User talk:Carrieruggieri/Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy

please help me identify words, sentences, sections etc...

Please identify by underlining or highlighting problematic words, statements. or whole sections that seem:

-like an advertisement

-a weasel word or sentence

-biased or a personal reflection.

I am happy to have someone delete what seems un-encyclopedic - or follow anyone's suggestions.

Questions:

- are there too many internal links? is all the blue distracting?

Should I rid of the "map of the change process" and summarize it in a paragraph format?

@Dawkin Verbier Carrieruggieri (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrieruggieri - I have added some comments throughout the article. Do note that this is not standard - most reviewers will not do that. Additionally, words like "innovation" should probably be avoided, even if attributed. Feel free to tag me - I only did a quick once-over of the draft but I'm sure more could be done casualdejekyll 20:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I think the map of the change process should be scrapped casualdejekyll 20:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your time and helpful comments. I will work on all of it over the weekend. You pointed out where the article gets too 'in the weeds.' There is also the problem that the jargon words are also words for concepts that underly the theoy. I have a core concepts section where I define the some of jargon words you identified. Maybe it makes more sense to use common language and put the jargon word in parentheses? Should I keep the core concepts section but put it at the beginning? I will work on this over the weekend. Carrieruggieri (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have this on my watchlist for some reason so took a glance, I got as far as "based upon several conceptual premises as points of departure from the prevailing psychodynamic psychotherapies" and you lost me, I have zero idea what that is intended to mean and perhaps there is a simpler more direct way of describing it? Theroadislong (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrieruggieri, Casualdejekyll, Dawkin Verbier, and Theroadislong: You should NOT be editing this article as a cut-and-paste job here, because you are splitting the edit history, which is bad. What you need to do is make a move request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to have Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy (with all its edit history) moved to Draft:Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy, where you can edit it with all the edit history preserved in one place. After the move a fresh redirect should be created at Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy to Diana Fosha. Biogeographist (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, but I have NOT edited the article? Theroadislong (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong: You edited the talk page, and what I said applies to the talk page as well: The WP:RM should move the original talk page (Talk:Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy) along with the article. Biogeographist (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you want me to stop commenting here and comment on a page that doesn't exist yet? I'll just remove from my watchlist. Theroadislong (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about you personally; I was just alerting editors whom I thought might be interested based on the fact that they edited this page or the talk page or were mentioned on it. And Talk:Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy already exists with an extensive edit history; it just needs to be moved. Biogeographist (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Should I ask someone to move it? Who do I ask? Should I wait to continue to work on it? Carrieruggieri (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The request procedure is explained at Wikipedia:Requested moves. But before submitting a request you need to decide whether you want to (1) continue working on the separate AEDP article in draft space or (2) edit the AEDP section of Diana Fosha in main space as Casualdejekyll recommended to you last week at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1172 § article that was published is completely gone from site. If you want to do option 2, then you don't need to do a requested move; you can just use this page as a sandbox to prepare material for the AEDP section of Diana Fosha, however, when you copy text from this article to the Diana Fosha article, you should make clear in the edit summary that you are not necessarily the sole author of all the text, since other editors have edited it in the past. If you want to do option 1, then it would be better to move the AEDP article to draft space to preserve the continuity of its edit history. The main issue in both cases is that Wikipedia:Copyrights policy requires that attribution be given to all editors who have edited a given text (see also the Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia guideline). In option 1, that requirement is accomplished through the integrity and continuity of the edit history of the separate AEDP article, whereas in option 2 it is accomplished by explicitly including attribution in edit summaries, which is less convenient since you have to include such attribution for basically everything you copy from this article to the Diana Fosha article. Biogeographist (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Biogeographist, I was confused by the options above back in December 2022 and then in January I broke my hip and I am just now coming back to this after such a long delay! I have been re-reading the history of the problems with the page. I have also noticed that the full entry I wrote is not anywhere. [BTW, I saw someone from the aedp institute wrote on the Diana Fosha page asking what happened to it and also asking if TM can be added to mentions of AEDP and if the spelled out acronym can be replace with aedptm because they are trying to trademark AEDP and in order to do that they must eliminate the spelled out version where it exists on the internet.]

Separate from that: I don't think it makes sense for someone to re-write the entry from scratch! At least the 3rd party references I found are useful to someone who wants to write the article. It was a tremendous amount of work to find the 3rd party references and read it for the attribution to make sure it is a reference for what I am saying, or to help me write what explains aedp. The bones are there, it appears that problem is that certain people think it's promotional. Nevertheless, AEDP meets wikipedia criteria for notability: APA (American psychological association) lists in its list of therapies, published its latest book and APA peer reviewed journals publish its articles. some wikipedia editors have commented that the article is well-written and well-resourced (although it has also been criticized for "reference bombing"). As you know, I have been writing this article since 2014 (it was 1st published in 2016) then taken down after 4 years and then republished after I made all the necessary corrections, of which you were very helpful) and published again in 2020. And now it is down again because I added a citation to the a new research article, but unfortunately with wording that appeared promotional. I made the correction, but nevertheless, it seems disappeared altogether.

I don't know who might be out there who would be willing to re-write this article, who can sort through all the readings, formulate an understanding and write about it using primarily 3rd party references (which requires finding them, reading them etc...). And how unnecessary because it has already been done, by me. I have asked, several times, if someone in wiki psych could contribute to my effort, or even take it over. I have not received a response. Could we at least get the article back onto a draft page? At least all the hard work over the years will be useful to someone from wiki psych whenever they have the time for it. Carrieruggieri (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]