User talk:Lova Falk

This user is currently busy as a bee and is going to be on Wikipedia in off-and-on doses.

But please don't be shy, write a message. Also, I might have asked you a question and missed your answer... Please remind me!

My box is just for me.

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)

Thank you very much! Lova Falk talk 08:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Article name change

Hey Lova Falk... Thanks for editing the "Catastrophic schizophrenia" article...

You mentioned that the term "Catastrophic schizophrenia" has fallen out of use...

Do you think we should move and change the article title to "Schizocaria"?

Thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pro translator (talk • contribs) 17:55, 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.

Stuartyeates (talk) 08:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, it would be wonderful to have a little kitten in my life just now. Lova Falk talk 08:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

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)

Thank you, I am happy to read this. Lova Falk talk 16:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

For your efforts at Dual diagnosis. Keep up the good work! Faizan(talk) 13:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Heartwarming. Lova Falk talk 13:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

:D, Faizan(talk) 15:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Dysprosody Edit

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.

Kak2fp (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

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 Falk talk 13:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Star767

Regarding this, did you see afterward that Star767 is blocked indefinitely? The block has also been mentioned on my talk. Flyer22 (talk) 14:50, 14 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 Falk talk 14:59, 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 Falk talk 16:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL, I would need to work very hard, like find some very strong willpower, to be a Wikisloth. Flyer22 (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Or rather work significantly less so that I can become one. Flyer22 (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Abbie.dodz at the Anorgasmia article

Regarding this, I left an edit summary note for you about it. I'm not sure if you are watching that article, so I decided to drop by your talk page to let you know about the note. Flyer22 (talk) 12:03, 15 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 Falk talk 14:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

As always, you're welcome. And a two-week lag? How does that happen? Flyer22 (talk) 16:38, 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 Falk talk 19:52, 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 Falk talk 20:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Child abuse article

I could use your help at this article; see here. Flyer22 (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Flyer22 (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! However, now it's time to log off. Goodnight! Lova Falk talk 20:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Goodnight. Flyer22 (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

I'd assumed that primary sources were preferable, but now I am wiser. Shiningroad (talk) 00:33, 19 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 Falk talk 07:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Motivation article

I reverted your revert of Cluebot's deletion of what I considered an unhelpful contribution: [1]. If you think that text improves the article please feel free to add it back. Cheers. Jojalozzo 16:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I don't know what I was thinking! I probably wasn't thinking. Lova Falk talk 18:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Borderline personality disorder

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)

Bearian, I am surprised by your message. I put a large amount of material back IN to the article. I just removed a detail. Are you confused between my edits and Mandyxsmith's edit? Lova Falk talk 13:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps ... there have been a lot of edits this weekend. Thank you for your edits. Bearian (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Wernicke's aphasia

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 Falk talk 13:33, 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 Falk talk 14:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

--> Discussion continues on Talk:Receptive aphasia

Thank you

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)

You're welcome! Lova Falk talk 15:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

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 Falk talk 07:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Sexual attraction article

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 Falk talk 20:13, 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)

Finally did it myself along other changes.--Garrondo (talk) 16:36, 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 Falk talk 16:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You are the expert regarding cognitive-behavioral therapy, so feel free to do as you feel best.--Garrondo (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Well thank you for calling me an expert! I'll remove the wikilink then. Lova Falk talk 19:03, 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)

That is very kind of you, and you'll probably get an email one day. Thank you! Lova Falk talk 10:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

people first language

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 Falk talk 19:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:TPS It took a while to understand this thread diff diff. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:23, 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

Thank you for your feedback on my edit summaries. Lova Falk talk 14:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Servais

Lova, as in [2]? Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and Joshua, as in [[3]]. Lova Falk talk 11:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No, that one is new to me. "Jos" was a nickname at school. Thanks for the link! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Freudian slip

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 Falk talk 19:33, 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*

How are things? Hope you're doing well! Firecatalta (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

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 Falk talk 21:42, 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)

Thank you and don't be sorry, I was happy to see a message from you. ♥ Lova Falk talk 21:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Pleasant dreams and happy journeying tomorrow! Firecatalta (talk) 22:28, 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 Falk talk 16:32, 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 Falk talk 21:53, 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)

Sexual assault article

Do you see anything valid about this removal? Flyer22 (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

No, quite incomprehensible. Maybe the editor thinks it is a primary source??? Anyway, it should be reverted... Lova Falk talk 21:29, 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.

Oh, and I had signed for you above (Lova Falk (talk) 21:20, 18 May 201 (UTC) in this section, but there was a WP:Edit conflict just moments ago; I see that you signed, but with the latest time stamp. Flyer22 (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

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 Falk talk 09:16, 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)

Okay, Lova Falk. And okay, Shiningroad.

Speaking of telling the difference between primary sources and secondary sources, though, WP:MED is having a discussion about it: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Primary or secondary?. Flyer22 (talk) 19:32, 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 Falk talk 21:19, 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

DSM-5

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)

Thank you Penbat, I am very interested, but still on a holiday and with limited access to sources... Lova Falk talk 21:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Cool--Penbat (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to look at edits on IQ reference chart

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 Falk talk 08:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply has occurred

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Victim_playing --Cyberman (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Grandiose delusions moved to Grandiose type

User:Farrajak has moved Grandiose delusions moved to Grandiose type. Do you have any views this ?--Penbat (talk) 07:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Penbat. I cannot find the discussion about this, and I asked Farrajak where it is. Lova Falk talk 08:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Cheers. There wasnt any discussion. I have reverted and tided up the talk page and given my views: Talk:Grandiose_delusions. I have had many issues with User:Farrajak - amongst other things he seems obsessed with tagging and is keen to down play narcissism as just something that appears in the DSM - see User:Farrajak and User talk:Farrajak.--Penbat (talk) 08:54, 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 Falk talk 09:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Confirmation bias

Hi Lova! Please see Talk:Confirmation_bias#.22Current_political_issues.22 Thanks and best wishes, MartinPoulter (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

subconscious motor tract

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. Diptanshu^Talk 18:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

And thank you for thanking me! Lova Falk talk 18:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

While I was writing on your talk page, you were interestingly writing on mine. Thanks anyway. Diptanshu^Talk 18:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

We were on each other's minds! Lova Falk talk 18:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Automatic archival

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. Diptanshu^Talk 18:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

You may move the barnstars and other signs of appreciation to your userpage. Diptanshu^Talk 18:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Diptanshu! I am happy with the bot archiving after 90 days. But you archived way too much, so I reverted. Lova Falk talk 18:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Asexuality article

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)

Hi Flyer22! I am sorry, I am too busy with things outside of Wikipedia to get involved right now. Lova Falk talk 13:30, 5 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 Falk talk 16:13, 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)

Yes, I have started to do so, but this is the first confirmation that it actually works. Lova Falk talk 16:18, 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 Falk talk 20:13, 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)

I have thought exactly the same thing. Lova Falk talk 05:56, 6 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)

Nice to meet you too! My pleasure. Firecatalta (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Attachment theory article: addition

Hi Lova Falk,

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: [4]:

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)

Copypasted this text to Talk:Attachment theory. Lova Falk talk 08:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Rorschach Test

Hi Lova Falk. You may wish to add another contribution at the Talk Page where there is now a new RFC. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:10, 9 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 Falk talk 08:26, 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 Falk talk 08:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to ask at a bad time. The RfC wasn't my idea, haha! Martinevans123 (talk) 08:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Really funny! Lova Falk talk 09:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Kudos!

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)

Thank you, how sweet of you! ♥ Lova Falk talk 07:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Counter-projection

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 compulsive obsession 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 Falk talk 20:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks Jacobisq (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Dual diagnosis talk page response...

Sciacca removed[edit]

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?

24.215.246.197 (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Lova Falk talk 06:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

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 the motor neuron page a lot recently... So wondering... are these typos?: Motor neurones are neurones that carry signals from the spinal Wikicello (talk) 05:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

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 Falk talk 18:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

ADHD

Hi Lova Falk, your viewpoint as a psychologist who diagnoses ADHD professionally I feel would be most welcome and helpful on a minor but important dispute raised here. Talk:Attention_deficit_hyperactivity_disorder#Sources_in_special_populations--MrADHD | T@1k? 14:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi MrADHD! I'll check it out later today. Lova Falk talk 06:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sensory processing disorder

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 Falk talk 19:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Enjoy the holiday!

Hope you get some R&R and enjoy the sunshine! Firecatalta (talk) 01:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Firecatalta, we have had a lovely time! I hope you are fine, too? Lova Falk talk 08:32, 3 August 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)

We have actually had such a lovely summer this year that I hardly believe it is still summer. Lova Falk talk 16:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

That is the best kind! Hope you have a lovely autumn up there as well, and it's good to have you back. :-) Firecatalta (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Dunning-Kruger

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)

Hi McGeddon, you're correct. Thank you! Lova Falk talk 09:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology#Review of navigational templates

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology#Review of navigational templates. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48

Help with my sandbox

Hi Lova Falk. I have seen all your contribution and really appreciate your work. I was hoping if you could help me out with a page I'm trying to write in my sandbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mmjuma/sandbox I mainly wanted to add this page to it: http://www.forbes.com/most-promising-companies/list/ but just couldn't get the code correct. Could you show me how to properly code that site as a reference? Any other advice or tips on how to build out this page would be greatly appreciated!Mmjuma (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mmjuma. The references all look fine to me, and you seem to have got help from 99.139.48.253. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 09:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Empathy#Established terminology: "affective" vs. "emotional" empathy

Since you have put some work into this one, please take a look on a terminological question. Thanks, 193.197.171.98 (talk) 07:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I have answered you on Talk:Empathy. Lova Falk talk 08:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Your great psychology brain required

Hi, can you comment on the last two sections on the ADHD talk page. There is a guy there who raises some important points regarding some of our content which while reliably sourced may require our attention such as rewording or clarified or maybe deleted? If you are busy of course. No rush. :-)--MrADHD | T@1k? 21:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi MrADHD  and thank you for your compliment and your request. A very, very belated reply. I think you and Garrondo handled the issue in an excellent way. My help is not needed. Kind regards! Lova Falk talk 19:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

WP Psychology in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Psychology for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 01:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be interested to see your answers to this, since you're so active in the Wikiproject. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC) But no problem if you're busy with real-life stuff. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

There's a good chance that Lova is on vacation, since this is August and she is European and everybody in Europe goes on vacation in August. She has not edited since August 12. Looie496 (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey Lova Falk. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Corballis

hey lova, we just started a article about Michael Corballis. Maybe be you like to contribute!

Sensory integration

Hi Lova, not sure about some of your editing here, Sensory integration, seems to me to be a step backwards dolfrog (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi dolfrog, you are quite right - I did take a step backwards. The first sentence was: "Sensory integration or sensory processing is ability to use the neurological process multisensory integration to organize sensation from one’s own body and the environment, thus making it possible to use the body effectively within the environment." I found this sentence confusing, particularly the part: "Sensory integration [...] is ability to use the neurological process multisensory integration... " A reader who doesn't know what sensory integration is won't gain any clarity by reading neurological process multisensory integration. So I reverted to a previous definition.

But I agree with you that it was wrong of me to discard the sources. I apologize for that!

Are you also critical to my editing of Problems with sensory integration? In that case, exactly what?

With friendly regards! Lova Falk talk 19:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lova no issues with Problems with sensory integration. While you were away during the summer another editor revised the Sensory processing disorder article and I only added a few supporting citations, while at the same time i discovered the Multisensory integration article and as a result of which I am now engaged in trying to create a new CiteULike Multisensory Integration research paper sharing collection. best wishes dolfrog (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Depth perception

Just to say thanks for your recent edit on article "Depth perception". I am the editor who originally changed the section title to "Depth from optical expansion", but I agree that "Depth from motion" is easier to understand. I revised that section because the previous wording confused this cue with the Kinetic Depth Effect, which is an entirely different phenomenon. I used the technical term, but your solution (using both terms) is fine with me. Cheers. Brazzit (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome.

Hi, Lova, it's too bad you were away when the notice went out to participate in the Signpost interview about WikiProject Psychology. I'm glad you received the favorable mention you received from all the editors who did participate. I'm trying to step up my participation in actual edits of article text on articles within the scope of the project, and I'd be delighted if you check up on how I am doing. I'm seeking advice from local emeritus professors of psychology here who are still active researchers about what sources to consult as I do more edits. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi WeijiBaikeBianji, unfortunately I am very busy and often away from keyboard, and I just don't have the time for such a check up. And actually, as far as I can see you're doing perfectly fine so you don't really need it... Lova Falk talk 07:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Personal limits

Just wanted to bounce an idea to create a "personal limits" article. Seems like an interesting fundamental concept. We are constantly making decisions in relation to our own perceived limits in different capacities based on past experience. Seems related to, although not the same as, comfort zone. Im not expecting you to do any work on this just interested in knowing if there are any relevant psychological studies that you are aware of. --Penbat (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Penbat, your idea raises many thoughts. In what way exactly would "personal limits" differ from comfort zone? And does it really merit its own article instead of a section within self-concept? And no, unfortunately, I don't know of any relevant psychological studies, and as far as I know, it is not a term that is discussed much. With friendly regards! Lova Falk talk 07:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh I see. Thanks, I hadnt thought of self-concept.--Penbat (talk) 09:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Sensory Processing Disorder

Thank you for sorting out a number of issues. I have just made a small copy edit, which is unusual for me, and i was wondering if you could check that it makes sense. dolfrog (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you dolfrog! I did a bigger copy edit of the same text, would you like to check that it still makes sense? Kind regards! Lova Falk talk 18:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Still makes sense, and better wording. I have added a research paper collection on the Talk page, which includes papers related to SPD and ADHD issues. I need to take wiki break for a day or so as real life needs some attention lol dolfrog (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Have a good time without us! Lova Falk talk 06:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Small query on DSM5

Moved to Talk:DSM-5#Personality_disorder_not_otherwise_specified.2C_Depressive_personality_disorder_.26_Passive-aggressive_personality_disorder_missing_in_DSM_V --Penbat (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing Psychological repression. My reversion of vandalism still resulted in a bad version. I usually remember to check that but I let it go because it reverted to a bot version. Unfortunately, the bots occasionally make the same mistake. I am glad you caught that. Donner60 (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Lateralization of brain function

I suppose I understand the bureaucratic nature and necessity of such a system, but how does one fit the facts into these goal posts which could seemly move depending on an individuals personal understanding of each bit of research? At which point is enough research enough to negate past research? The article you linked me was interesting - yet it seemingly supports my addition to the page because not only was the primary source peer-reviewed by experts in the field, but has been talked about in almost 20 or more secondary sources, and has been cited by quite a few papers. Such a subjective system seems quite contradictory to science and the pursuit of knowledge because one can claim that no valid scientific consensus has been reached how ever much they want, moving those posts as wide as they wish. Furthermore, the article linked also states that one should use the most up to date information - which is included in the study I cited.

Secondly, the study itself shows directly that lateralization in both men and women does not bias either hemisphere - and in that it also shows that neither men or women are more lateralized than the other. There was only one study cited that claimed that men are more lateralized than women, which doesn't show any sort of "general consensus" when it comes to brain lateralization. The very fact that a new study has in fact challenged that leads to the conclusion that past ideas about lateralization have been wrong. To claim that it is still "generally accepted" is simply false. Countered (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit. The fact that a study was discussed in the popular press is meaningless; this study has not been cited even once yet in the scientific literature. You have far more faith in the virtues of peer review than reality warrants -- the criteria listed at WP:MEDRS are there for good reasons. Further discussion should take place at Talk:Lateralization of brain function. Looie496 (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Some research

Hi Beland, and thank you for your contribution to Nature deficit disorder. Your text would be even better if you could specify which research has shown that lack of exposure to the bright light and local focal distances of the outdoors may contribute to myopia. Could you add your sources? Thank you! Lova Falk talk 09:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure, just added. Thanks for calling me on that. 8) -- Beland (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Editing body language

How about this? The fact that women sit differently from men has to be taken into account: men tend to have a more open leg position while women do not ...
Cheers!
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 15:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Great! Lova Falk talk 18:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I am pleased that you are pleased, Lova.
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 18:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Reading this brought a smile to my face, so I guess Gareth that I am pleased that you are pleased that I am pleased. Lova Falk talk 18:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Apraxia of speech (AOS) and Developmental Verbal Dyspraxia (DVD)

Hi Lova,

I have been thinking for sometime now that that the Developmental Verbal Dyspraxia (also known as Childhood Apraxia of Speech (CAS) and Developmental Apraxia of Speech (DAS) section of the Apraxia of speech should be made into a new article. Not really sure how to set about this. dolfrog (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that is a great idea. You can start with simply cutting the childhood parts out of Apraxia of speech and glueing it into a new article. And work from there. Lova Falk talk 12:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I have done something like that in this sandbox just playing around with some ideas dolfrog (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lova could you have a look at Developmental verbal dyspraxia and Apraxia of speech may need some copy editing dolfrog (talk) 05:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Good job! I did some copyediting. Lova Falk talk 08:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Depth preception II

Hi. Thanks for your recent edits in the Depth perception article. Both of the areas you edited had been concerning me, but I haven't taken action on them yet.

The problem with the illustration at the top of the article seems to me to go beyond the caption. The "cue" that makes the difference is not one of the depth cues discussed in the article. It's the Gestalt principle of "good continuation" or "closure." In the upper diagram the open ends tend to be perceptually connected, and the result is a standard Necker cube. In the lower diagram, the terminators prevent the perceptual closure from taking place. I really think it would be better to illustrate the Depth article with another figure, one that more clearly typifies the role of traditional depth cues. I have been casually looking for an appropriate figure (one that would not pose copyright problems) but I haven't come across one yet. If you know of a suitable illustration, I'd support replacing the one that is now at the top of the article.

I'm not sure the removal of 14 words from the "stereopsis" section was vandalism -- the IP editor's other contributions seem genuine. I suspect s/he was honestly trying to clarify a very confusing section, but the deletion made matters worse. I'm glad you restored the text, but I think the whole section needs to be rewritten. I have been working on a revised stereopsis section and have drawn a figure to illustrate it, but I haven't yet made the change. Although I have expertise about perception, I've only been editing for a few months, and I'm still a bit hesitant about making major changes. If you would be willing to preview a rewrite of the stereopsis section, I'd be delighted.

The whole Depth perception article has a basic problem -- it confounds object-relative cues and subject-relative distance cues. There is a paragraph at thre end of the Binocular cues section that deals with this, but it seems to me that this distinction should be made early on in the article, so that the discussion of each cue can refer to it as giving information about the subject-relative distance of an object from the eyes -- such as accommodation -- or giving information about the three-dimensionality of an object (i.e. object-relative distance from its front edge to its back edge) -- such as stereopsis or the kinetic depth effect. I had been thinking about proposing such a rewrite on the Talk page and inviting you and a few other experienced contributors to comment. Do you think that would be a good idea? Brazzit (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Brazzit! I agree with you on all three points but I don't have a better picture, and I cannot edit my edit summary. I think it is a good idea to rewrite the article, and I will try to be of help if I can. Lova Falk talk 06:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Lova. I've added a new image that illustrates several of the depth cues listed in the article. I'll work on the other issues and will keep you in the loop. Brazzit (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Like Lova Falk talk 08:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on this question I've posed? I could really use your thoughts on the matter. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

We aren't on the same page...

at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_violations#Is_cutting_and_pasting_press_releases_a_copyright_violation.3F. --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I can live with that. And if the community's decision is far from what I had written, I can live with that as well. Kind regards! Lova Falk talk 08:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Template_talk:Bullying#RfC:_Template_links

You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:Bullying#RfC:_Template_links. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48

Auditory verbal agnosia‎

Hi Lova,

Could you have a look at the recent edits on Auditory verbal agnosia by what appears to be a group of students. They seem to be adding confusion and unrelated contant, which may belong in other article if at all. dolfrog (talk) 11:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dolfrog! I took a look and fixed a section, but copyediting the other sections simply felt too demanding. I'm sorry! Lova Falk talk 09:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Inferiority complex

Hey, Lova ... I see you are a frequent editor at Inferiority complex. You might want to watch out for this fellow, who has a history of logging out of his main account to edit war there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia and thank you for your warning! Lova Falk talk 19:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Self-consciousness

Hi Lova Falk, I've raised my concern over the recent revamping of this article at its talk page, and want to drop you a line as well. The subject is not my bailiwick, but if it were an article on art I'd probably revert to the previous version; my take is the rewriting is overly technical and doesn't furnish a simple overview of the subject. Enjoy the holiday, and thanks in advance for any clarity you can provide. Cheers, JNW (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi JNW, as you can see, I fully agree with you and have now reverted. Have a good time, cheers! Lova Falk talk 09:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Visual Science

Hi Lova, I noticed your request that I flesh out a page on Genetic Epistemology. Perhaps in time. On your user page, noted a link about visualization in science. Interests me a lot. Are you familiar with Santiago Ramon y Cajal? He was a Nobel winner, a contemporary of Freud, and one of the great neuroscientists of all time. Started as an artist, became an experimentalist, established that neurons exist. He drew, like no other scientist. The drawings were his science. http://neuroportraits.eu/portrait/santiago-ram%C3%B3n-y-cajal BrianMC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.117.214 (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi BrianMC, thank you for your link to Santiago Ramon y Cajal! I had heard about him as a neuroscientist, but not as an artist. Beautiful! Lova Falk talk 19:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Sadistic personality disorder

Because SPD is no longer recognized by the DSM, it would be helpful for researchers who are interested in studying SPD to know that personality psychologists are currently studying similar tendencies. I would appreciate it if you took this into consideration before removing the "everyday sadism" section yet again. Thank you. Erin E. Buckels