User talk:Wiki psych21

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Wiki psych21! Thank you for your contributions. I am DRAGON BOOSTER and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 13:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dragon booster, thanks for the warm welcome. I am still acting a bit clumsy and I am grateful for all the people who (still have to) clean up after me. Yet, my learning curve is getting better and I hope to pay back one time, --Wiki psych21 (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them.) WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN.

While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which has a button "Cite" click on it
Then click on "Automatic" or "Manual"
For Manual: Choose the most appropriate template and fill in the details, then click "Insert"
For Automatic: Paste the URL or PMID/PMC and click "Generate" and if the article is available on PubMed Central, Citoid will populate a citation which can be inserted by clicking "Insert"

We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Medical references

Hi, please see WP:MEDRS. We don't cite primary medical studies, only reviews or textbooks. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing available for Decoupling appears to be very weak (in Wikipedia standards). I've moved the article to draftspace under the title Draft:Decoupling for body-focused repetitive behaviors, feel free to move it back when you feel the sourcing is good enough. If you are involved with writing this manual (it appeared you might be from the fact that you mentioned it in the body text), you might want to read our guide for those with a conflict of interest. Feel free to write on my talk page if you need assistance, the Teahouse is also often helpful. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Thjarkur, thanks for taking the time to read my contribution. I kindly ask you to undo the deletion (of course, I am fine with editing) for two reasons: a number of sentences in that particular article are even unquoted (e.g., that no treatment is sometimes recommended) or have dubious quotes (unclear source) so that I do not understand why my edit (with references) should be inferior. More importantly, I can also provide a quote from a meta-analysis, which was published in a well-respected journal (J Affect Dis, doi:10.1016/j.jad.2011.04.051). Yours, --Wiki psych21 (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw that you deleted other edits as well. Perhaps we can find a compromise here because it would be very unfair in my opinion to delete statements such as mine with evidence-based quotes but leave other statements that have no reference or rely on single studies, too. Perhaps quote the meta-analysis (see above)? Yours, --Wiki psych21 (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please use high quality review articles rather than small primary sources. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Doc James, thanks a lot. I have edited the site on "habit reversal training" accordingly and now cited a review from a good journal (Journal of Affective Disorders, IF: 4.08), yours Wiki psych21 (talk) 09:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decoupling for body-focused repetitive behaviors moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Decoupling for body-focused repetitive behaviors, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mccapra, thank you. As advised, I will add references. There is a new independent review available, yours --Wiki psych21 (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mccapra, I just made some changes and would be grateful if the article could be made visible as a regular wikipedia article again. Yours, --Wiki psych21 (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Decoupling for body-focused repetitive behaviors has been accepted

Decoupling for body-focused repetitive behaviors, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Zanimum (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Imaginal retraining (July 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Enterprisey was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Relies almost entirely on papers from the same group of co-authors. I found more sources for the topic of "approach-avoidance tasks". Based on sources, that topic has a much higher chance of being an article - maybe create it, and then this technique could be a section of it? I think it would serve Wikipedia readers better to present this topic in context - see WP:PAGEDECIDE. I'm also not sure this variant of AAT is significantly different that it should have its own article, just on the basis of examining what the technique actually is. This topic could also receive a section in a hypothetical article on "retraining" (as in the technique, not our current article at Retraining), which the papers cited here say it's a variant of.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Imaginal retraining and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Imaginal retraining, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Enterprisey (talk!) 04:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wiki psych21! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Enterprisey (talk!) 04:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Enterprisey, I am disappointed but fully understand your points and agree that a broader category like "Retraining" where "Imaginal Retraining" is one of several subsections is perhaps a better idea. Can I just rewrite "Imaginal retraining" to "Retraining" (with a broader coverage of contents) or do you advise to create a new wikipedia page. Again, I agree with your points, yours Wiki psych21 (talk) 08:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Retraining" could work; I can't really find that many sources on it, but you're the experts, so I'm sure you could do better than me. You can use the "Move" option - see HELP:MOVE - to rename the page to "Retraining" (or whatever title you would like). Enterprisey (talk!) 05:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, yours, Wiki psych21 (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

Hello, Wiki psych21. We welcome your contributions, but it appears as if your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to add citations to research published by a small group of researchers.

Scientific articles should mainly reference review articles to ensure that the information added is trusted by the scientific community.

Editing in this way is also a violation of the policy against using Wikipedia for promotion and is a form of conflict of interest in Wikipedia – please see WP:SELFCITE and WP:MEDCOI. The editing community considers excessive self-citing to be a form of spamming on Wikipedia (WP:REFSPAM) and the edits will be reviewed and the citations removed where it was not appropriate to add them.

Finally, please be aware that the editing community highly values expert contributors – please see WP:EXPERT. I do hope you will consider contributing more broadly. If you wish to contribute, please first consider citing review articles written by other researchers in your field and which are already highly cited in the literature. If you wish to cite your own research, please start a new thread on the article talk page and add {{requestedit}} to ask a volunteer to review whether or not the citation should be added.

MrOllie (talk) 13:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I understand, no bad intentions, will go to the tea room soon to get further input/advice, yours ≈

Hello MrOllie and wiki psych21. I hope you are well. I saw the many edits/reversions made yesterday and would like to offer my help -- I also hope for your understanding that I have created a new account as I do not want to get between the lines (eg that my intervention as a "referee" backfires on me and my own entries) -- I am a researcher on anxiety and depression and I am active in some of the pages in question -- I do not feel that I have a conflict of interest as I am not affiliated with the authors in question (Moritz, @MrOllie: someone else?). From my perspective a compromise seems possible in some cases after a shallow preliminary survey; in some instances however I lean towards MrOllie. For example, the citation on meta-cognitive training is on an original work. A review would be required as a reliable source. Please allow me some time to review the pages -- I wish you all the best, Referee-a (talk) 06:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Referee-a, I would suggest you edit more generally for a while, first. Most editors who deal with COI editors will assume that brand new accounts in these circumstances are not actually brand new persons. MrOllie (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MrOllie, I understand these concerns -- I will do as advised but really want to help here. I agree that meta-cognitive training was deleted in the depression page. Yet, ACT might be worth mentioning. Will look at the other sites in the coming days -- I wish you all the best, Referee-a (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Imaginal retraining

Hello, Wiki psych21. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Imaginal retraining, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Imaginal retraining

Hello, Wiki psych21. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Imaginal retraining".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Imaginal retraining

Hello, Wiki psych21. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Imaginal retraining".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]