User talk:Devilly

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Devilly, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kukini 14:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind response. Enjoy your editing here. Don't forget the tildes when writing on discussion pages too! Kukini 15:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Effect size[edit]

I responded on the Talk:Effect size page. Your personal experience is not relevant to an encyclopedia article. Unfortunately, media like Wikipedia are not compassionate to experts. If you don't follow protocol by citing your sources, your edits will be undone. Furthermore, there is no need for the alien example, and it can be easily replaced with something else. The Effect size article is already flagged for cleanup, and this example is one of those parts that is unnecessary and unprofessional. – Chris53516 (Talk) 14:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied in the discussions tab of the effect size page (Talk:Effect size). Grant 13:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Effect size[edit]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. – Chris53516 (Talk) 14:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re similar problems[edit]

I'm confused whether you're Grant or Devilly, but if you're the one who left a message on my talk page: thanks for your message. I've added the t-test page to my watch list. --Coppertwig 18:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent paper on Power therapies (and NLP)[edit]

Hello Grant, I noticed your work on the EMDR article. I know that you're an expert in trauma techniques. I've added a quote and citation to your recent paper critical "power therapies". We're having an argument over at the Neuro-linguistic programming article that you may be able to help us with. Could you clear up the difference between hard science. Sharpley (1987) is described in some minor reviews as in the positivist psychological tradition. Could you also comment on Figley's "power therapies" and how NLP (VK/D) fits in here. It seems that Figley is the most prominent supporter NLP in therapy. He has recently published a reply to Lilienfeld et al (2002) Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology which I have not been able to read yet. Have you read this? There seems to be some tension between the evidence-based psychologists (Lilienfeld, yourself, ...) and those who take a humanistic stance with psychotherapy. I'd really appreciate your feedback. Thanks in advance. --Comaze 07:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC) If you're not interested in commenting on the NLP article, I've started an article on "Power therapies" that you might be interested in contributing to. --Comaze 01:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NLP again[edit]

Hello Grant. I hope you don't think this is a bit of a cheek but I'd like some information and I thought you'd know the answer. We're struggling slightly on the NLP page with the fact that NLP's theoretical underpinnings are unvalidated, or indeed comprehensively disproved, yet it seems to mostly use a variety of techniques 'borrowed' from other therapies. Can you tell me please if 'submodalites' and the manipulation thereof is yet another borrowed idea/technique, and if so where from, or is it new to NLP?Fainites 20:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I just looked at the EMDR page and it's turned into a promo pamphlet. What happened? I thought you were working on it? Fainites 21:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EMDR[edit]

Hi. I've only just noticed you replied on the EMDR page. I gave up on it after creating a ref section and putting your meta-analysis back in (more than once I believe). I've realised (as a consequence of recent battles on all the articles relating to attachment which were controlled by attachment therapists and multiple socks - now all in arbitration) that Wiki is the preserve of the most committed. Unfortunately where money is concerned that is usually those with a vested financial interest in the particular therapy they're pushing. It then becomes a numbers game. You would need a dedicated team on each proto or pseudoscience page to keep them clean. Currently the attachment therapy pushers are banned and the articles are being rewritten, but it's only a matter of time. That's probably why so many are moving to Citizendium. Fainites ^barley 21:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]