User talk:Mirafra: Difference between revisions
→psychological evaluation: new section |
→RFC: new section |
||
Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
I think text books should be fine. I used Gleitman (many years ago). Any editions would be useful. I dont think the article needs to be long. [[User:Earlypsychosis|Earlypsychosis]] ([[User talk:Earlypsychosis|talk]]) 08:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC) |
I think text books should be fine. I used Gleitman (many years ago). Any editions would be useful. I dont think the article needs to be long. [[User:Earlypsychosis|Earlypsychosis]] ([[User talk:Earlypsychosis|talk]]) 08:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
== RFC == |
|||
The reason I suggested an RFC on the matter is to gather opinions on whether there exists a need for a policy of this nature, and how should a policy would be tailored. I might suggest perusing [[User talk:Danglingdiagnosis/Involuntary health consequences]] and seeing what the comments were there. It's not exactly what you're going for, but it will be useful to see where the community rejected certain aspects of the policy. If you don't want to do the RFC route, you could draft it in your userspace (i.e. [[User:Mirafra/Protection of secure test materials]]) and propose it after you've refined it. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 15:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:30, 7 August 2009
Welcome!
|
Note
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Rorschach test has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rorschach test and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.
Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.
If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).
Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.
I think text books should be fine. I used Gleitman (many years ago). Any editions would be useful. I dont think the article needs to be long. Earlypsychosis (talk) 08:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
RFC
The reason I suggested an RFC on the matter is to gather opinions on whether there exists a need for a policy of this nature, and how should a policy would be tailored. I might suggest perusing User talk:Danglingdiagnosis/Involuntary health consequences and seeing what the comments were there. It's not exactly what you're going for, but it will be useful to see where the community rejected certain aspects of the policy. If you don't want to do the RFC route, you could draft it in your userspace (i.e. User:Mirafra/Protection of secure test materials) and propose it after you've refined it. –xenotalk 15:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)