikis and Wikias are vulnerable in various ways and it would be naive to think they are not targeted by promoters. This happened on Wikipedia - will happen again - and may well happen here. Forwarned is forarmed. The aim here as I understand it is to write something of textbook reliability for professionals. The editors here are surely helped by knowing that the relevent articles on Wiki were attacked by a sock puppet army, and how, so they can be on the look out to protect the integrity of articles on Wikia.Fainites 17:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for you input. One of the advantages of this site is that through appropriate professional discussion we should be able to develop the material on WP and bring it to a professional standard. Where people do not agree seperate positions should be described and evaluated. Dr Joe Kiff 22:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well thats the theory Dr Kiff. Lets hope it works! On Wiki it failed to work for over a year on a large range of articles relating to attachment because of extensive sockpuppet use. One way is, as you say, to require people to disclose who they really are. However, limiting this site to 'professionals' may not solve the problem as those apparently running the socks claimed to be mental health professionals - and indeed may have been. Also, you get people who who when challenged pursue vendettas off site making some people reluctant to disclose their identity. Certainly the sockpuppet campaign I have referred to included defamation and smear campaigns. One way would be for people to be allowed to prove exactly who they are to you, in confidence, with disclosure of whether they are in anyway a Mental Health professional.Fainites 09:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Disclaimer not enough[]

Like many such productions, this site carries a disclaimer denying responsibility for the accuracy of information given here. The disclaimer approach is a modern ploy for avoiding the need to monitor and evaluate material being presented to the public. I hope you will consider the fact that the site can be used for self-aggrandizement and advertising, as has occurred on Wikipedia, and that there is a moral obligation to protect the naive reader from this type of manipulation. I refer you to my article in the next issue of Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, which discusses some problems of open-source mental health information.Jean Mercer 12:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Jean I have addressed this point in my email to you.Dr Joe Kiff 22:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


I was wondering if you'd gotten the e-mail I'd sent to you? Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 23:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No I have not received it. Try Dr Joe Kiff 16:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I assume it is DRJKiff@tis... yes? all lowercase yesDr Joe Kiff 16:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Did you get the forwarded e-mail? Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 22:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes and I have replied to them all the first 5 hours agoDr Joe Kiff 22:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, got them. My spam filter had "eaten" them, but I'm set now. Thanks a bunch. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 23:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

response to your comment on my page[]

Dear Joe,

I understand you began this. Thank you for all your good work, and for welcoming me. Sorry for my delay in responding. I check in only occasionally. And am new to it all.

Thank you for your kind invitation to be involved in re-working the Freud article. Do you mean by this the whole entry on Freud?

I've thought about this and my own conclusion would be that this might not be the best time to undertake a large-scale reworking of the Freud pages. There is some new research soon to be published on Freud that addresses some very basic issues with a new perspective that might potentially alter the whole picture on Freud. It has always been assumed, for example, that the manifest content or manifest meaning of Freud's texts and statements rather straightforwardly represent what he really had in mind. That would be true only if his theory about a person's motives and methods of defense against their own unpleasant or self-threatening thoughts was not true in his own case. But, he said it was. So if we read Freud within the larger context of what he said was true, then that would radically alter the actual meaning of his entire theory. And that would really call for a large-scale re-doing of the Freud article.

So my advice, if I may offer such, would be to wait a bit and see what comes out in the press early next year.

Also, I know the Wiki wants to be fair and objective and unbiased. I plan to be very involved in the presentation of the new research and whole new way of viewing what Freud wrote, so, maybe it should be left up to others to review and evaluate what I will be presenting on the subject. So far I've content myself with merely pointing to some of the research and arguments that have been presented in the literature to date.

You commented:

In the "life of Sigmund Freud" page we should try to be clear about what is known and authenticated and what is hypothesised.

That's basically why I simply pointed to the research that is currently available, and didn't try to construct an argument here. I think the argument has to be evaluated in context and view of the data.

You also commented:

From this page should be an article "Freuds relationship with Minna Bernays" as I imagine there is a literature on this.

Actually, I am just currently writing an article, or rather a chapter of a book, on this exact subject. It should be coming out early next year.


What is the status of the death of this child, is it factually verified?

Again, that's what the articles I cited are all about, to present or point to the data available on this subject, which consists in the main of Freud's own self-report.

That goes back to the issue of reading Freud in the context of his own theory: what was he really saying, or talking about, when he talked, for example, of his theory of an Oedipus complex. Manifestly, he speaks of a child wishing to kill his father. But if the manifest content of his theory is only a defensive reworking of some other thought, some infantile memory, involving the very same elements but in a wholly other configuration of meaning, what other configurations of meaning would be left? Certainly, the father killing his child would be one, while the notion of the child wishing to kill his father has to be ruled out. Reversal of things into their wishful opposite was a dreamlike defense that Freud spoke of as being one of his favorites. It was he who suggested we look at a puzzling idea from such a reversed perspective, to gain insight into its genuine, but repressed, meaning.

So, it all depends on how you interpret what he wrote: in context, or out of context. What's the evidence? Freud's self-report, interpreted as he said we should interpret a person's thoughts. Interesting, no?

So, I'd be inclined to wait a bit on doing any big re-write just now. What do you think?

And also, I have to concentrate now on getting more of this newer research into press, and should make that my more immediate goal and project.

Respectfully, Mike Mtolincoln 23:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This is very interesting Mike. I do hope you can contribute in the near future. The structure of the wiki would allow you to set up seperate pages discusing for example "Freuds relationship with Minna Bernays" or "evidence for the death of Freuds child" and the "implications of a reflexive application of Freuds ideas to examination of his own life". Where this is controversial there is then space for a drawing together of reservations etc, all properly referenced. I think the main article should provide a sound framework from which the more specific pages can be linked. If in the light of this, if there are areas of the Freud article that you think could be improved to prepare the way then this would be helpful Dr Joe Kiff 23:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

redirect code[]

I am working off the article list (special wanted pages) and want to have a search for the article "partner abuse" lead to domestic violence. How do I do that. Several of the terms in that special section could be handled with a redirect to the relevant article. Thanks. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 18:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I discovered how to do this. The partner abuse article now goes to domestic violence. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 19:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Names and all[]

I didn't mean to be cranky, but I did sign previous messages indicating who I was-- and I figured, me Jean, you Joe-- right? Call me what you like, just not late for supper, but the honorifics ought to be parallel.Jean Mercer 22:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Attachment disorder[]

This article has been largely replaced without discussion. A great deal of properly validated and sourced material has been removed and some links to private clinics and attachment therapy sites have been added. I have reverted the introduction, but really on a site aimed at professionals, appropriate discussion on the talkpage should take place don't you think? Fainites 15:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that some difficult feelings have spilled over from Wikipedia in this area and on reflection the replacing of the existing article has proven problematic. Be that as it may it would be helpful now to reintroduce a professional detachment to proceedings. Obviously communication between the parties is problematic although I hope it is improving and a more respectful and conciliatory tone on all sides would help. We are all still learning how to balance our own sense of the reality of things with the needs of our 'community of practice' to present different sides of an argument. One of the advantages of this site is we are not really trying to produce single encyclopedia articles but rather linked full and fair accounts, properly referenced, that inform our profession of the current state of theory, research and practice in all the fields in the discipline. Where there are genuine differences of opinion these should be linked to separate pages where the pros and cons of positions can be thoroughly examined, rather than trying to develop a fully orthodox view onto one page. In the long run I hope to see that this will lead to research ideas to help resolve the different points of view.
I would like to see an attempt made to integrate the various versions of this page and for all parties to work towards a common position where they can, using the discussion pages appropriately. Where disagreement remains, clarify the parameters of this respectfully, and lay out the issues fairly and without prejudice. I particularly urge all parties to bury the hatchet for the greater good, and to work in renewed good faith to combine the best of the articles. I suggest you might find the use of private email between parties helpful at this juncture, as this can be a punishing and embarassing process when conducted publicly. I am assured that all parties have the furtherence of the wikis usefulness at heart. On a closing note I very much value your emphasis on scientific rigour and a tightness with regard to referencing, but ask you to be patient with those of us of a less literal mind - we all have different attributes to bring to this enterprise. Dr Joe Kiff 23:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is, you can't integrate 'attachment therapy' theories, diagnoses and treatments with mainstream theories, diagnosis and treatments because they are essentially different. You also can't edit collaboratively when large amounts properly sourced material is repeatedly removed from articles without discussion and attempts to replace it is swiftly reverted - again without discussion, and requests for verification of sources are ignored. This isn't about discussing a difference of scientific opinion I'm afraid. That wouldn't be a problem. Its about editing practices and goals. Fainites 22:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

How to upload images[]

I need to upload image files for a few of the articles I created. See Optic recess for example. If you can give me instructions on how to do that I will go back and check the other articles I've worked on and upload any images I need to. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 18:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Step 1: To upload an image first save it to your computer.
    • To save it from Wikipedia click on an image to open it then right click the description in blue below the picture and select "save target as" and I save it to a wikiimage folder so I can easily find it.
  • Step 2: Create link. In the edit box of your page make the link using the form thumb (take out first colon) if you have copied the article from wikipedia this link is already there.
  • Step 3:Save the page and click on the link in the article which brings up the upload box
  • Step 4: Upload the picture. Browse to your file and double click so it is selected into the box then press the upload button.
    • You can also use the "upload file" link from the toolbox on the righthand panel.
If these instructions are OK we should but them on this page How to upload images which I have put into Intermediate help. Dr Joe Kiff 21:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Great. Thank you. I will try this when I get back home and let you know how it all works. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 13:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it works fine...clear and accurate. thanks. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 13:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Userpage information[]

I'll e-mail you my c.v. My experience is that providing information on the user page is not beneficial to me. But since I use my real name, anyone who wants to know about me can Google me.Jean Mercer 14:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Attachment measures[]

I made the changes discussed on the talk page and created two new articles as you suggested. See what you think. I hope I get some time to work on the images and getting those fixed on the new pages I created....I just need the time and to not be distracted by other things; regardless, however, I will eventually get to that. regards. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 19:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Good work It makes it clearer. I will link them into the assessment sections Dr Joe Kiff 22:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Joe[]

I graduate on Tuesday! I got a 2:1 (just missed out on a first) and am really happy. I may be starting a PhD on the effects of brain injury on family members/carers of the brain injured person. I'm intending to do a little work here again but it will not be as much as I did last summer. If I can do an hour or so a week that will be good.

Talk to you later

Tom Michael, BSc Mostly Zen Baby tao.jpg (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Joe,
It was a good graduation yesterday, except I'm very tired out now. I'm writing my PhD application today and should be starting it in January (hopefully). I will do some more work here and will be better able to do it if I can integrate my PsyWiki work with my doctorate work. As long as I don't let things get out of balance I will be fine.
Hope you are OK
Tom Michael, BSc Mostly Zen Baby tao.jpg (talk) 10:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey Joe, for the time being I am going to designate tuesday evenings as Wiki night, that way I can get a decent amount done without getting bogged down with too much during the rest of the week. Yes I shall try to integrate the wiki work with my research. Cheers Tom Michael, BSc - Mostly Zen Baby tao.jpg (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Jeans comment[]

I would like you to contact me with respect to one of your users, who has caused a good deal of trouble on Wikipedia. I left a message yesterday, but must have made some mistake in doing it as it seems to have disappeared.

Jean Mercer, Ph.D.