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. Archive 1 - archive 2 - archive 3.

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

== Sensory Processing Disorder == I hope this is the talk section thats what i hit,if not I apologize in advance, for that and any typos i have made.

Hi as an early childhood educator but much more importantly a mom of an add/ SPD kiddo, I found then intro into SPD to be lacking. it doesn't give the reader the clear understanding that this is a disorder that deals with an overload of stimuli, and the meltdowns that happen because of them,. when I read the intro, i was actually really upset, you made it sound like it wasnt that bad of a situation get rid of some tags and you're golden when in fact, it affects the way a child sees not only hid world but himself it lowers self esteem. SMD,with SOR kiddos are in a constant state of fright,flight, freeze or fight.. I'm sorry but as a mother who has dealt with this for more years than id like to count, every day, feels this page leaves a lot out. transitions, how it can physically hurts a childs eyes and ears, its not just loud sounds. 'my child eats 2 items and throws up everything else,because it all smells like vomit, thats how SPD affects kids!The books you didn't want apart of the page, i wish you'd read and then you would see why i feel so much has been left out. thank you, respectfully 'dawn f dawn fillinger 05:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

Great! Lova Falk talk 18:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Like Lova Falk talk 08:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.206.25 (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed that you were a supporter of the article above and may be interested in it being proposed for deletion in a few days time. The discussion is here >> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal relationship skills . Geoffjw1978 ^{T L C} 00:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for telling me, but I have no opinion in this matter. Lova Falk talk 07:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure. It's good to talk. Geoffjw1978 ^{T L C} 01:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the standards of sources on nightmare disorder. There's only a few studies I can find on the topic (that aren't single case) [1] [2] [3] [4] but since there aren't many studies there is not enough information about it. I'm not a medical student so I don't know the review process on studies but there are some people out there who are interested in it and people are investigating it. It wouldn't hurt to mention a sentence in that people are researching if there's a possible solution with lucid dreaming. I'm sorry about just copying it into the article without looking into it better. --South19 (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi South19, thank you for your message! I re-added the lucid dreaming, basically in the way you mentioned it here. I hope you like it, and if not, please edit! With kind regards, Lova Falk talk 20:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Lova Falk; Your name on the DSM-5 edit page indicated you might have the actual manual available. On the Schizophrenia Talk page, there is a list of DSM-5 transition edits identified for upgrade from DMS-4 residual edits still on the old version of the Page being currently displayed. This is one of the few FA psychology pages and can use a little help or comment. Things have been slowed down in making the DSM-5 transition edits there since not all the editors at that wikipage actually have the DSM-5 in hand. Could you glance at this? BillMoyers (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi BillMoyers, just an excerpt. Also, unfortunately I don't have the time to engage in such a big project. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 20:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Lova Falk; With appreciation for your pdf on my Talk page, I am a supporter of the DSM4 and DSM5 updates to ICD10. Have you seen this very old and parochial paragraph on the "Schiz." page: "Schneiderian classification[edit] In the early 20th century, the psychiatrist Kurt Schneider listed the forms of psychotic symptoms that he thought distinguished schizophrenia from other psychotic disorders, ETC." It would be far preferable to see the definition from page 2 of your PDF which you sent to me reworked and to replace the currently displayed obsolete "Schneiderian" paragraph. If you could somehow rework that paragraph (if time should ever allow) in your PDF from the definition given on its second page, it would certainly be supported as pertinent. The parochial paragraph on "Schneiderian" could simply be moved to the History section already there at the bottom of the "Schiz." wikipage. It would be a genuine improvement. If kept to a short paragraph, possibly you could glance at it. BillMoyers (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi BillMoyers, why don't you give it a go, and I'll have a look at it when you're done? Lova Falk talk 19:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Lova Falk; Edit is placed. After some thought it seemed that the rendering of the update to ICD-10 would be more timely since the DSM edits are "in transition anyway." Could you check the wording when you have the chance? BillMoyers (talk) 06:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Lova,

I have been editing the FOXP2 and human evolution article in recent days, I think it could do with some copy editing and restructuring, may be you could take a look if you have time. best wishes dolfrog (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi dolfrog! I'm sorry. Too little time, too many other things I would like to do... Lova Falk talk 09:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey! I noticed you were watching personality psychology some time earlier this year, and was curious what you thought of the cleanup template, last updated in April 2012 under the following reasoning: "article needs referencing, general cleanup to follow the MoS and removal of original research. This article contains embedded lists that may be poorly defined, unverified or indiscriminate". As it stands, it seems many of the issues have been addressed in some way (and to some extent were exaggerated by that editor, with reference to the GA review). As I am intending on working on the page with copyediting, I was curious what you thought of the state of the article, especially the criticisms of content verifiability. If you had any advice, I would be very grateful for it. Thanks in advance, Techhead7890 (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Personality psychology/to do, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi QVVERTYVS. Thank you for notifying me. However, I did not create this page, the template ((todo)) did. Please check WP:TODO for a description of this template. Met vriendelijke groeten. Lova Falk talk 15:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And I didn't really post this message, Twinkle did. I'll nominate the redirect for CSD. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

QVVERTYVS Why do you put the template back when another editor had removed it, without even motivating what you do, or answer my reply to this notice??? Lova Falk talk 19:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see that other edit. I don't really understand this, since WP:TODO clearly states that the to do list should be on the talk page. I'll head over to Wikipedia talk:To-do list to ask what the status of this is. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for answering! Please check the templates on Talk:Personality psychology! There it is, the list that I created in the todo-template. For some reason, this template is not made or edited on the talk page but on a separate page. Lova Falk talk 19:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lova Falk, you make it difficult to understand which edit you are referring to on my talk page - I made 2 edits. In any event, there was no error, no "illusion" and certainly no serious error that you reference in PTSD. What I inserted is asserted in the very same reference, as I noted in my comment. You can check (and should have) before you made what I regard as an unduly inflammatory editing note. As for the part of the passage I omitted, once again, the statement left behind was still supported by the reference. The statement "more likely to experience more high impact trauma" is incomprehensible, but I'd like to hear what YOU think it means before I revert. QuintBy (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

QuintBy, I did check the source and even added page number. Page seven. "men tend to experience more traumatic events than women, but women experience higher impact events (i.e. those that are more likely to lead to PTSD;" Now some previous editor changed "higher impact events" into "more high impact trauma", and if you would have changed this wording because you think that makes more sense, that would have been fine with me. But you wrote: "although this may in part be because the criteria used to define PTSD is more oriented towards women's reactions than men's."<ref name="National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health UK 2005" />. I did not read the entire source, but I did do a search first with the word criteria, which rendered many results that I glanced through, followed by a search with the word women that I checked more thoroughly to see if there was any mentioning of criteria being more oriented to women than to men, and I did not find it.

For me, this is a very serious matter. You changed sourced content and kept the source, suggesting that the source does support what you said, when it does not. However, I also thought about my phrasing in my editing note. A serious mistake is still a mistake. Everybody can and does make mistakes.

If I made a mistake, and your edit is supported by the source, I sincerely apologize. But please tell me on what page the source supports your statement that the criteria used to define PTSD is more oriented towards women's reactions than men's. Lova Falk talk 08:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For your benefit I will provide you with the page reference in the source when I get the opportunity. I note that the reference as it stood made no specific reference to a page number, a faux pas which is often used by the original provider of the source to disguise a WP:POV statement. I would suggest to you that in making a blanket statement that simply parrots a primary source, particularly one which is inherently sexist in nature, you are further a politicized version of PTSD, which in fact affect men as much or more than it does women.

As for the phrases "higher impact events" or "more high-impact trauma", NEITHER one is comprehensible. I still cannot tell whether you are referring to high-impact physical events such as motor vehicle accidents, or whether you are suggesting that the trauma experienced by women is somehow "high impact" psychologically. Certainly, there's no such language in DSM V. In any event, you need to clean this up to make it apparent what your meaning is.QuintBy (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I didn't mean to wipe the PSTD article, was making a minor hatnote edit, connectivity problem did the rest. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Connectivity prolems can happen to all of us. Lova Falk talk 10:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not change my stuff without asking. My edits are well researched and double checked. Please restore my edits to the way they were. The content I removed was bunk and rightly should not be there.

paulsheer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulsheer (talk • contribs) 15:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Paulsheer! Thank you for your comment. In Wikipedia there is no such thing as "my stuff". All text is everybody's stuff, with the possible exception of your user page, which I did not touch. The sections you deleted were all sourced and worked on by many editors, and just to say it is "bunk" does not constitute a good argument for removing them. If you would like to remove these sections, please start a discussion on Talk:Emotional intelligence stating your arguments, and then see if you can find consensus with other editors. I might agree with you if you have good arguments. Lova Falk talk 16:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That does not make sense. If the edits were not "mine" then why contact me to explain? The text I removed was previously inserted by a self-promoting charlatan. I explained my edits under "Subjective Self Promotion" in the Talk page. There may be source citations, however because you have not actually read the sources you are unable to see that the sources do not back up the material. A source is not sufficient reason for a sentence within a Wikipedia article. The source must ALSO actually support the sentence that cites it. I can also put up a web page that explains how "Lova Falk" is a leading expert in Dental Reconstruction, it does not mean that you are. If you are not going to THINK, and instead are merely going to mindlessly move words around on your screen, then you are providing no value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulsheer (talk • contribs) 21:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paulsheer, I have encounter very nearly the same problem as you have with this editor insofar as statements failing to actually be backed up by blanket references rather than to page numbers. You have my sympathy and my support.QuintBy (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm only a gnome, Lova Falk, so I'm very grateful for your many contributions to pages in my interests—e.g. psychiatry and mental illness. Your recent edit to the Bipolar II page was quite justified for the poor sourcing, but Cobain and Reznor are two very popular figures generally known/accepted as bipolar. (Or at least Cobain is very popular, and Albert Laskar is whatever.) It's helpful to know of public figures—bigger than Demi Lovato—with a diagnosis, if only to contextualize the personal. So I've restored them for now and thrown up some ^{[citation needed]}s as a stopgap, which admittedly look ridiculous for the Reznor claim especially. I'll look for authoritative sources presently. Thanks! --StringRay (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi StringRay! Thank you for your friendly comment! Did you ever see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons? It says: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. [...] We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. [...] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material." I guess that is why Neonorange removed them. Lova Falk talk 07:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the kind words to the group from my class who worked on the Equipotentiality article. James Council (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome! Lova Falk talk 15:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Wikipedia:Peer review/Olfactory reference syndrome/archive1

Hi, Lova Falk. My posts on WTMED and WTPSYCH have gone unanswered for over a week =/

I am wondering if you would be interested in giving some feedback on olfactory reference syndrome prior to GAN? Failing this, would you be interested in directing me to someone who might be interested in this task (regarding the busy notification on your talk page). Kind regards, Lesion (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Lesion, thank you for your request. I had never even heard of this syndrome. I checked the article and I was really impressed by the job you did. However, I do not have the time for a thorough review, there are so many other things on my to-do list! With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 08:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Understood, thanks. Lesion (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed that you worked on Sycophancy. An article pertaining to this, Sycophant has been nominated for AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sycophant. A discussion is also taking place at Talk:Sycophant#Deletion of content. Your thoughts on this would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sycophancy#Merge with Sycophant?. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thanks 4 your user page. it's neat!--rp70.57.88.158 (talk) 07:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

and thank you 4 reading it! Lova Falk talk 15:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up that facticity I pointed out.

Cheers,

-dlj. David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome, even though I've forgotten which facticity you pointed out... Lova Falk talk 15:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Medicine Barnstar
		You were one of the top 10 medical contributors to Wikipedia in 2013. Many thanks for all your hard work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your words of encouragement. Questions-- Why does attachment seem to appear so suddenly around or after 6 months? Can attachment develop if an infant doesn't begin to bond to caregivers after birth? Or is the sudden, intense protest of separation an indication of the brain having reached a tipping point of development? The term pre-attachment seems to suggest that the first months are not crucially important in developing secure attachment. Have you seen my recent comments on the Attachment Theory talk page? Margaret9mary (can't remember my original password)205.167.120.201 (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Lova Falk! I pinged you recently on WP:ANATOMY because of the work I've seen you do on the Sex Differences suite of articles. In summary, there is a stack of articles about sexual differentiation that are under WP:ANATOMY and I feel that this means that a lot of information is duplicated, and also that I don't think readers can easily find what they're looking for, which isn't ideal. I provided a list on the thread.

I really like the clear structure of the Sex Differences articles you've worked on, and also feel they're quite well-written and easy to understand. Sexual Differentiation isn't exactly the same topic, but close enough that I think you'd have some good ideas about how to improve the structure. I'd be grateful if you could leave a comment or participate in the discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anatomy#Sexual_differentiation_articles Cheers, --LT910001 (talk) 07:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.

• Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
• You can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with ((WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=)) with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
• You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
• We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
• Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
• Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
• To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • ((subst:WP Physiology–invite)) ~~~~
• To welcome editors of physiology articles, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • ((subst:WP Physiology–welcome)) ~~~~
• You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.

Hoping for your cooperation! Diptanshu^Talk 12:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

please help translate this message into the local language

	The Cure Award
	In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I tempt you to chip in at Talk:Emotional intelligence#Undue negative weight .3F ? Thanks.--Penbat (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Emotional dysregulation. Thanks. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a ((Talkback)) message on my talk page. @ 06:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings! Since I found your name on the Notice board for autism-related topics, I figured you might be interested in the recently created WikiProject Autism. Muffinator (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia ads	file info – #251

A unique image file deletion discussion is currently being conducted at this page, which may be of interest to you, and others with an interest in disabilities. (In particular, please see 2nd paragraph). CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 08:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

.

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks!
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of National Names 2000 10:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Reply[reply]