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 dont 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 nonamateur had written the articles on critical psychology and culturalhistorical 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 psychodynamicpost Skinnerian model of psychology circa s 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 wikipedia   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 dont 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 nonamateur had written the articles on critical psychology and culturalhistorical 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 psychodynamicpost Skinnerian model of psychology circa s 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 Id be curious where you bought it  Please do I notice you have had lots of these skirmishes wikipedia