Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contribution. I have begun the process of converting the article you created, Episteme psychology, into Wikipedia's format, but the article is lacking some essential information that I hope you will be able to provide. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that all information be verifiable. To that end, each article requires reliable sources. Unsourced material may be removed at any time, and unsourced articles may be evaluated for deletion. --Moonriddengirl 20:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- I received your message. To respond to me through Wikipedia (which will reach me much faster), you can either go to my talk page or more simply place your answer right here. I am watching your talk page and will see your response. I'm sorry that I was not more clear as to what is needed in terms of citations. Specifically, the article needs verification that Episteme psychology exists as a separate discipline and was established as the article describes. Since Wikipedia as an encyclopedia does not have professional review, it relies instead on scrupulous documentation (when the process works) by which any users of the encyclopedia can quickly ascertain that the information in its articles is true. Take the article on Evolutionary psychology as an example. The article could use some work and the reference style is not consistent throughout, but it does offer an example of a psychology article that includes both notes and a separate reference list. Notes tend to be useful for singular references; when a reference provides general information, it may be sufficient to list it in the reference list. Online sources are particularly favored, but print sources will work if none are available. If episteme psychology has been documented in professional journals, for instance, that kind of reference would be ideal. --Moonriddengirl 21:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. I will read the article (evolutionairy psychology) and your above suggestions as a guide and get back to you. Thank you for your input and time spend. Vdstok 20:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I just looked at the article you mentioned. After 3/5th of the artickle the References start but jet the heading comments on it being incomplete! I read the article half way through and stopped for I lost interest. I am sure there are folks who would like to consume all this and more - and feel still dissatisfied . . . The article Episteme psychology was patterned after your very simple and straitforeward article: Noetic Psychology. Now that is readable ! IF I wanted to know more I could thus google on . . . The article 'Noetic Psychology' inspired me to add this artickle. Now if you ask for much more, along the evolutionairy psyc. article(and even that is not considered perfect !) I will pass, and leave it to others.Look forward to your suggestions Vdstok 20:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- That particular article does need a lot of work. I will seek assistance from the WikiProject Psychology community for sourcing this. Please note that if the article can't be sourced, it may be deleted. The article that you site as an example, Noetic Psychology, is a stub and is subject to the same requirements. A better example might be Transpersonal psychology. You might want to at least take a look at Transpersonal psychology#References and related reading. Again, online sources are particularly favored, but print sources will work if none are available. If episteme psychology has been documented in professional journals, for instance, that kind of reference would be ideal. It may be that others involved in the Psychology project can provide referencing, but since you apparently have a history with the subject, you may be more familiar with sources. --Moonriddengirl 15:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Episteme psychology
edit
A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Episteme psychology, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Moonriddengirl 12:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)