User talk:Fainites/archive 3

2514:

are two particular areas that are quite important here with respect to the Strange Situation. One concerns its ecological validity, the other the issue as to whether attachment functioning is best considered continuously or categorically. Both are issues that, like anything else, have no exact answer to them, but I think I can shed some light on the issue. It is important to note, that the Strange Situation is predominately used in research, not in clinical work. I, nor any responsible attachment researcher would claim it is (although I am sure some clinicians may use it to inform their course of treatment et al.). Whereas Kip thinks I am responding in a reactive manner, I am not, but rather pointing out that, many of the questions he raises in the critique (which is a block quote) have already been addressed quite substantially by attachment researchers. Thanks again for your insight.

1122:

some author called "mercer" I think, "empirical studies are quite rare" and goes on to say "although poor attachment experiences have a real potential for causing poor emotional outcomes, their consequences can be different for children in different situations, and can be influenced by individuals' basic temperamental characteristics. By the time children reach school age they have developed along individual lines to such an extent that early attachment experiences are only one factor among many that determine emotion and behavior. Assessments of Reactive Attachment Disorder at that point may not be possible, as leaders in this area of research have stated.".

791:

it, but you didn't have to do that, and it's not that Ling.Nut's advice was wrong, but that I think you overinterpreted it. You could have simply used a named ref to refer to the same PMID multiple times, as done on the three articles above. Given that you've already done work that didn't need to be done, I'm not sure it makes sense to tell you to undo it. The way you sourced the article will surprise experienced medical reviewers, but once they look closer and realize you didn't source the article to pop psychology books, it should be OK. What I suggest you do is go through your References section and standardize every source as in the sample I did

778:

He correctly said that page numbers are needed on book sources; they aren't needed on journal sources. There are a couple of factors here. First, technically, there's nothing wrong with doing the references the way you've done them, except that on a glance, they make your sourcing appear weaker than it actually is. At first glance, I thought you had sourced most of the article to books (which in that realm, usually means pop psychology books), and I didn't notice what I expect to find on a well-sourced medical article (which is a a lot of journal-published research; notice

1687:

the RAD article (and related ones) for months, and trying to help when I have the time. Concerning the DAD article, it was my intention to try to mitigate somewhat the US perspective that dominates the attachment articles, by giving a little more time and space to the ICD-10 terminology and perspective. I still think that is a worthy goal, but I won't actively object if you were to replace that article with a simple redirect to the RAD page. If you do so, please try to define DAD a little more prominently. In a rush... —

2783: 31: 2201:...my understanding of the Knowledge (XXG) project is that its strength comes from a vast number of people making small changes. However, the process self-selects to self-destruction - to wit, people who have lots of free time get the most power. But those people are usually the ones who are involved in order to gain personal prestige - the antithesis of Knowledge (XXG) in the first place. They're experts in the expert-less community. 2559: 1112:

the past, rather than present experiences; and (2) the uncertainty regarding the benefits wih respect to reduction in psychopathology that follow improvements in attachment security." This work is 1999 and most of the current treatments have been developed since then - but there's nothing I have been able to find in respect of older children or adults who's attachment problems derive from the past.

2471:

test of time and has strong psychometric properties. That is not to say that there aren't weaknesses however. Thus, at the least KingsleyMiller was acting more of a vandal then anyone else. I think the current article with the redirect is the best bet right now. Enough of my rant. Thanks for your helpful guidance. If I get time to add or restructure I will use your ideas for sure.

986:(undent) As per your concerns about 1b, I don't remember seeing anything about this: Apparently there has been a significant increase in the number of children receiving this diagnosis. "However, many children are receiving this diagnosis because of behavior problems that clearly extend beyond the DSM-IV criteria for RAD." Hanson, Rochelle F. & Spratt, Eve G. (2000). 212:, so it stands to reason that Good Article would be the same. If comments are made by an unregistered user, particularly one without a substantial edit history, I don't think those comments would be given much credence. I would encourage you to join in and make comments. It is a great way to gain experience, although sometimes the results are painful! Regards, -- 644:

pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

932:

both need page numbers. I screwed up then. To repeat what I said on the article's Talk: If the entire article is specifically about the topic at hand, then there's usually no reason to give a page number. Upon reflection, that would tend to cover most medical articles, since most of these are about one and only one narrowly scoped topic.

1039:

into the details of RAD was better. Many people think they understand attachment but don't really. Otherwise its not much different really. Have a look. What do you think? I thought the only new section for MedMos would be prognosis. A tricky one as there's no real longditundinal studies. There may be some informed speculation though.

2628:(INDIVIDUALLY OR ALONG WITH OTHER IMAGES) IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN! DO NOT SHARE THE IMAGE WITH OTHERS!" That constitutes a clear "noncommercial use only" statement and therefore the image is not usable. However, an administrator initially declined my request to delete the image, so it may be a moot point. We'll see what happens. -- 799:

the quality of your sources will be more apparent, and the fact that you included page numbers on journal sources even though that wasn't necessary won't be an issue. Please be sure to check in with me, Colin, Fvasconcellos, Eubulides or other reviewers before you go to FAC; you have a very fine start on this article, and I have

1024:

with the narrative more or less as it is, and include a section listing what needs to be known about RAD and asking for information to be added as it is reported? Why not use the great strength of Knowledge (XXG) by clearly stating RAD to be poorly understood, and showing a plan for future discussion as the topic unfolds?

1104:'Fainites-barley' is a form of 'fainites' (ie it has the same effect). The 'barley' part probably derives from 'parley' as in deriving from the French 'parler' (parlez-vous) and meaning to talk as opposed to fight. A rare form of Saxon/Norman linguistic co-operation. Rather like someone I once knew called 'Nigel Godwin'. 1151:

medical training whatsoever) so I'd really just be commenting on the prose. Have you tried Eubulides? He's done some amazing work on the autism articles and has access to medical journals (which I generally don't). Sorry if this is disappointing, but I don't want to promise something I can't achieve.

1131:

Memo: 61 citations. 41 of which = papers published in peer reviewed journal. (Two of these are commentary rather than research). 11 are papers published as chapters of books edited by mainstream 'names' (such as Cassidy and Shavers 'Handbook of Attachment) etc. The books consist of 3 books by Bowlby,

1023:

Because there are so many problems of this kind relative to RAD, I question whether use of the MEDMOS plan is appropriate. To try to fill the gaps is deceptive, implying to readers that more is known than is the case; to leave the gaps as gaps would make a very awkward presentation. Why not simply go

830:

thing I was wondering was whether to put all the papers back in the notes leaving just the few books in the refs. Might look less repetitive. (The books by the way are either Bowlby himself, or three thoroughly pukka mainstream tomes, two of which consist of a series of papers by Names in the field.)

798:

in the user box on my user page), because you've failed to include PMIDs and DOIs on the journal-published research, and to follow the formatting used on most medical articles. On medical articles, one expects to see a preponderance of PMIDs rather than books that anyone can publish. If you do that,

761:

Many thanks. I'm really puzzled by the references thing though. We used to have one that looked like the one on Aspergers. Much neater. Then the GA reviewer said that because several refs had several citations with different page numbers we needed a seperate notes and refs sections so we could put in

391:

from Josephschwartz i'm confused about the procedure to answer you. I can see that you've deleted by original changes and I can see why. The reference Cassidy and Shaver Handbook of Attachment should be good enough to document the necessity for distnguisihing the psychoanbaltyic attachment therpaies

1121:

Zeanah says " given that the data base is so small and so recent, it is not surprising that intervention efforts for RAD are largely unexplored." This was in 2005. The bit from Prior and Glaser about lack of clarity about presentation over the age of 5 is already in the article I think. According to

1005:

Yes its in the first paragraph of 'diagnosis' but its part of the quote from Chaffin. It doesn't look as if its been fully correctly cited. Perhaps it needs to stand on its own two feet a bit more. Its complicated by the 'alternative' diagnosis issue. There are two different forms of diagnosis - one

367:

Thanks for the offer. Unfortunately its not a subject I know much about. I understand it is a 'diagnosis' much favoured by attachment therapists now that all-purpose 'reactive attachment disorder' is becoming somewhat discredited. Next bandwagon to be jumped on is Developmental Trauma Disorder which

65:

A question that crosses my mind--- did someone at some time use this term , Reactive, to differentiate from an attachment disorder that was not a reaction to experience? Analogous to AIDS versus genetic immunodeficiencies? If there was once supposed to be another form of attachment disorder, I never

2470:

critique at the end of an objective page go *if he felt that my unbiased inclusion of other references which complemented the critique were not suitable**. Much of the Rutter quote, while having merit, is often not a concern when using the Strange Situation in research settings. It has proved the

2319:

I'm not sure what you mean when you say you're puzzled. It means I can look at the patient in either paradigm or system and discuss or whatever, and depending on who and how I am talking to I can think in that way and not get confused. Like talking politics and football really when you are familiar

1686:

surprised to learn that the "See also" section should contain only articles unmentioned elsewhere. That seems counterproductive, and contrary to the idea of a useful index to related topics. However, the goal of a FAC should come first, I suppose. I have been admiring your heroic efforts to improve

1150:

next but I suspect it has longer to go. If you are keen to go to FAC soon, then the best I could do is a general impression and some suggestions. If you have plenty other things to keep you occupied and are prepared to wait some weeks.... The topic is one I'm completely unfamiliar with (and I've no

1111:

say it. There's a section in the Handbook (Cassidy and Shaver) of some interest. It says - "The most important constraints on the understanding of treatment, however, are (1) the ucertainty of what is needed for the children (as distinct from the parents|) when their attachment problems derive from

777:

I looked at your GA pass, and I see that you were fortunate to have had the review of a fine editor, Ling.Nut (this is not typical; often editors show up at FAC having followed bad advice given them at GAN by inexperienced reviewers). Ling.Nut's advice was correct, but perhaps you misunderstood.

538:

Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority

85:

I don't see that you moved the Erikson stuff to Attachment Disorder-- and that's fine with me, because even if you could make a convoluted argument that Erikson's trust concept is equivalent to attachment, the paragraph that was in the RAD article didn't make any sense and should just disappear. It

2513:

Fainities, I am in the process of addressing a more readable form of the contemporary issues in re: the Strange Situation on the attachment measures page. In addition to the references, which are quite important, I will attempt to summarize in a sentence or two what the findings suggested. There

2364:

concept of attachment. However, I used DSM as a broad pigeonholing thing for diagnosing legally whether or not there is a disorder and which one it is, while attachment theory is much subtler and more descriptive. An analogy would be DSM defining whether or not a particular level or consumption of

1048:

I'm not sure whether the increased use of diagnosis is referring to attachment therapy notions or mainstream diagnosis. Its a view thats quoted quite frequently. Prior and Glaser give a list of symptoms that are seen as RAD when in fact they are either transformations of disorganised attachment or

790:

where sources are high-quality journal-published reviews, easy to find with one click on the PMID). The other thing is that it's not common or necessary to provide page numbers on journal articles in medical referencing. Now that you've done that, it doesn't seem to be a good use of time to undo

1038:

Well OK. I see what you mean. I've rearranged the sections a little in line with MedMos but haven't actually removed or changed the information. the weakness of this approach is that I think the earlier arrangement whereby there was a brief explanation of the theoretical framework before plunging

931:

Hi All. Sorry if I offered incorrect or at best unhelpfully vague advice. For journals, you use common sense about offering a page number. That's actually what I stated on the article's Talk page. However, here on this talk page (see above) I was more cavalier (and in more of a hurry), and said

829:

OK. Thanks. I think I get it now. I wasn't meaning to criticise Ling.nut. He was excellent. I'm just having some conceptual difficulties! Probably the only 'paper' that needs page numbers is the Taskforce Report which was rather long and doesn't really count as a 'paper' in the same way. The only

1725:

to type em- and en-dashes, and indeed almost any special character you can imagine. When you open an article or section for editing, look down below the text box in which you edit the text. You might have to scroll a few inches downwards. There you will see a huge variety of special symbols. The

655:

A minority of Wikipedians feels so strongly about this problem that they believe Knowledge (XXG) should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of

643:

If we're going to represent the sum total of encyclopedic knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example,

2665:

for details), but sxc.hu is not a free content source and should not be appearing on any lists of such. If it does that's simply a byproduct of anyone beeing eable to edit said list and someone confusing images that can be used free of charge for personal use with material released under a free

2221:

OK, I have left a Game Plan on how to untangle the two concepts on the talk page. Interesting musing on it, when I see patients I have no trouble switching paradigms in my head (i.e. between DSM and Attachment theory) when thinking about or discussing patients, never really put the two concepts

2168:

Fainites, I do want to review the RAD article also, but I have been extremely busy. Maybe later this evening, or tomorrow evening. RAD is somewhat outside my zone of competence (social psychology, statistical methods), though I am really interested in the topic. If possible, we should get some

95:

I left a message on the talkpage saying it didn't seem to fit in AD either, so I've left it on the RAD talkpage itself for consideration. If there is a comparison between the trust concept and attachment, it probably belongs on the atteachment theory page. After all, Bowlby wasn't working in a

2627:

I am truly sorry - I realize our image use policy is hard to understand. The policy does not allow images that have a "noncommercial use only" clause in their license. In the license agreement for the site where you got that image, they clearly state "SELLING AND REDISTRIBUTION OF THE IMAGE

2482:

Also, Fainities, can you inform me as to what the +/- numbers in parentheses mean when I go to my watchlist and see that my comments etc. have been either positive numbered or negatively so? I couldn't find anything on this. I am sure it has to do with something in regard to the value of my

1016:

I'd like to point out that estimates of prevalence are based on very little information, and as a result estimates of increased use of the diagnosis are also weak. In addition, RAD diagnoses are often accompanied by alternate or additional diagnoses presented as co-morbidities. Most children

681:

both books and papers need page numbers, as many as you can get. Books are far easier.. you can almost always get that info from Google books. You might be able to get all the books taken care of in less than two hours; maybe even closer to one hour. Papers are trickier, but even then you can

2695:

Yeah, all the points I brought up have been adequately addressed (the discussion makes it clear that they have been). I still feel the article's a little too technical, which is why I haven't switched to a firm support. But the FAC director will see that my comments have been dealt with.

1082:

It would be fine with me, but I would think an original statement to the effect that there is no such empirically-based information would be OR. There's a difference between failing to say that there's evidence, and saying that there is no evidence. Just trying to follow the guidelines.

803:

writing a decent article in the psychology realm. I'm impressed; I don't want you to get surprises at FAC because of lack of review, so take your time and get the good reviewers on board before you go to FAC (if you want an example of what you don't want to happen, look at the FAC on

1667: 2243:

Sorry to interrupt the mushrooms - but I'm really puzzled now. On the one hand I understand you to be saying that anything that isn't strictly RAD should be removed, yet in several places you seem to be wanting the opposite, ie re attachment in general. Am I missing something here?

2607:

deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and guidelines.

2286:

This "when I see patients I have no trouble switching paradigms in my head (i.e. between DSM and Attachment theory) when thinking about or discussing patients, never really put the two concepts together" really puzzles me Casliber. Most people have trouble the other way around.

392:

from attachment therapy. As a clincian myself I am concerned that the public may be misled about attachment-based psychotherapy. I know this isa charged area but I would prefer simply to have another page/article rather than make the attachment therapy article comprehensive.

2305:

by Robert Karen. Explains how it all ame about and is written in plain english. Most if not all psychiatric concepts are easy to understand if each building block which makes tehm is understood first, it is the layers of successive assumptions one has to come to terms

766:

the books going in the refs and all the page number bits in the notes. I note that Aspergers doesn't do this at all. Is the current system that we're using OK? Most of the refs are in fact peer reviewed papers. Should all the papers go in notes and just books in refs?

136:

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may found at the above link. DPeterson is banned for one year. All parties are reminded of the need for care when editing in an area with a potential conflict of interest. For the Arbitration Committee,

1656:

Thats funny - because the Taskforce say that the DSM say its very uncommon. Heres the passage : "According to the DSM, RAD is presumed to be a “very uncommon” disorder (APA, 1994), although it is a disorder currently drawing considerable attention and interest."

1574:

I will read that article. I remember the Candace Newmaker story from the news. I deliberately avoided reading the sub-articles as I wanted to be like a new reader finding your article on the Main Page, or else looking it up after seeing RAD mentioned somewhere.

554:

I think one needs to watch out for what has been called "pseudosymmetry"-- the journalistic practice of choosing one item out of a thousand scientific reports, and one item out of two pseudoscientific reports, and giving the impression that this is a balanced

1794:

They're all fixed now. Asking a content expert to review, or notifying relevant Projects, isn't canvassing unless you ask them to Support. You will have a very hard time finding content experts in that area, so it will likely be a long FAC. You may enjoy

1412:

Which Zeanah ref is that? Where are you trying to put the Va Ijzendoorn? I'll stick it in for you. Maybe there was an edit conflict just now. 'Nigel' is a Norman name. The upper classes went in for Norman names. Reginald, Miles, Giles, Cosmo - that kind of

1072:

Why? What i mean is - if there's no longitudinal studies and no research on long term effects of RAD and no papers on long term outcomes of the current lot of treatments and no treatments developed for people who 'had' RAD years ago - then why not say

2365:

alcohol consituted alcohol dependence, whereas what I would do psychologically with someone would be to explore more subtle ideas of why, where and what they drink. I am mindful of each but can think separately easily. Does that help at all? cheers,

2203:

So the community automatically becomes run by unstable people who care more about their personal power than the results. And this becomes impossible to stop, because reasonable people by definition will not be obsessed enough to fight the tendency.

1049:

the sequalae of maltreatment. On the other hand, some authorities posit that RAD may in fact be the extreme end of disorganised atachment. I don't see why the article can't fairly present the current state of knowledge - ie that its pretty thin!

1706:

You mentioned you were having difficulties with en- and emdashes. If you are using a Macintosh, they are easy: for the endash type option-hyphen, for the emdash type option-shift-hyphen. If you aren't using a Mac... well, why on earth not? ;-)

1017:

diagnosed with and treated for RAD are seen as outpatients or in private settings, where data are difficult to collect. The Hanson & Spratt statement may be quite accurate (if we could know all), but it is based on limited information.

808:). Ling.Nut is a good reviewer; this was just a misunderstanding of book vs. journal sourcing and the use of page numbers in medical articles, and it's not a big problem. Just standardize the References section to include PMIDs or DOIs. 1394:

Van Ijzendoorn, M.H., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (2006). DRD4 7-repeat polymorphism moderates the association between maternal unresolved loss or trauma and infant disorganization. Attachment & Human Development, 8, 291-307.

1757:

and it will generate a correct cite journal template for you (with the correct dashes). BTW, because there are no active Psych Project members, you're going to have to actively seek editors to review the article. I suggest asking

711:

I have no time left. I have to work on my dissertation.. If you have questions, please EMAIL me (don't leave a message on my talk; I'm going to try not to check it...) when you're re-ready & I'll look at it again then...

1547:

Yes. I've just added some more. If you have the patience for me, I'll try to look at the rest. Sorry this is so protracted. I think it worth asking Eubulides specifically to review how you've handled the controversial stuff.

61:

That's a good part you did about prevalence. Just keep in mind that if diagnosis is not very clearly defined, no estimate of prevalence is going to be especially accurate. Even saying it's rare doesn't really convey much.

2257:

Nod't think so. I am trying to whittle away everything which is exclusively Attachment Theory, leaveing with stuff relevant to RAD. Now RAD on its own is an articifical term, so now we then have to figure what goes back

2465:

Fainites, Thanks for your helpful insight and the links. Since I am quite busy with academia right now :) I often use Knowledge (XXG) as a diversion and then get caught up in it. I was however not going to let Kip's

1310:

Can you find anything on Wiki about Love & Logic, the Foster Cline parent-training outfit? I can't. If there isn't anything, perhaps an article is in order--- except that most of the material is on line, not in

1187:

Hi there. I'll gladly have a look and offer my 2 cents, with one caveat—I'm swamped with work until Monday. Do you think you could wait a while? If you'd rather go ahead with FAC, though, please feel free to. Best,

1752:

The first is an endash (used on page ranges) and the second is an emdash (used for punctuation). More importantly, whenever you're citing a PMID entry, you can just enter the PMID into the PubMed dropdown menu on

649:

Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the

176:

It was not until late in the 1960's that we get his next serious work which was about attachment BUT he did not invent this theory. He turned to it. This explains the gap in his publications from 1953 to 1969.

265:

Although you may not believe others no longer think in terms of MD part of the problem you have found in keeping track of the changes to these pages is that many people still do - please take my word for it.

1141:

Hi Fainites. I'm very busy at the moment in real life. I've got so little time for Knowledge (XXG) and your substantial article looks like it deserves some careful thought. I'm currently devoting my time to

2642:

How weird. How could this ever be commercial? Also - why is this company included in the lists of sites to go to if putting their free images on Wiki counts as commercial use? I'm even more befuddled now.

1086:

I think you mean prospective or retrospective studies-- longitudinal studies deal with developmental change with age, they're not just studies with a long time between causal event and outcome measure.

75:

Maybe it was connected with the belief that autistic children were unattached because some of them avoided eye contact. But at that time autism was thought to be "reactive" too, so i don't know if that

1132:

1 by Ainsworth and two books on the subject in general from mainstream authors and publishers. Other cites are things like the DSM, the Circle of Security project and various assessment measure pages.

638:

How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?

2417:

Well, I honestly intended to review it and never forgot. The fact that I hadn't gotten around to doing something I'd said I would do kept nagging at me. I just haven't had the time I expected, and I

1388:

Let's Barley about something else. I wanted to put something into the RAD article but can't seem to make it work-- perhaps because there's already a citation of another article by the same authors?

2003:

Using "with" as an additive link leads to wordy and awkward prose, e.g. "the town has ten councillors, with one being the district mayor" → "the town has ten councillors; one is the district mayor"

2577:

infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

697:

Thats OK. I have most of the main ones and I believe JeanMercer has access to an academic data base. It just looked clumsy to put them in. Its just that some papers are only a few pages long.

377:

Maybe-- but nowadays there have to be empirical studies showing the existence of a disorder, before it's included. The DSM committees have been warning people about this for several years.

1796: 129: 236:

via a javascript program which spots possible MoS errors which would therefore help improve the article if these points were tackled. Good luck with your drive to obtain GA status!

1491:

I wonder whether this typology did not get very far in replacing RAD, a)because it is difficult to apply it to children over 2 or 3; b) third-party payers still want DSM codes used.

189:

If it would help I can provide a list of the significant errors made by Bowlby's theory of MD taken from, Clinical Implications of Attachment Concepts: Retrospect and Prospect.

938:

The old version of the reference section hasn't been vaporized. :) It still exists in the article's history and can be retrieved if need be. I will glady help in any way I can.

485: 262:

If you take a look at the pages I have created on 'maternal deprivation' and 'Professor Sir Michael Rutter' I have identified major differences with the Attachment theory.

2154:

I will be glad to review the reactive attachment article. Contacting an editor you don't already know is actually a smart thing to do, so you can get a fresh perspective.

302: 307:

I should just like to thank you for your help and to say, despite the considerable improvement, the new page on attachment still needs sorting. Nevertheless many thanks.

1828: 1825: 1964:

Imperial measurements should be accompanied by the metric equivalent in brackets, and vice versa. If possible, use a convertion template, eg. {{convert|5|mi|km|0}}.

839:

FOr now, I don't see it as a good use of your time to undo work you've already done; don't worry about the page numbers. Instead, I would focus on beefing up the

233: 226: 208:

I believe anyone can make comments about the article's qualification for Good Article status. I know that anyone can make comments when articles are nominated as

180:

He could see that he had made a MISTAKE and had to come back with something else. It is to his eterenal discredit or his pride that he never admitted his mistake!

1107:

As for the studies, whether they've got the right name or not, it wouldn't be OR of there was a source saying there's no studies of various types. Its only OR if

2661:). That is not the case with the default sxc.hu license. You may try contacting the photographers directly and requiest a release under terms we can accept (see 2038:

Avoid using the words "circa", "utilise", "whilst", "upon", "commence", "the majority of", "lack", "whereas", "generate", "due to the fact that" and "prior to".

1748:, hyphen (-), endash (–) and emdash (—). Hyphen is on your keyboard, and en and emdash can be found below the edit window, on the bold line that begins with 881:

You don't have to convert to templates by hand; just go to PubMed, find the PMID number, plug it into Diberri's tool, and Diberri returns the full template.

511:, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. 2000:"While" should only be used when emphasising that two events occur at the same time, or when emphasising contrast. It shouldn't be used as an additive link. 1822: 1639:

Fonagy, P., Gergely, G., Jurist, E.L., & Target, M. (2002). Affect regulation, mentalization, and the development of the self. New York: Other Press.

534:: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. 1340:

I hadn't looked at it for a while--- I love their disclaimer! Heck, MY family values say to beat those little guys unconscious, so i guess that's okay.

869:

Template for conversions {{cite journal | author = | title = | journal = | volume = | issue = | pages = | year = | pmid = | doi = | issn = }}

539:

view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute

66:

heard of it. But otherwise why say Reactive at all? After all, every way of developing attachment is a reaction to experience. This is a puzzlement.

209: 1991:

Hyphens shouldn't be placed after -ly words, eg. widely-used word (except if the ly- word could also describe the noun, e.g. friendly-looking man)

1449:

True, but the latter are not cartoon characters. Just attempting to introduce a note of levity-- there's not so much fun since Whack-a-* is over.

1933:

Blogs and personal websites are not reliable sources, unless written by the subject of the article or by an expert on the subject. (GA criteria)

1485:

Boris, N.W., & Zeanah, C.H. (1999) Disturbances and disorders of attachment in infancy: An overview. Infant Mental Health Journal, 20, 1-9.

2438: 2392:

Right. Back again. Sorry, saw the email briefly but can't access it from where I am. I guess if I were you I'd have let it drop but having a

1633:

1) DSM-IV-Tr does not discuss the prevalence or say RAD is uncommon, as far as i can see. Volkmar, and Richters & Volkmar, did say this.

1773: 1269:

Hang on, there's more—and no need to be depressed :) I shouldn't even be on wiki now... I'll leave you a proper answer later, I promise :P

411: 526:, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. 1837:

errors; it's best to approach FAC with a clean article. For example, when adding citations, you must understand the difference between

1279: 1259: 1239: 1219: 1198: 2657:

to be used and one nessesary component of a free license is the posibility to ut for commercial purposes and redistribute freely (See

2029:

Avoid Peacock Terms, such as "beautiful", "famous", "popular", "well-known", "significant", "important" and "obvious". (GA criteria)

935:

The formatting I used provides a means for offering page numbers from books etc., but if it is is inapproapriate, it can go away...

731:

I think Zeanah et al say essentially the same things as Crittenden, and more recently. But, no harm if you want to add this source.

1900:

It is recommended not to specify the size of images. The sizes should be what readers have specified in their user preferences.

1330: 1020:

Also, it seems inappropriate to be positing a mechanism when the disorder itself, if any, has not been sufficiently described.

2498: 2407: 2376: 2331: 2273: 2233: 1769: 1168:

Hi, I wanted to be complete. You may remove that edit. If you do so, then can you put it in the "see also" section, please?

2210: 2197: 1249:

OK, I've left a couple more comments. Sorry for going at this piecemeal, and I hope my comments/edits have been useful.

755: 294: 283:

PS I have also just completed a page on the Michael Rutter Centre for Children and Adolescents, not without its hicups!

1482:

No, the 2005 paper in the edited book does not say much about this as far as I can see. The best reference seems to be

183:

It is very easy to see the consequences of his MISTAKE by looking at some of the comments about his work on the www.

956:

No need, the page nos aren't a big deal. More important now is to focus on filling in missing info per sections at

2790: 38: 269:

What is more is that they believe they are the same thing ie mothers are naturally better parents than fathers.

2541: 2396:

there is pretty enticing. My time is pretty limited but I'll see what I can come up with to help now. cheers,

407: 2026:

Avoid Weasel Words, such as "it is believed that", "is widely regarded as", "some have claimed". (GA criteria)

2821: 1970:

Sentences should not start with a numeral. The sentence should be recast or the number should be spelled out.

1894:

Only full dates or dates with a day and a month should be linked. The same applies to dates in the footnotes.

1744:

I just ran through RAD and found many dashes needed fixing; I'm not sure where you're getting confused. Per

2035:

Avoid vague words, such as "various", "many", "several", "long", "a number of", "just", "very" and "almost".

1522:

I was seriously thinking of changing my name to CissyFuss (with the Fuss in small letters for the talkpage)

1275: 1255: 1235: 1215: 1194: 2574: 2486: 399: 2749: 2731: 2595: 2566: 2552: 1853: 1807: 1784: 1398:

I' m sure I did not do the Zeanah piece's reference according to the recent rules. Would you kindly check?

1058:

Excuse my Wiki-ignorance, but isn't it OR, to come to the conclusion that there's only meager information?

972: 889: 855: 816: 469: 155:

I gave up because of the odds against me and I am glad to see I am not the only person with reservations.

2658: 2537: 2467: 403: 311: 275: 195: 2769: 2633: 2613: 1888:

Wikilinks should only be made if they are relevant to the context. Common words do not need wikilinking.

1647: 1620: 1513: 1499: 1468: 1454: 1431: 1403: 1364: 1345: 1316: 1095: 1063: 1029: 736: 560: 2006:

Beginning a sentence with "there", when "there" doesn't stand for anything, leads to wordy prose, e.g.

1615:

No problem-- I just altered two sentences, one for making sense, the other to be slightly more concise.

1229:

Yes, of course. I'm sorry, I've gotten an unexpected job; I'll leave some more comments at PR tonight.

2017:

The words "current", "recent" & "to date" should be avoided as they become outdated. (GA criteria)

1721:

Silly me, I just remembered that Knowledge (XXG) in its infinite wisdom has provided an easy way for

298: 2662: 2722:

On Zeanah, com'on, we've taught you how to write correct refs now, including PMIDs. <smile: -->

2174: 1735: 1712: 1692: 359: 1948:

Lists should only be included if they can't be made into prose or their own article. (GA criteria)

1838: 957: 844: 2799: 2702: 2519: 2494: 2476: 2448: 2428: 2401: 2370: 2325: 2267: 2227: 2159: 1967:

Whole numbers under 10 should be spelled out as words, except when in lists, tables or infoboxes.

1763: 1642:(yes, it's really Other Press, and mentalization in this context doesn't mean The Amazing Randi.) 1270: 1250: 1230: 1210: 1189: 995: 945: 717: 687: 141: 111: 47: 17: 1930:

Web references preferably should include the language (if not English) and format (if not HTTP).

1915:

An image caption should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence. (GA criteria)

1885:

There should not be anything in the lead not mentioned in the rest of the article. (GA criteria)

961: 462: 259:

You have a very good feel for the subject and the changes you have made are a vast improvement.

2580:

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding

1954:

En dashes are used for ranges, unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes are used for punctuation.

1918:

Statements that are likely to be challenged and statistics need inline citations. (GA criteria)

2742: 2724: 2671: 2533:

Can you go to the Knowledge (XXG) page on 'Human bonding' and tell us what you think, please.

1846: 1800: 1777: 1730:. All you have to do is click on the symbol, and it will appear in the text. Piece of cake. — 1599: 1555:

21:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Oh, and let me know when you've finished fiddling with the refs.

1463:

Sorry-- no wonder your mind wanders to Normans (the Wreck of Norman's Woe-- "Norman! Whoa!").

1326: 1173: 965: 882: 848: 809: 787: 783: 241: 1842: 1754: 1745: 795: 2765: 2666:

content license (happens all the time unfortunately, it's a fairly easy mistake to make). --

2629: 2609: 1643: 1616: 1509: 1495: 1464: 1450: 1427: 1399: 1360: 1341: 1312: 1091: 1059: 1025: 988:

Reactive Attachment Disorder: What We Know about the Disorder and Implications for Treatment

732: 556: 378: 325: 87: 77: 67: 2764:

I think it's fine as it is-- you've given a clear picture of the main emphasis of his work.

2570: 1834: 840: 481: 2585: 1580: 1567: 1560: 1553: 1156: 324:

Guess who's back, and asking for the IRS form on my talk page. I commented on this to FT2.

1973:

Only the first word in a section heading needs a capital letter (except in proper nouns).

1927:

Web references need the author, publisher, publishing date and access date. (GA criteria)

515:

The ArbCom ruled that the following should not be regarded as examples of pseudoscience:

167:

As you will see from the page I have created this theory drew a great deal of criticism.

656:

pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of pseudoscience.

161:

However I would like it noted that the attachment theory was NOT invented by Dr Bowlby.

152:

I have criticised this page in the past and returned to find it amended for the better.

2170: 1731: 1708: 1688: 523: 434: 186:

Many people still believe maternal deprivation and the attachment theory are the same.

2569:

requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge (XXG). This has been done under

2558: 2032:

Avoid informal words, such as "carry out", "pub", "though", "tremendous" and "bigger".

1924:

Book references preferably should include the publisher, city of publication and ISBN.

1726:

en-dash and em-dash are literally the first ones in the list, right after the heading

164:

He was responsible for the theory of Maternal Deprivation which he expounded in 1951.

2697: 2682: 2644: 2599:(just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on 2515: 2490: 2472: 2442: 2422: 2397: 2366: 2321: 2288: 2263: 2245: 2223: 2155: 2141: 1864: 1759: 1669: 1658: 1534: 1523: 1441: 1423: 1414: 1374: 1332: 1290: 1133: 1123: 1113: 1074: 1050: 1040: 1007: 991: 941: 911: 872: 831: 805: 768: 746: 713: 698: 683: 667: 593: 577: 546: 473: 443: 420: 369: 345: 334: 213: 173:

Because of the criticism he received he was forced to go away and rethink his ideas.

138: 120: 97: 2817: 2773: 2753: 2735: 2723:

I'll fix them this time, but I hope you'll lead the way on future psych articles.

2709: 2685: 2675: 2667: 2654: 2647: 2637: 2617: 2545: 2523: 2502: 2452: 2432: 2411: 2380: 2335: 2291: 2277: 2248: 2237: 2178: 2163: 2144: 1867: 1857: 1811: 1788: 1739: 1716: 1696: 1672: 1661: 1651: 1624: 1605: 1593: 1582: 1569: 1537: 1526: 1517: 1503: 1472: 1458: 1444: 1435: 1417: 1407: 1377: 1368: 1349: 1335: 1320: 1293: 1284: 1264: 1244: 1224: 1203: 1177: 1169: 1158: 1136: 1126: 1116: 1099: 1077: 1067: 1053: 1043: 1033: 1010: 999: 976: 949: 914: 893: 875: 859: 834: 820: 771: 749: 740: 721: 701: 691: 670: 596: 580: 564: 549: 495:: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as 446: 437: 423: 381: 372: 362: 348: 337: 328: 314: 278: 246: 237: 220: 198: 144: 123: 114: 100: 90: 86:

could be replaced by something better worked out,if anyone wanted to deal with it.

80: 70: 2262:....if that makes sense. I'll have more time in a day or two to explain. cheers, 1494:

I think DC: 0-3-R mentions this approach, but I can't find my copy at the moment.

745:

I've found a suitable image for the RADpage but it needs a better title I think.

2798:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2020:

Avoid using "not", eg. "songs previously not heard" → "songs previously unheard"

843:

issues, expanding all content sections to encompass the recommended sections at

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1979:

Ampersands should not be used (except when in a name, eg., Marks & Spencer)

1921:

Book references need the author, publishing date and page number. (GA criteria)

1532: 1882:

The lead should adequately summarize the content of the article. (GA criteria)

1576: 1563: 1556: 1549: 1152: 576:

As in 'the jury's still out on global warming', or 'teach the controversy' ?

158:

I understand the 'Attachment' page is being rewritten which is a good thing.

1143: 508: 496: 2653:

Use on Knowledge (XXG) is not commercial, however we require content to be

2437:

I would suggest checking with people who participated in these talk pages:

1939:

Inline citations belong immediately after punctuation marks. (GA criteria)

1508:

P.S. You seem to be engaged in rolling a rock uphill, from what i can see.

1373:

Fainites is OE and barley is OF. 'Nigel' is Norman and 'Godwin' is Saxon.

1845:. Please see my edit summaries of corrections still needed throughout. 1147: 170:

There was no easy progression from this theory to the attachment theory.

1903:

Text should not be sandwiched between two adjacent images. (GA criteria)

1776:. Since I'm the person who closes FACs, I have to stay neutral. Best, 1636:

2) The query about TOM: these statements are supported by discussion in

476:

opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?

1440:

As for Porky Pig, the same would apply to Beefy Cow or Muttony Sheep.

1906:

Left-aligned images should not be placed at the start of subsections.

1592:

Ok, I'll do it tomorrow :) Drop me another note if I forget. Peace,

779: 682:

sometimes find help from the Internet (sometimes... occasionally...)

762:

the page numbers. Which he helped us do. This meant all the papers

368:

I understand will be a more serious contender for inclusion in DSM.

2320:

with it I mean (does that make it any clearer...or not). cheers,

1961:" (non-breaking space) should be typed between numbers and units. 1945:"Further info" links belong at the top of sections. (GA criteria) 1630:

I can't answer those questions for running into edit conflicts!

1209:

Hey, just thought I'd let you know I haven't forgotten :) Best,

1382:

You mean Nigel means Norman, or just that it's a Norman name?

343: 149:

Don't quite understand the jargon but the result is very good.

2777: 2194: 110:

Hi, please see my response to your questions on my talk page.

25: 1982:"Past few years" has a different meaning to "last few years". 433:

Thanks you for you comments under Talk:Lavvu - Take Care...

2603:

explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for

2557: 1976:

Short sections and paragraphs are discouraged. (GA criteria)

1942:

Portal links belong in the "See also" section. (GA criteria)

1909:

All fair-use images need a fair use rationale. (GA criteria)

1891:

A word only needs to be wikilinked once within each section.

1936:

Dead web references should not be removed, unless replaced.

1562:

21:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC) I've asked Eubulides myself.

1897:

External links only belong in the External links section.

499:, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more. 522:: Theories which have a substantial following, such as 847:, and convert your references using Diberri. Regards, 792: 486:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience

472:, about which majority scientific opinion is that the 2169:

clinicians to comment, not just academics like me. —

2301:

A really great book to read on attachment theory is

1359:

Explain what you said a couple of weeks ago, please.

1006:

mainstream and the other from 'attachment therapy'.

2356:see the theoretical links between the two and they 2023:

Avoid contractions, such as can’t, he's or they're.

1951:

Lists within prose should be avoided. (GA criteria)

960:, to assure the article meets 1b, comprehensive of 303:Michael Rutter Centre for Children and Adolescents 442:Not at all. It was what I thought. best of luck. 290:Just to say I am very pleased with my pages on;- 2222:together, bt worth teasing out anyway. cheers, 2041:Avoid phrases with redundant words, such as "is 1146:, which is nearing FAC. I had offered to review 2352:OK, gotcha now. Right. What I meant was that I 2571:section I9 of the criteria for speedy deletion 990:. Child Maltreatment, Vol. 5, No. 2, 137-145. 1772:) to review and you might get some takers at 8: 2573:, because the image appears to be a blatant 2421:I will not have time in the next two weeks. 1994:Most other two-word adjectives need hyphens. 1912:Images need succinct captions. (GA criteria) 507:: Theories which have a following, such as 419:I've put an answer on your talkpage Joseph. 1988:Initials in people's names need full-stops. 484:has described pseudoscience as follows (at 210:Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates 130:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy 2207:And therein lies the doom of a good idea. 2185: 1871: 1682:Thanks for your note on my Talk page. I'm 623: 604: 1985:"within" has a different meaning to "in". 1426:18:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC) Thank you. 1774:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Neuroscience 2808: 2681:Bother! I'll try contacting them then. 2796:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1678:Disinhibited attachment disorder (DAD) 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2439:Category:FA-Class_psychology_articles 1329:but nothing else. Have you seen this 1183:Reactive attachment disorder comments 7: 1875:Epbr123's style and prose checklist 1488:This is the source cited by Reebye. 1385:How about Porky Pig for an example? 801:never yet encountered anyone on Wiki 532:Alternative theoretical formulations 2008:There are ten houses in the village 468:How are we to write articles about 505:Generally considered pseudoscience 358:Coolness. Care to lend a hand? -- 24: 1997:"century" doesn't have a capital. 1391:The article I want to mention is 2815:David Wiernicki, comment in the 2781: 232:This article has undergone some 29: 2360:broadly linked with a similar 1797:Giano's thoughts on canvassing 592:Yes. And "pseusdoscepticism". 221:22:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC) 1: 2686:22:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 2676:22:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 2648:21:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 2638:21:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 2618:14:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 2546:23:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 2524:01:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 2503:18:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC) 2453:17:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 2433:17:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 2412:13:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 2381:23:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC) 2336:04:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC) 2292:22:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC) 2278:18:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC) 2249:13:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC) 2238:11:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC) 2179:03:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC) 2164:23:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 2145:22:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 1868:23:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC) 1812:22:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 1789:22:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 1011:10:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC) 1000:07:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC) 977:04:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC) 950:03:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC) 915:11:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC) 894:00:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC) 876:00:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC) 860:16:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC) 835:16:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC) 821:15:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC) 772:13:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC) 750:22:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC) 741:19:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC) 722:09:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC) 702:20:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC) 692:02:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC) 671:22:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 597:19:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC) 581:09:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC) 565:18:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC) 550:22:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 447:07:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 438:23:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 1863:Think they're all done now. 1858:16:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC) 1833:Fainites, I'm still finding 1824:Memo re 'core competancies' 1740:16:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC) 1717:23:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC) 1697:19:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 1673:15:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 1662:22:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 1652:22:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 1625:18:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 1606:04:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC) 1583:22:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC) 1570:22:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC) 1538:19:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC) 1527:17:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 1518:19:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 1504:18:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 1473:16:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC) 1459:23:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC) 1445:18:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC) 1436:23:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC) 1418:18:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC) 1408:18:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC) 1378:21:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 1369:18:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 1350:00:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 1336:21:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC) 1321:21:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC) 1294:12:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 1285:12:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 1265:01:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 1245:12:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC) 1225:01:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC) 1204:11:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC) 1178:00:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC) 1159:23:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC) 796:Diberri PMID template filler 424:23:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC) 382:23:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC) 373:19:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 363:17:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 349:22:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 338:22:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 329:17:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 315:14:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC) 295:Professor Sir Michael Rutter 279:21:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC) 272:Thank you for your interest 199:23:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 106:Attachment article structure 57:Reactive Attachment Disorder 2014:. The same applies to "it". 1137:16:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 1127:23:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC) 1117:23:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC) 1100:23:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC) 1078:22:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC) 1068:22:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC) 1054:22:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC) 1044:21:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC) 1034:18:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC) 707:hey, real life is calling.. 247:04:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC) 145:20:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC) 124:23:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC) 115:06:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC) 101:08:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC) 91:00:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC) 81:17:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 71:17:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 2839: 2085:donations", "still exists 2012:The village has ten houses 1755:Diberri's template filler, 460: 227:Semi automatic peer review 2774:19:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 2754:18:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 2741:OK, you're forgiven :-) 2736:18:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 2710:00:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 2659:Knowledge (XXG):Copyright 2565:A tag has been placed on 1090:Why "barley", by the way? 632:WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience 2093:includes others", "many 727:Disorganized attachment 470:pseudoscientific topics 395:Now will you get this? 287:Dear Fainites and Jim, 2562: 2081:the towns", "received 342:Well there's a thing. 2794:of past discussions. 2567:Image:379470 5874.jpg 2561: 2553:Image:379470 5874.jpg 1702:Emdashes and endashes 493:Obvious pseudoscience 482:Arbitration Committee 461:Further information: 42:of past discussions. 2189:Doom of a Good Idea 2109:limit the chance", " 2065:part of", "the last 627:Title pseudoscience 520:Questionable science 480:The Knowledge (XXG) 299:Maternal deprivation 204:Good article ratings 2551:Speedy deletion of 2509:Contemporary Issues 2105:records show", "to 1289:Neither should I ! 2563: 2045:in", "the two are 1325:Here's a mention, 18:User talk:Fainites 2806: 2805: 2800:current talk page 2505: 2489:comment added by 2461:Attachment Theory 2303:Becoming Attached 2219: 2218: 2215: 2214: 2139: 2138: 2073:towns", "outside 2049:", "they brought 1604: 1327:Helicopter Parent 1283: 1263: 1243: 1223: 1202: 788:Tourette syndrome 784:Asperger syndrome 665: 664: 619: 618: 416: 402:comment added by 244: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2830: 2823: 2813: 2785: 2784: 2778: 2746: 2728: 2707: 2674: 2591: 2590: 2584: 2484: 2445: 2425: 2195: 2186: 2121:began", "joined 2077:the town", "all 2069:to form", "both 2061:to", "they were 1960: 1872: 1850: 1804: 1799:for FA review. 1781: 1602: 1598: 1596: 1273: 1253: 1233: 1213: 1192: 969: 886: 852: 813: 624: 605: 474:pseudoscientific 452:Memo to self x 2 415: 396: 252:MORE ATTACHMENT! 242: 218: 33: 32: 26: 2838: 2837: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2814: 2810: 2782: 2762: 2744: 2726: 2720: 2703: 2693: 2670: 2625: 2588: 2582: 2581: 2556: 2531: 2511: 2483:contribution? 2468:KingseleyMiller 2463: 2451: 2443: 2431: 2423: 2152: 2129:plans" and "in 1958: 1848: 1820: 1802: 1779: 1704: 1680: 1613: 1600: 1594: 1590: 1545: 1531:Testing a link 1480: 1478:Zeanah typology 1357: 1308: 1185: 1166: 967: 910:Yay! it works! 884: 850: 811: 759: 729: 709: 678: 676:books or papers 465: 459: 454: 431: 397: 389: 356: 333:Same old crap. 322: 256:Dear Fainties, 254: 230: 214: 206: 134: 108: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2836: 2834: 2825: 2824: 2807: 2804: 2803: 2786: 2761: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2719: 2716: 2714: 2692: 2689: 2679: 2678: 2624: 2621: 2555: 2549: 2538:KingsleyMiller 2530: 2527: 2510: 2507: 2462: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2447: 2427: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2285: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2252: 2251: 2217: 2216: 2213: 2212: 2209: 2199: 2191: 2190: 2183: 2151: 2148: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2097:towns", "near 2039: 2036: 2033: 2030: 2027: 2024: 2021: 2018: 2015: 2004: 2001: 1998: 1995: 1992: 1989: 1986: 1983: 1980: 1977: 1974: 1971: 1968: 1965: 1962: 1955: 1952: 1949: 1946: 1943: 1940: 1937: 1934: 1931: 1928: 1925: 1922: 1919: 1916: 1913: 1910: 1907: 1904: 1901: 1898: 1895: 1892: 1889: 1886: 1883: 1877: 1876: 1861: 1860: 1819: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1703: 1700: 1679: 1676: 1629: 1612: 1609: 1589: 1586: 1544: 1541: 1479: 1476: 1356: 1353: 1307: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1287: 1184: 1181: 1165: 1162: 1014: 1013: 984: 983: 982: 981: 980: 979: 953: 952: 939: 936: 933: 928: 927: 926: 925: 924: 923: 922: 921: 920: 919: 918: 917: 867: 866: 865: 864: 863: 862: 824: 823: 758: 753: 728: 725: 708: 705: 695: 694: 677: 674: 663: 662: 660: 629: 628: 621: 617: 616: 614: 610: 609: 601: 590: 589: 588: 587: 586: 585: 584: 583: 536: 535: 528: 527: 524:psychoanalysis 513: 512: 501: 500: 458: 455: 453: 450: 430: 427: 404:Josephschwartz 388: 385: 355: 352: 321: 318: 312:KingsleyMiller 286: 276:KingsleyMiller 253: 250: 229: 224: 205: 202: 196:KingsleyMiller 133: 127: 107: 104: 58: 55: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2835: 2822: 2820: 2819: 2812: 2809: 2801: 2797: 2793: 2792: 2787: 2780: 2779: 2776: 2775: 2771: 2767: 2759: 2755: 2751: 2747: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2733: 2729: 2717: 2715: 2712: 2711: 2708: 2706: 2701: 2700: 2690: 2688: 2687: 2684: 2677: 2673: 2669: 2664: 2660: 2656: 2655:free licensed 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2646: 2640: 2639: 2635: 2631: 2622: 2620: 2619: 2615: 2611: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2597: 2587: 2578: 2576: 2572: 2568: 2560: 2554: 2550: 2548: 2547: 2543: 2539: 2534: 2528: 2526: 2525: 2521: 2517: 2508: 2506: 2504: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2488: 2480: 2478: 2474: 2469: 2460: 2454: 2450: 2446: 2440: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2430: 2426: 2420: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2409: 2406: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2382: 2378: 2375: 2372: 2368: 2363: 2359: 2355: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2337: 2333: 2330: 2327: 2323: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2304: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2290: 2279: 2275: 2272: 2269: 2265: 2261: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2250: 2247: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2235: 2232: 2229: 2225: 2208: 2205: 2200: 2196: 2193: 2192: 2188: 2187: 2184: 2181: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2166: 2165: 2161: 2157: 2149: 2147: 2146: 2143: 2132: 2128: 2124: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2108: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2072: 2068: 2064: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2037: 2034: 2031: 2028: 2025: 2022: 2019: 2016: 2013: 2009: 2005: 2002: 1999: 1996: 1993: 1990: 1987: 1984: 1981: 1978: 1975: 1972: 1969: 1966: 1963: 1956: 1953: 1950: 1947: 1944: 1941: 1938: 1935: 1932: 1929: 1926: 1923: 1920: 1917: 1914: 1911: 1908: 1905: 1902: 1899: 1896: 1893: 1890: 1887: 1884: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1874: 1873: 1870: 1869: 1866: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1844: 1840: 1836: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1827:epidemiology 1826: 1823: 1817: 1813: 1809: 1805: 1798: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1786: 1782: 1775: 1771: 1768: 1765: 1761: 1756: 1751: 1747: 1742: 1741: 1737: 1733: 1729: 1724: 1719: 1718: 1714: 1710: 1701: 1699: 1698: 1694: 1690: 1685: 1677: 1675: 1674: 1671: 1668: 1664: 1663: 1660: 1654: 1653: 1649: 1645: 1640: 1637: 1634: 1631: 1627: 1626: 1622: 1618: 1610: 1608: 1607: 1603: 1597: 1588:Your RAD note 1587: 1585: 1584: 1581: 1578: 1572: 1571: 1568: 1565: 1561: 1558: 1554: 1551: 1542: 1540: 1539: 1536: 1533: 1529: 1528: 1525: 1520: 1519: 1515: 1511: 1506: 1505: 1501: 1497: 1492: 1489: 1486: 1483: 1477: 1475: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1461: 1460: 1456: 1452: 1447: 1446: 1443: 1438: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1420: 1419: 1416: 1410: 1409: 1405: 1401: 1396: 1392: 1389: 1386: 1383: 1380: 1379: 1376: 1371: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1354: 1352: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1338: 1337: 1334: 1331: 1328: 1323: 1322: 1318: 1314: 1306:Another thing 1305: 1295: 1292: 1288: 1286: 1281: 1277: 1272: 1271:Fvasconcellos 1268: 1267: 1266: 1261: 1257: 1252: 1251:Fvasconcellos 1248: 1247: 1246: 1241: 1237: 1232: 1231:Fvasconcellos 1228: 1227: 1226: 1221: 1217: 1212: 1211:Fvasconcellos 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1200: 1196: 1191: 1190:Fvasconcellos 1182: 1180: 1179: 1175: 1171: 1163: 1161: 1160: 1157: 1154: 1149: 1145: 1139: 1138: 1135: 1129: 1128: 1125: 1119: 1118: 1115: 1110: 1105: 1102: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1079: 1076: 1070: 1069: 1065: 1061: 1056: 1055: 1052: 1046: 1045: 1042: 1036: 1035: 1031: 1027: 1021: 1018: 1012: 1009: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 997: 993: 989: 978: 974: 970: 963: 959: 955: 954: 951: 947: 943: 940: 937: 934: 930: 929: 916: 913: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 903: 902: 901: 900: 899: 898: 897: 896: 895: 891: 887: 880: 879: 878: 877: 874: 870: 861: 857: 853: 846: 842: 838: 837: 836: 833: 828: 827: 826: 825: 822: 818: 814: 807: 806:Herpes zoster 802: 797: 793: 789: 785: 781: 776: 775: 774: 773: 770: 765: 757: 754: 752: 751: 748: 743: 742: 738: 734: 726: 724: 723: 719: 715: 706: 704: 703: 700: 693: 689: 685: 680: 679: 675: 673: 672: 669: 661: 658: 657: 652: 651: 646: 645: 640: 639: 636: 635:Pseudoscience 631: 630: 626: 625: 622: 615: 612: 611: 607: 606: 603: 599: 598: 595: 582: 579: 575: 574: 573: 572: 571: 570: 569: 568: 567: 566: 562: 558: 555:presentation. 552: 551: 548: 544: 542: 533: 530: 529: 525: 521: 518: 517: 516: 510: 506: 503: 502: 498: 494: 491: 490: 489: 487: 483: 478: 477: 475: 471: 464: 457:Pseudoscience 456: 451: 449: 448: 445: 440: 439: 436: 428: 426: 425: 422: 417: 413: 409: 405: 401: 393: 387:Moved comment 386: 384: 383: 380: 375: 374: 371: 365: 364: 361: 353: 351: 350: 347: 344: 340: 339: 336: 331: 330: 327: 319: 317: 316: 313: 308: 305: 304: 300: 296: 291: 288: 284: 281: 280: 277: 273: 270: 267: 263: 260: 257: 251: 249: 248: 245: 239: 235: 228: 225: 223: 222: 219: 217: 211: 203: 201: 200: 197: 193: 192:Many thanks, 190: 187: 184: 181: 178: 174: 171: 168: 165: 162: 159: 156: 153: 150: 147: 146: 143: 140: 131: 128: 126: 125: 122: 117: 116: 113: 112:Steve carlson 105: 103: 102: 99: 93: 92: 89: 83: 82: 79: 73: 72: 69: 63: 56: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2818:The Register 2816: 2811: 2795: 2789: 2763: 2721: 2713: 2704: 2698: 2694: 2680: 2641: 2626: 2604: 2600: 2593: 2579: 2564: 2535: 2532: 2512: 2481: 2464: 2418: 2404: 2393: 2391: 2373: 2361: 2357: 2353: 2328: 2302: 2284: 2270: 2259: 2230: 2220: 2206: 2202: 2182: 2167: 2153: 2140: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2118: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2101:the town", " 2098: 2094: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2078: 2074: 2070: 2066: 2062: 2058: 2054: 2050: 2046: 2042: 2011: 2007: 1862: 1821: 1766: 1749: 1743: 1727: 1722: 1720: 1705: 1683: 1681: 1665: 1655: 1641: 1638: 1635: 1632: 1628: 1614: 1591: 1573: 1546: 1530: 1521: 1507: 1493: 1490: 1487: 1484: 1481: 1462: 1448: 1439: 1421: 1411: 1397: 1393: 1390: 1387: 1384: 1381: 1372: 1358: 1355:Nigel Godwin 1339: 1324: 1309: 1186: 1167: 1140: 1130: 1120: 1108: 1106: 1103: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1071: 1057: 1047: 1037: 1022: 1019: 1015: 987: 985: 871: 868: 800: 763: 760: 744: 730: 710: 696: 666: 659: 654: 653: 648: 647: 642: 641: 637: 634: 633: 620: 613: 600: 591: 553: 545: 540: 537: 531: 519: 514: 504: 492: 479: 467: 466: 441: 432: 418: 394: 390: 376: 366: 357: 341: 332: 323: 309: 306: 292: 289: 285: 282: 274: 271: 268: 264: 261: 258: 255: 231: 215: 207: 194: 191: 188: 185: 182: 179: 175: 172: 169: 166: 163: 160: 157: 154: 151: 148: 135: 119:Test siggy. 118: 109: 94: 84: 74: 64: 60: 43: 37: 2788:This is an 2766:Jean Mercer 2718:Ref cleanup 2630:Laser brain 2610:Laser brain 2594:the top of 2485:—Preceding 1644:Jean Mercer 1617:Jean Mercer 1510:Jean Mercer 1496:Jean Mercer 1465:Jean Mercer 1451:Jean Mercer 1428:Jean Mercer 1422:Done them. 1400:Jean Mercer 1361:Jean Mercer 1342:Jean Mercer 1313:Jean Mercer 1092:Jean Mercer 1060:Jean Mercer 1026:Jean Mercer 794:(using the 733:Jean Mercer 557:Jean Mercer 398:—Preceding 379:Jean Mercer 326:Jean Mercer 88:Jean Mercer 78:Jean Mercer 68:Jean Mercer 36:This is an 2663:WP:COPYREQ 2113:church", " 1959:  1839:WP:HYPHENs 602:Box thing 2623:re: Image 2575:copyright 2171:Aetheling 2111:christian 2103:available 2095:different 2053:", "they 1732:Aetheling 1709:Aetheling 1689:Aetheling 1611:Mechanism 1164:Theraplay 1144:rotavirus 958:WP:MEDMOS 845:WP:MEDMOS 509:astrology 497:Time Cube 435:Dinkytown 429:Thank You 2683:Fainites 2645:Fainites 2596:the page 2529:Mrvain68 2516:Mrvain68 2499:contribs 2491:Mrvain68 2487:unsigned 2473:Mrvain68 2444:Doczilla 2424:Doczilla 2408:contribs 2398:Casliber 2377:contribs 2367:Casliber 2332:contribs 2322:Casliber 2289:Fainites 2274:contribs 2264:Casliber 2246:Fainites 2234:contribs 2224:Casliber 2156:Doczilla 2142:Fainites 2131:the year 2123:together 2115:in order 1865:Fainites 1843:endashes 1770:contribs 1760:Mattisse 1670:Fainites 1659:Fainites 1535:Fainites 1524:Fainites 1442:Fainites 1424:Fainites 1415:Fainites 1375:Fainites 1333:Fainites 1291:Fainites 1148:smallpox 1134:Fainites 1124:Fainites 1114:Fainites 1075:Fainites 1051:Fainites 1041:Fainites 1008:Fainites 992:Ling.Nut 962:WP:WIAFA 942:Ling.Nut 912:Fainites 873:Fainites 832:Fainites 769:Fainites 747:Fainites 714:Ling.Nut 699:Fainites 684:Ling.Nut 668:Fainites 650:article. 594:Fainites 578:Fainites 547:Fainites 463:WP:UNDUE 444:Fainites 421:Fainites 412:contribs 400:unsigned 370:Fainites 360:DashaKat 346:Fainites 335:Fainites 320:Company! 234:analysis 216:Mattisse 139:Picaroon 121:Fainites 98:Fainites 96:vacuum. 2791:archive 2745:Georgia 2727:Georgia 2668:Sherool 2394:support 2089:", "it 2043:located 1849:Georgia 1803:Georgia 1780:Georgia 1750:Insert: 1746:WP:DASH 1657:Bother. 1595:delldot 1170:Bearian 968:Georgia 885:Georgia 851:Georgia 812:Georgia 238:SriMesh 39:archive 2760:Zeanah 2672:(talk) 2605:speedy 2586:hangon 2133:2007". 2127:future 2117:to", " 1835:WP:MOS 1728:Insert 1723:anyone 1684:really 1413:stuff. 1311:print. 841:WP:MOS 780:autism 608:Title 541:fairly 354:C-PTSD 132:closed 76:helps. 2743:Sandy 2725:Sandy 2705:Tucky 2449:RAWR! 2429:RAWR! 2362:basic 2306:with. 2119:first 2087:today 2051:along 1847:Sandy 1801:Sandy 1778:Sandy 1666:Memo 1577:Colin 1564:Colin 1557:Colin 1550:Colin 1153:Colin 966:Sandy 883:Sandy 849:Sandy 810:Sandy 16:< 2770:talk 2750:Talk 2732:Talk 2634:talk 2614:talk 2542:talk 2520:talk 2495:talk 2477:talk 2419:know 2402:talk 2371:talk 2326:talk 2268:talk 2228:talk 2175:talk 2160:talk 2125:", " 2107:help 2091:also 2083:some 2067:ones 2057:plan 2055:have 2047:both 1854:Talk 1841:and 1808:Talk 1785:Talk 1764:talk 1736:talk 1713:talk 1693:talk 1648:talk 1621:talk 1601:talk 1514:talk 1500:talk 1469:talk 1455:talk 1432:talk 1404:talk 1365:talk 1346:talk 1317:talk 1174:talk 1096:talk 1064:talk 1030:talk 996:talk 973:Talk 946:talk 890:Talk 856:Talk 817:Talk 786:and 737:talk 718:talk 688:talk 561:talk 408:talk 243:talk 2699:Van 2691:RAD 2592:to 2536:kip 2358:are 2354:can 2150:RAD 2071:the 2063:all 1543:RAD 1073:so? 964:. 764:and 756:RAD 488:): 310:kip 142:(t) 2772:) 2752:) 2734:) 2636:) 2616:) 2589:}} 2583:{{ 2544:) 2522:) 2501:) 2497:• 2479:) 2441:. 2410:) 2379:) 2334:) 2276:) 2260:in 2236:) 2211:” 2198:“ 2177:) 2162:) 2099:to 2079:of 2075:of 2010:→ 1856:) 1818:CE 1810:) 1787:) 1738:) 1715:) 1695:) 1650:) 1623:) 1516:) 1502:) 1471:) 1457:) 1434:) 1406:) 1367:) 1348:) 1319:) 1176:) 1109:we 1098:) 1066:) 1032:) 998:) 975:) 948:) 892:) 858:) 819:) 782:, 739:) 720:) 690:) 563:) 543:. 414:) 410:• 240:| 2802:. 2768:( 2748:( 2730:( 2632:( 2612:( 2601:] 2540:( 2518:( 2493:( 2475:( 2405:· 2400:( 2374:· 2369:( 2329:· 2324:( 2271:· 2266:( 2231:· 2226:( 2173:( 2158:( 2059:s 1957:" 1852:( 1806:( 1783:( 1767:· 1762:( 1734:( 1711:( 1691:( 1646:( 1619:( 1579:° 1566:° 1559:° 1552:° 1512:( 1498:( 1467:( 1453:( 1430:( 1402:( 1363:( 1344:( 1315:( 1282:) 1280:c 1278:· 1276:t 1274:( 1262:) 1260:c 1258:· 1256:t 1254:( 1242:) 1240:c 1238:· 1236:t 1234:( 1222:) 1220:c 1218:· 1216:t 1214:( 1201:) 1199:c 1197:· 1195:t 1193:( 1172:( 1155:° 1094:( 1062:( 1028:( 994:( 971:( 944:( 888:( 854:( 815:( 735:( 716:( 686:( 559:( 406:( 301:° 297:° 293:° 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index