User talk:Lavinia Wilhelmine

Please use this page if you have objections to my proposed editing changes. Lavinia Wilhelmine (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Lavinia Wilhelmine! I am MartinPoulter and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions check out Wikipedia:Questions, or feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. Again, welcome!

MartinPoulter (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I don't recommend asking lots of individual editors for help with an article. Instead, head over to the Talk page of WP:PSYCHOLOGY and post a note there. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Messages

Is it possible to send private messages to other Wikipedia users, that is, messages that aren't visible to others? Lavinia Wilhelmine (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you can e-mail them. However, this will only work between users each of whom have their email enabled; yours is not. To fix this, go to your preferences, at the bottom of the first page under the heading "E-mail options", enter your e-mail and then make sure the box for "Enable e-mail from other users" is ticked. Now, when you navigate to another user's talk page you should see a link for "E-mail this user" in the dropdown toolbox menu on the left hand side of the page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chat program

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I feel bad asking such basic questions, but I've found it difficult to orientate myself here. I note there's a chat program here, but also that there are objections to using it. What are the most important ones? Lavinia Wilhelmine (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi we have a chat service with various channels, such as a help channel and a general Wikipedia discussion channel. The most notable objection to using the chat is that your IP address is visable. This means people can work out what city you are in but not your actual address, and people can also tell if you are connecting from public computer, like library of school. But it is really up to you to decide, its no more information than what we get if you edit Wikipedia without an account. Once your account is 3 months + has 250+ edits and an e-mail address you can apply for this information to be hidden. The chat service is called IRC which stands for Internet relay chat. Click here to access it. I hope this helps Jamietw (talk) 05:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

If it's true that people can only work out what city you are in and not your address, why, then, is there talk about concern for anonymity? Thanks. Lavinia Wilhelmine (talk) 11:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can sometimes be traced to a public library or school but not to a personal address. You can however find your internet service provider e.g. BT or Sky. Even still when I try to trace my IP it come back that I live about 15mins drive from the place I actually live in. Jamietw (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the main objection is, that some feel it is clandestine; that discussion take place in IRC which are not available for other editors to view (in the way that on-wiki discussion are). Chzz ► 21:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the transmission of information

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I'm in doubt as to how I should transfer information from the research literature to Wikipedia. My dilemma is that it's already written in its best form, so it's tempting to quote it, but as the information is developed over many sentences, it would mean I would have to quote large texts at a time. How am I to circumvent this? Thanks Lavinia Wilhelmine (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is to paraphrase: write original text, but summarising the factual content of the original literature. The sources may well be written in the "best form" for their target audience of other researchers, but Wikipedia is aimed at a general audience and we assume little background knowledge, so the "best form" for Wikipedia can be quite different. In writing Wikipedia articles, you can structure information that you've drawn from a variety of sources in an original way. Quoting long passages is inadvisable. Summarising and paraphrasing is what a student does when they write an essay having read the set readings, or what a journalist does when they write an article based on interviews, or what an encyclopedia writer does when they create an overview of published sources. Hope this helps, MartinPoulter (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible tag on the "Child neglect" article

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I'm wondering whether I should put a tag on the "Child neglect" article remarking that it is lacking, as it seems I have received some support for this. If so, am I permitted to do so and how do I do it? I plan on improving the article myself but it might take some time. Thanks. Lavinia Wilhelmine (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'll want to look at CLEANUP templates. Pick the one that fits and add it as described on the page. Ocaasi ^c 16:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tryouts

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I'm paraphrasing from The APSAC Handbook on CHILD MALTREATMENT: THIRD EDITION. It's combined information from different pages, it's almost completely just a rearrangement of the words and by no means comprehensive. Please comment and feel free to make suggestions.

Consequences

The quiet assault of neglect often does at least as much damage, although the bruises and scars of physical child abuse are more readily apparent. It is sometimes obvious (e.g., the unkempt appearance of the child who chronically comes to school without a bath or adequate clothing) and sometimes nearly invisible until it is too late. Awareness of neglect expanded in the late 1980s to include recognition of the often profound psychological consequences stemming from even the most subtle neglect. Confirming in a very concrete way the harm of maltreatment, advances in brain imaging techonlogy in the 21st century made it possible to study the impact of neglect on the developing brain. Even if it is not immediately obvious, the impact of neglect may become apparent later in the child's development.

It was found learning problems, low self-esteem, and, as children matured, a high incidence of juvenile delinquency in one of the first studies specifically to include neglected children. In another study, Hoffman-Plotkin and Twentyman reported that neglected children interacted less with peers than either abused or nonmaltreated children. Crittenden (1985; Crittenden & Ainsworth, 1989) found that neglected children were passive, tended toward helplessness under stress, and showed significant developmental delays. Both abused and neglected children had language delays or disorders, but the problems of neglected children were more severe, Katz (1992) found in a review of studies from 1975 to 1992. Further, a notable decline in performance was documented when children entered junior high in a longitudinal study of the school behavior and academic achievement of neglected children, a study by Kendall-Tackett and Eckenrode (1996.)

Also, I have the second edition of the APSAC handbook. It seems some of the information there is left out in the newer version. What does that mean for the eventual (archaic) inclusion of that information in the article? Thanks. Lavinia Wilhelmine (talk) 11:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrasing should keep the message but remove unique phrasing. So quiet assault of neglect is either a phrase that would be too close to the original (or if that's your phrase it's a bit too florid a description for encyclopedic writing). Here's a hypothetical rewrite:

Neglect often does at least as much damage as physical abuse, although the bruises and scars are less visible. Neglect is sometimes obvious--an unkempt child, chronically unbathed and poorly dressed--and sometimes nearly invisible. Awareness of neglect expanded in the late 1980s to include recognition of the severe psychological consequences stemming from even the most subtle neglect. Advances in brain imaging technology in the 21st century made it possible to study the impact of neglect on the developing brain, confirming the harm of such maltreatment. Even when not immediately obvious, the impact of neglect may become apparent later in a child's development.

The first study conducted in the area showed learning problems, low self-esteem, a higher incidence of juvenile delinquency in neglected children. Another study by Hoffman-Plotkin and Twentyman reported that neglected children interacted less with peers than either abused or nonmaltreated children. Crittenden found that neglected children were passive, tended toward helplessness under stress, and showed significant developmental delays (1985; Crittenden & Ainsworth, 1989). Both abused and neglected children had language delays or disorders, but the problems of neglected children were more severe, according to a review of studies from 1975 to 1992 (Katz, 1992). Further, a notable decline in performance was documented when children entered junior high in a longitudinal study of the school behavior and academic achievement of neglected children, a study by Kendall-Tackett and Eckenrode (1996.)

Really nice work. Great to see serious academic writing on Wikipedia! Let me know what you think, change whatever you don't like, or rewrite it with some of those ideas in mind. Cheers, Ocaasi ^c 11:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Lavinia Wilhelmine (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I don't have the question of strictness entirely resolved. If it isn't too much trouble, please make a suggestion for an acceptable paraphrase of the following excerpt from the book "Mentalizing in Clinical Practice." I think I'll be able to be more self-reliant after that. Thanks.

"Egeland and Erickson (Egeland 1997); Erickson and Egeland 1996) pinpointed psychological unavailability as a cornerstone of emotional neglect; the term characterizes the behavior of parents who are unresponsive to their child's pleas for warmth and comfort. Psychologically unavailable mothers, for example, are relatively detached and unresponsive, interacting mechanically. These authors' longitudinal research revealed that psychological unavailability had a greater adverse developmental impact than physical neglect and other forms of maltreatment; ironically, this form of maltreatment was the most subtle yet the most pernicious." Lavinia Wilhelmine (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A good resource here is WP:PARAPHRASE. See if it sheds any insight. I'll check in shortly. Another useful tip is to rely on more than one source. This helps to avoid overly close paraphrasing. Cheers, Ocaasi ^c 19:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'll keep reading. Lavinia Wilhelmine (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]