The reasons I dont contribute to Wikipedia anymore 
Reversions like the one you just executed on the psychology template presuppose a knowledge of psychology. I must imagine that if you don't understand why the template is inadequate then you have not the faintest idea of what constitutes pscyhology. It is a) an academic (taught) discipline, b) a research discipline, c) an applied discipline, d) a profession, interest group and lobby e) a property of of social perception or a folk psychology if you like and f) an aspect of the humanities and the social sciences as well as a peer of psychiatry, social work and in some respects occupational therapy; g) a contested political terrain (which you would understand if a non-amateur had written the articles on critical psychology and cultural-historical psychology). Neither the template nor the main article bring out these distinctions. Instead what you have is a bad summary of a first year textbook of an American perspective on the psychodynamic-post- Skinnerian model of psychology circa 1950s. Having to explain this and to persuade you is hardly what someone with advanced expertise in the area wants to be doing on a Saturday afternoon. It is insulting, demoralizing and a waste of time. I imagine that the net sum of your expertise can probably be located at the lower end of a) or e) in which case you are probably enthuisiastic about your ignorance. So thank you for giving me one more reason not to contribute to 

A PhD from Yale. What absolute horseshit. I have one from Harvard and another from Cambridge and if you have from Yale I'd be curious where you bought it.

Please do I notice you have had lots of these skirmishes.
wikipedia.41.242.118.144