Because I'm too lazy to stop and go outside! TFOWR ^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 16:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Ahhh... Newton's law of inertia! Lova Falk talk 16:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank YOU!. I'm encouraged. I've posted a bit more.

Keep up the good work. HiLo48 ( talk) 21:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Lova

I think there is a need for a new article called "Dyslexia" which acknowledges the existenve of both developmental dyslexia and alexia (acquired dyslexia). This would mean 3 articles in place of the current 2. The first question is how do we best set about converting the current Dyslexia article to a new "Developmental Dyslexia" article which would be the best match for the existing content. The big problem for me previously has been the lack of research which provides accurate definitions of the various subtypes of Alexia, well more about me being able to find it. I think the problem had been that the bulk of Alexia research had been done case by case, and it is only recently that the technology and understanding has come together to enable researchers to change the research model based on the the types of lesion etc and to see the effects of the various lesions in various areas of the brain. I hope i am making some sort of sense. dolfrog ( talk) 18:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Dolfrog! I'm sorry but I don't see the need of a third dyslexia article at all. The present article Dyslexia starts with the tag: This article is about developmental dyslexia. For acquired dyslexia, see Alexia (acquired dyslexia). There is also the Category:Dyslexia which has a lot of dyslexia articles. Furthermore, I don't have any Alexia research articles at hand, so I can't help you with those either. However, both articles are on my watchlist and I'll help editing if needed. Lova Falk talk 06:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Lova I thought you might like to have a look at an online collection alexia research papers dolfrog ( talk) 21:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you! Lova Falk talk 14:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Step III - is there a third-party reference to this being published (book review etc.)? Martinlc ( talk) 16:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't know! I just asked the editor wrote this if s/he could give a reference, so maybe it'll show up. Lova Falk talk 16:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Love, thanks for your work on the meditation article. I noticed you changed the blockquote, which was cited in its entirety to page 49 of the Perez-De-Albeniz et al paper. You substituted the full reference for the Kutz reference. I agree that the previous quotation left the Kutz reference (and the other where you inserted a "specify" request) as undesirable loose ends. However, in line with your own recent point about being faithful to properly representing quotations, it doesn't seem desirable to me to change the quote itself (which would seemingly leave the Perez-de-Albeniz paper misquoted, since quotes are generally expected to be literal; at minimum, perhaps we should put a notation in the footnote, stating that this was a reference cited by Perez-de-Albeniz et al). Instead, my impulse would be just to replace the loose-end quotes with ellipses. We have already cited the entire blockquote to the Perez-de-Albeniz paper, so no further citation is required.

BTW, FYI (since I have the Perez-de-Albeniz paper), the Teasdale et al is listed in their reference section as: TEASDALE, J.D., SEGAL, Z. & WILLIAMS, M.G. (1995). How does cognitive therapy prevent depressive relapse and why should attentional control (mindfulness) training help? Behaviour Research Therapy, 33, pp. 25-39. And the other Kutz paper cited by Perez-de-Albeniz (Kutz, 1985b) was: KUTZ, I., LESERMAN, J., DORRINGTON, C., MORRISON, C.H., BORYSENKO, J. & BENSON, H. (1985b). Meditation as an adjunct to psychotherapy, an outcome study, Psychotherapy Psychosomatics, 43, pp. 209± 218.However, as per my previous argument, I think we should just replace it to ellipses.

Frankly, I suspect we may want to replace this entire blockquote before long, as per earlier discussion... though I'm not advocating that we replace it right now. -- Health Researcher ( talk) 17:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC) reply

PS I see we just "crossed in the mail" -- you were writing on my talk page as I was writing on yours. I still recommend just using the ellipses. Less confusing, and people who reeeeely want more can track down the Perez-de-Albeniz article. Best regards -- Health Researcher ( talk) 17:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for editing my edits, I agree with what you changed back, and probably was just a little too ready to edit or something.

This section on meditation that you reverted me edit for, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Meditation&diff=next&oldid=369143271 I found a little... um, like upsetting, just because it didn't include a diverse spectrum of possible methods of meditation, including, a very common example just off the top of my head, metta meditation, where one self-induces a state of universal compassion. This state clearly does not fit within either 'concentrative' nor 'mindfulness' meditation categories.

This article from 2007, a review of current scientific literature on meditation practices, http://compassion.stanford.edu/pdf/Dunne_Ch%2019%20Lutz%20Dunne%20Davidson-1.pdf in a section entitled, "'Defining Meditation'", "...notes the need for a more precise understanding of meditation as a scientific explanandum. Arguing for the importance of distinguishing the particularities of various traditions, the section presents the theory of meditation from the paradigmatic perspective of Buddhism, and it discusses the difficulties encountered when working with such theories..."

Granted that this review I mention is from 2007, and there might've been some progress in the meanwhile, and certainly there are some similarities between meditation practices so that we might say that some more specific and local practices of meditation all train the ability to concentrate and do about the same thing psychologically, however, the belief that all, "the various techniques of meditation are often classified by... concentration meditation... mindfulness meditation," is just plain incorrect :?

I should get back to work for now. Also, I left a note under the Talk page, and will certainly be back in a bit to continue to help out. I would like to leave the door open to talking about different types of meditation, even just shamatha and vipassana categories have a signficant role in talking about similarities across different Buddhist religious traditions, for example. If you have any ideas about it or would like me to do anything with it then let me know how I can help out, I know some about meditation and practice shamatha myself, which further makes me want to shed light on the good practice itself.

Also, I copied the bit I quoted to you above about 'Defining Meditation' to the meditation article as well, yet didn't reference the article like Wikipedians should I guess, so if you want to then it's there to do. Thanks for your help and hopefully we can make it better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell ( talk • contribs) 17:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi! I understand that you get upset. The thing is, the sentence starts with "Reviews have noted that" and then it is followed by a quote. Now, however much you think that this is not correct, this is what the reference says and therefore you cannot just change it because you know better, or because you know more. Wikipedia is not about the truth! If you want to change a referenced statement, you have to have another reference that confirms the change. So that is why I undid your edit. I hope you understand. Lova Falk talk 08:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC) reply

No problem, I understand. As part of a general addition and change I did the other night on that page, I changed the same part from, "Reviews have noted that in the Western meditation literature, the various techniques of meditation are often classified by the...[followed by blockquote]," to, "Oftentimes, in the West, meditation is classified in two broad categories, so noted in the following excerpt," in response to the reference that editor had cited, at the end of his blockquote, "^ The full quote from Bond, Ospina et al (2009, p. 130) reads: "The differences and similarities among these techniques is often explained in the Western meditation literature in terms of the direction of mental attention (Koshikawa & Ichii, 1996; Naranjo, 1971; Orenstein, 1971): A practitioner can focus intensively on one particular object (so-called concentrative mediation), on all mental events that enter the field of awareness (so-called mindfulness meditation), or both specific focal points and the field of awareness (Orenstein, 1971)."

I think that the sentence is made more clear this way, since he only cites one review, which is a meta-analysis of the literature available at that time, but then wrote that "Reviews have noted..." which could mean that he has multiple sources or that he is quoting from one meta-review. I don't think this is perfect, as there are a lot of other opinions which conflict with this one, namely the two under the 'Definitions' section immediately preceding the 'Similarities' section where this whole quote we're writing about is found. Maybe this could be pointed out more clearly, or the two put more closely together. There was also a somewhat reaction directly underneath this quote, "Other typologies have been proposed..." but without citations, so I hope this change will alleviate concerns that the definition was pigeon holing. Plus the change more accurately reflects the material presented in the reference. A question I had was if it should be maybe, 'article' rather than 'excerpt' in the quote, "Oftentimes, in the West, meditation is classified in two broad categories, so noted in the following excerpt,". What do you think?--makeswell 02:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell ( talk • contribs)

I'm sorry Makeswell, I have been busy with other things and Meditation has disappeared from my focus of interest just now. Lova Falk talk 08:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Lova,

I'd love to have you read Special education#Setting and tell me what you think about it. The article needs to provide a general overview that applies to just about everyone (at least in developed countries), but we've got constant pressure to remove any and all terms or concepts that aren't immediately familiar to the average resident of the UK (that is, people that aren't educators, psychologists, or parents of special needs kids). Typically, the demand is that we not provide any overview at all, and turn the article into a "Special education by country" article.

There have been a lot of changes recently, including some by a permabanned sock. I'd love to have an outside view from someone who isn't in either the USA or the UK. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your invitation! I just read the section and I think it is really good to have this overview. A "Special education by country" article would be quite horrible.

However, the section does not make clear how regular inclusion and mainstreaming differ. Apart from that, all settings are known and practiced in Sweden, and there is only one minor detail that might be different. In the sentence "Teacher aides are assigned to help the children with special needs progress", are remedial teachers seen as teacher aides? Because sometimes in Sweden it would be a remedial teacher who helps the special need child. Lova Falk talk 18:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your comments.

Just to check my terminology: In a typical government-run American school, a 'teacher's aide' is often a person with little or no specific training (like a child care provider). A teacher has finished university and been licensed or certified by the state. A special education teacher (is that the same as 'remedial teacher'?) is a certified teacher who has specialized in educating people with special needs (as opposed to, say, teaching science or literature).

I believe that American schools do both. A teacher's aide might help with simple or non-instructional tasks (helping the student use the toilet, taking notes for a student who can't write quickly, making sure an autistic child doesn't run away) in the background. However, in some cases, especially if more skill is needed, a certified special education teacher might be assigned to a student. In that case, you might have two teachers in the same classroom (one with the majority of the class, and the other with one or more special needs students). I believe it's more common, though, for the students to be sent to the special education teacher than for the teacher to come to them. This lets the special teacher efficiently see several similar students at the same time, even if they're in different classrooms the rest of the day.

A previous version of that paragraph said, "Under full inclusion, by contrast, students classified as having special needs remain in general classrooms virtually all the time.[15] Related services are provided via "push in," meaning that professionals enter the classroom and deliver assistance there.[15] However, full inclusion is a controversial practice, and it is not widely applied.[16][17][18]" Does that sound like a better description from your perspective? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I have no time right now but I'll get back to you tomorrow! Lova Falk talk 19:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry, I have been busy with other things. Yes, when I wrote "remedial teacher" I meant "special education teacher" in exactly the same way as you describe it. And no, I don't think the "push in" version is better. I have tried to find some English sources for the Swedish situation, but I could not find any good ones. And I still don't understand the difference between mainstreaming and regular inclusion... Lova Falk talk 08:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Lova,

Sorry about the delay in replying; we had to dispose of a sock.

Depending on the sources you look at, there are two differences between mainstreaming and inclusion: One is philosophical, and the other is trivial.

The trivial difference is (as far as I know) US-specific: If the child attends an ordinary school, but spends less than 50% of the school day with non-disabled students, then the child is recorded as "mainstreamed". If the child attends an ordinary school, but spends more than 50% of the school day with non-disabled students, then the child is recorded as "included". Obviously, the difference between 49% and 51% is trivial, but I suppose that if you're going to use categories to track this (rather than having schools report "Johnny: 24% of time in special education, 76% of time in general education. Susie: 34% of day in special education..."), then you have to draw the line somewhere.

The philosophical difference is this: A proponent of mainstreaming believes that students with special needs (like Down syndrome) properly "belong" to the special education program, but they can "earn" the right to attend ordinary classes (by behaving well and being successful at the same work that the typically developing children are doing). A proponent of inclusion (especially the most militant "full inclusion" variants) believes that students with special needs properly "belong" to the ordinary classroom, and should never be sent to a special classroom (without a really, really good reason for it).

Sources in languages other than English are usually acceptable. Perhaps you'd consider (whenever you have some time) providing a brief outline of the Swedish system at Special_education#Europe. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 06:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your explanation! I was on a short holiday so not able to answer you earlier. I can write a few lines about the Swedish system, sometimes in the near future. Lova Falk talk 08:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello,

I'm thinking about replacing the existing article with this. I invite and welcome your thoughts.

Agenzen ( talk) 17:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Should I undo the edit then?, Gobbleswoggler ( talk) 16:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I did it! :) Lova Falk talk 16:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply

It was full of so much garbage. Hopefully i will finish with it in a few days. It is amazing that this piece of junk was allowed to be here. -- Penbat ( talk) 09:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Monster job is the correct expression. You did a fantastic job, and I'm sorry I didn't contribute more! Lova Falk talk 07:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply

You may have noticed that i have put it up for deletion. I decided that it is just not viable inspite of all my efforts and a redirect makes more sense. Please express your view on the AFD. -- Penbat ( talk) 07:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Ah, I hadn't seen it. I !voted for a redirect. I had no idea this list of psychology topics even existed. Very brave of you to put the page up for deletion after all your efforts. Lova Falk talk 08:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Why not just leave it in your user space? Fainites ^barley scribs 22:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply

in Parasitic oscillations.

-- Zutam ( talk) 12:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC) reply

You're welcome! :) Lova Falk talk 13:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello, in response to your message: I didn't have much concrete advice to give on the article talk page, but I tagged mnemonic for cleanup because of

• incongruent article structure, top level sections with non-obvious titles
• second top level section called "Other mnemonic systems" only consists of a list
• section on assembly mnemonics in the middle of the article is disconnected from the rest of the article
• caps, bold used for emphasis
• other copyediting needed, etc

Thanks, – Acdx ( talk) 20:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC) reply

YOU DIDN'T REMOVE THE POST THAT I POSTED ABOUT ASHKENAZI JEWS, I REMOVED IT, SO WHY R U SENDING ME AN ERROR MESSAGE SAYING YOU REMOVED IT???!!! LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!! I REMOVED IT MYSELF!!! LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL!!! LITTLE {UNT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.19.95 ( talk) 06:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply

The text you had been writing was not constructive, so that is why I send you this message. Lova Falk talk 06:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your opinion. Please be civil. Anything that is not civil will be removed immediately. Lova Falk talk 06:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi, Lova, now I'm starting to see a lot of your edits on my watchlist, which evidently means we are both watching many of the same articles about psychology. I'll be continuing to update my Intelligence Citations list, and will soon be adding to my user space a similar list about reading instruction, writing systems, and dyslexia. As you see, I have also begun more substantive edits after lurking around for about two months. When the dust clears from the Race and intelligence article arbitration case, I expect to be actively editing the articles on IQ testing and human intelligence continually, maybe for the rest of my life. It's great to have you on board Wikipedia looking after articles on psychology. I especially wanted to say that just now, because this user talk page of yours is one page I follow, and I see you just had to delete very uncivil comments by an editor who needs to be reminded of good manners. Keep up the good work. See you on various articles from time to time. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 12:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your encouragement! Yes, I have a lot of psychology articles on my watchlist, but so far - and maybe it will stay this way - I'm not dedicated to specific articles or projects. Cheers! :) Lova Falk talk 12:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Please can you "watch" template {{ bullying}}, it has a habit of getting ripped apart by uninformed editors. Thx-- Penbat ( talk) 15:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply

It is the first template that is now on my watchlist! Lova Falk talk 15:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Dear Ms Falk, The point of this edit was to link the hearing impairment article to an existing article on presbycusis, briefly summarizing the latter. Since the presbycusis article already contains references supporting the statements in my summary, I thought it was unnecessary to repeat them. What motivated me to make this edit was noticing that the hearing impairment article, while quite extensive, had omitted one of the most common causes of hearing impairment. Before gathering independent source material on presbycusis to add to the hearing impairment article, I checked to see whether there was already an article on presbycusis. Finding that there was, I added the link and summary. Harmonizing and improving the cross-linking of articles in Wikipedia in this way is a kind of minor editing with which I have had some experience, and which I feel offers a significant opportunity for improving Wikipedia's usefulness to the reader. CharlesHBennett ( talk) 00:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Dear Mr Bennett, WP:Verifiability#Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it states that editors should not use sources that present material originating from Wikipedia to support that same material in Wikipedia, as this would create circular sourcing — Wikipedia citing a source that derives its material from Wikipedia. The advice I received in a similar case was to check the references on the article from which I got my information, and use the same references once more. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 08:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thanks for helping out with the Attachment therapy sock. As you can see it's been going on for years. It's good to have editors covering different timezones as other wise he manages to spam his therapy for considerable periods of time. I've also been wondering whether or not there should even be an article on Dyadic developmental psychotherapy. Quite a lot of effort was put into rewriting it after the AT sock was finally banned to stop it being an advert. However, is it sufficiently notable in itself? Fainites ^barley scribs 13:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Fainites! I had no idea this has been going on for years. It was the very first sockpuppet that I discovered - a previous one even got a welcome tag from me. I will help when I can, but in the near future there will come times when I won't be able to spend so much time on Wikipedia as I have done these last few months. As for the article on DDP, I think it is sufficiently notable, because obviously it has been discussed by others than the ones working with it. Lova Falk talk 14:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Ok. Cheers. Fainites ^barley scribs 14:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply

For the years and years see here and here !!! Fainites ^barley scribs 14:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Such a waste of everybody's time and energy!! Lova Falk talk 14:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Including the sock himself as wiki is only one of many venues he spams. Each to his own I suppose. Fainites ^barley scribs 14:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Speaking of socks: please see my note for an administrator, here. Thanks. Drmies ( talk) 02:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I see that there are a few more pages semi-protected, hopefully that will help. Lova Falk talk 07:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

82.31.164.172 seems to be a persistent pest. I think Psychopathy could do with semi-protection. -- Penbat ( talk) 12:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I say, let's give it one more day. But you could help watch and revert! Lova Falk talk 18:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Look, I'm not sure what the big deal is here. I don't see anything I did to this article that could possibly count as vandalism. Let's talk about the two sets of changes here: one I made on 13 July 2010, the other on 14 July 2010. I agree that some of the changes I made on 13 July 2010, although seemingly true, were unsourced and thereby justifiably removable. But these unsourced changes weren't acts of vandalism: if you look at the changes I made, you could see that they were believable (some of it common sense). I had made these changes with the good intention of improving the article, not to vandalize it. Thankfully (and rightfully) these were not officially labeled as vandalism, and you were possibly right anyway to revert a few of the changes I had made on that day.

Now let's move onto the minor changes I made on 14 July 2010. And here's where I'm really confused, because the minor improvements I made, for some reason, were labeled as vandalism and now all of a sudden I am being called a "pest" for no apparent reason. The changes I made on 14 July 2010 were FAR from being vandalism. Did you people even look at the changes I had made or simply revert on the presumption that I had made unsourced claims again (and remember, unsourced claims don't necessarily count as vandalism, especially if they were made with the good intention of improving the article)? Let me explain the changes I made on 14 July 2010 to make it clear how these are far from being acts of vandalism: (changed words are in bold between each set of quotes)

CHANGE 1: FROM "Elsewhere Hare and others write that psychopaths" ... TO ... "Elsewhere Hare and others suggest that psychopaths may". Logically, in this case "x suggests that y may" includes "x writes that y" but also avoids the potentially false presumption that the writer was implying that all psychopaths necessarily act in manner y. Thus I think the change here was for the better as it maintains the same basic meaning but makes room for error in interpretation.

CHANGE 2: FROM "They do not deeply recognize" ... TO ... "They may fail to deeply recognize". The reasoning for this change is the same as the reasoning I gave for Change 1, above.

CHANGE 3: FROM "However, subsequent research has found that bedwetting is not a significant factor. However, these three indicators are merely sufficient - but certainly not necessary - indicators of possible psychopathy." ... TO ... "However, subsequent research has found that bedwetting is not a significant factor. Moreover, these three indicators are merely sufficient - but certainly not necessary - indicators of possible psychopathy." Now I think the reason for changing "However" to "Moreover" here is pretty clear. Both the first sentence and the second sentence in this set of sentences act to provide examples that undermine arguments in favor of the "Macdonald triad" as a definitive approach to labeling psychopaths. Therefore, sentence 2 acts to continue sentence 1's goal, so it would simply sound awkward and wrong to use "However" here instead of something equivalent to "Moreover".

I hope this clears things up and I hope you can see now that the changes I made to the "Psychopathy" article on 13 July 2010 and 14 July 2010 do not constitute vandalism, although I agree that some of the unsourced changes I made on 13 July 2010 are justifiably removable due to being unsourced. I am not attacking anyone here; I am simply providing an explanation to make it clearer that my contributions to the article are positive. Let's get off on the right foot here. If you have any further queries, please feel free to talk to me on my talk page.

Cheers. -- 82.31.164.172 ( talk) 23:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply

IMO your edits may have been in good faith and it is unfair to use the word "vandalism" but IMO your edits were still unconstructive and distorted the meaning of the text obtained from authoritative sources. -- Penbat ( talk) 09:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi 82.31.164.172. Thank you for communicating with me; on your talk page I have apologized for using the word vandalism. You are right, I should have assumed good faith.

When it comes to the edits, have you read: Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial? I did recently, and there is a section there Bias in attribution: Mind your nuances that discusses just the kind of edits you have been making. To say Hare "writes" is more neutral than to say Hare "suggests". Furthermore, there are three references to the statement psychopaths "use charisma, manipulation, intimidation, sexual intercourse and violence". Now you cannot just add "may" because you think that would be better, it has to be in accordance with the references.

The same goes for change number two, from "do not" into "may fail to". Is "may fail to" really what the source says?

I don't have Hare's book, but for example here is a website with a literal quote from Hare. The quote says "Psychopaths are social predators who charm, manipulate, and ruthlessly plow their way through life, leaving a broad trail of broken hearts, shattered expectations, and empty wallets. Completely lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, they selfishly take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret." Obviously, Hare is not too careful with nuances and does not express himself with a lot of "may"s.

You are correct regarding change number three. At present, neither of these words are in the article, but if you put in "moreover" again, I won't revert it. However - if I remember correctly it was you who wrote these lines, starting with These three indicators are merely sufficient - but certainly not necessary - indicators of possible psychopathy. I put a citation-needed-tag there, because I wonder what is your source to these lines. To me, they sound as your personal opinion.

Just to clarify, I don't say that Hare is correct. However, instead of changing the referenced content, it is better to find reliable sources who either directly criticize Hare, or offer an alternative theory, and add to the article, making it more balanced. Lova Falk talk 16:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi, thanks for the responses. I understand your rebuttals concerning Change 1 and 2 so I'll leave the article as it was with regards to those. As for Change 3, the goal was to clarify a self-evident truth: that the Macdonald triad comprises traits that indicate possible future psychopathy (which is what the source implies about the Macdonald triad), and that these traits do not necessarily constitute required traits of a psychopath. Now, having looked over what I had previously written in Change 3, I believe that what I had written was a little too "fluffy" in its wording, so I condensed it into the following neat package (and moved it suitably to the end of the introduction of the Macdonald triad): "These three indicators are sufficient - but not necessary - indicators of possible psychopathy.". Of course, I understand the ideal of providing [where feasible] sufficient citations to all claims in encyclopedia articles regardless of how self-evident the claims may be. I am fairly certain there are authoritative sources out there that can confirm the claim, so I will search around for some soon. -- 82.31.164.172 ( talk) 00:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi and great to read what you wrote. Cheers! Lova Falk talk 08:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Good work on the Psychology section of the Adolescence article. It is good to have you around helping out with so many sexual/psychological/social topics. As for the Childhood/Adolescence/Adult scale in the Puberty section, I understand people making it bigger, but I feel that it is not needed since people can just click on it (most will figure this out, I feel); this is why I have always reduced it back to 600px, and also to keep the article perfectly alligned. But I will not revert you on that. Thanks for the help. Flyer22 ( talk) 19:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi and thank you for noticing my work on adolescence. :) As for the scale in the section, on my computer it is so small that it is unreadable, and it is not at all perfectly aligned with the article. Different screens and settings lead to different "views" of the article. However, it's not at all a big deal and I won't change the size. Cheers! Lova Falk talk 15:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Good point about different screens. Anyway, I'll see you around, and thanks again for the help. Flyer22 ( talk) 16:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply

References are in the body of the text not in the lead. This statement regarding medications, suicide, and depression is well referenced. It is from the black box warning in the states. I have added another review article. Fergusson D, Doucette S, Glass KC; et al. (2005). "Association between suicide attempts and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: systematic review of randomised controlled trials". BMJ. 330 (7488): 396. doi: 10.1136/bmj.330.7488.396. PMC  549110. PMID  15718539. {{ cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= ( help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored ( help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( link) Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply

The other day you submitted a false positive report because you found yourself unable to edit someone's talk page. If you have not already seen, it was due to an accident in the code of a particular edit filter which was quickly fixed by the MediaWiki software itself. The code has been reverted to the last good version and this should not happen again. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, however; if people hadn't reported it we wouldn't have known there was a problem. I have removed the false positive reports as I felt it was easier to just go to the people who submitted them directly. — Soap — 23:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you! I really appreciate this. Lova Falk talk 18:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Hey Lova here is a great too for formatting references [4] Cheers Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Also some of the text may be a bit to similar to what is in the abstract. It should either be reworded a bit more IMO or put in quotes. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the template, I will try it. When it comes to your other comment, I actually prefer text that is very close to the abstract, also because of all the copy-editing that is done in Wikipedia, which, sometimes, cause text to divert more and more from the original. So if what I write is close to the original, at least I know the text was correct to start with... Lova Falk talk 12:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I responded to your comments on the article's talk page. Talk:Depression (differential diagnoses) 7mike5000 ( talk) 03:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Time for a holiday! You can leave messages, but I can't answer them... Lova Falk talk

Have added further comments to the Major depressive disorder page. Take your time to answer and enjoy your holidays. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply

...your decision to worsen the page Fine motor skill?
Could you please explain how your modification of the page improved it, in any way, shape or form?
In what way, was the modification you undid, not an improvement upon what preceded it?
Could you explain how someone who speaks of strongly disagreeing to "simply removing content instead of trying to improve it" (emphasis mine), removes a major modification, without taking these issues into account?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.51.11 ( talk) 04:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC) reply

First, please sign your posts using four tildes or clicking the pentip. Second, may I ask why your talking about something that happened back in May? -- Inka ^{888 Come yell at me!} 04:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC) reply

First, I did, as you can see (specifically, I pressed said "pentip" button) and secondly, because I only noticed it recently, when I went to check if it had improved ...sad to note that the opposite had occurred. -- 213.113.51.11 ( talk) 04:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC) reply

P.S. ...and then I forgot to sign my reply... rather ironic.-- 213.113.51.11 ( talk) 04:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Ah. No, your right, I forgot to sign it...-- 213.113.51.11 ( talk) 04:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC) reply

...I'd like to add something, just to be a bit more clear (though I'll have to wait on an answer, as I can see this user is on holiday... Oh well, c'est la vie):
"More content", does not automatically mean "better page". "Less content" doesn't automatically mean "worse page".
If it did, why are so many acts of vandalism removed from pages, despite so many of them actually adding to the content?
It is because there is a rather significant difference between quantity and quality.-- 213.113.51.11 ( talk) 05:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC) reply

(copying what I just added to Talk:Fine motor skill: Having read up a bit on Wikipedia policies on the subject, I can see why just reverting the page back, would be a bad idea (what with revert wars and all), but... FFS! I did a bold edit, with the backing of the consensus. I took out stuff that didn't belong on the page, and tried to make it as good as I could. I waited a long time, before making the edit, and put thought into it. In other words: I was completely justified in my edit and followed Wikipedia policy. ...and then someone goes in and seemingly due to a knee-jerk reaction, reverts it (i.e. making a major modification, in no way different from "simply removing content"), without any considerations about how that improves or worsens the page and despite it going against consensus ...and then the person in question disappears for several months! FFS, how long a holiday can you take! Do I really have to keep from making a revert, in these circumstances? There is no way to progress, as it is.-- 213.113.51.41 ( talk) 02:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Just in case you ever return to looking at this page: The page Fine motor skill now has the (vastly improved) content I gave it. I didn't go against the revert rules though. I renamed the previous Fine motor skill page, as Childhood development of fine motor skills, and made a page at Fine motor skill with the little contents I once gave it ...and marked it as a stub, in the hope that others will go in an improve it. This time I have removed exactly ZERO content (though I am considering PRODing the Childhood development of fine motor skills article). Any complaints?-- ZarlanTheGreen ( talk) 19:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Excuse me, Love Falk; but you said that I had edited the Puja page, but that was not me as I was not on Wikipedia at the current time; it was somebody else with an IP Address similiar to mine; probably soembody on a different network or from a different country! User:Agent008