User talk:Professor m f smith

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Robert N Goodman.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Paulthomas2 (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow Wikipedia policies

Professor m f smith, you need to follow the policies at Wikipedia:Autobiography. Regardless of your personal opinions, Wikipedia requires reliable, verifiable third-party sources. Wikipedia policy very clearly states that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. If you continue to revert edits on Michael F Smith to include your self-promotion without appropriate sources (such as here), then I will find an administrator to assist and also report you to WikiProject Spam for your edits.

Also, you need to stop making edits as an IP editor (79.79.212.36) as well as an account user without disclosing that or else that could be considered sock puppetry. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Michael F Smith

The article Michael F Smith has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Michael F Smith for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael F Smith is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael F Smith until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Michael F Smith

A tag has been placed on Michael F Smith requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Invalid removal of a prod from a BLP. The 7 days have long since expired and there is also near unanimous consent at the AfD

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SDA & DAWBA

Hi! I briefly saw your note post-deletion discussion and wanted to respond. Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and Robert Goodman (psychiatrist) aren't under critical review. An editor left a drive-by notice based on what they saw in the article's current sourcing and edit history. Those articles are simply awaiting someone with knowledge to add text based on reliable, independent, secondary sources (e.g., not Goodman's own papers). Wikipedia cares most about claims made independent of the subject as a sign of the subject's importance to those independent of the subject. What you've seen in action thus far is Wikipedia's hyper-vigilance against promotion by those affiliated with the subject. We're aiming for dispassionate encyclopedia articles that cite authorities with editorial credibility and critical distance. In any event, unless you have a conflict of interest with either of the psychiatric instruments you mentioned, I hope you can contribute to our expansion of coverage on the topics. czar 18:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Czar, sorry to respond this way but, as usual, I am baffled by the Wiki system. Your random act of kindness was much appreciated as the general tone is otherwise hostile. I am unfortunately conflicted on the DAWBA and SDQ subject area, having donated 20 odd years helping to create it and keep it going. Organising distanced contributors seems challenging - child psychiatrists are busy folks and unlikely to be willing to become acolytes of the Wiki system. I'll see what I can do but seem likely to fall prey to hypervigilance in the meantime. Again, thanks. Professor M F Smith (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. What I can offer here is, if in your experience you have a collection of third-party reviews (reliable, independent, secondary sources) of the instrument and can supply me with some basic citation details, I can quickly pull the full citation information and build/format a bibliography on its article. From there, if the sources are robust, I can remove the article's maintenance tags and anyone who wants to expand the article in the future will have pointers to the best sources on the subject, saving them some time. No rush, but happy to help if you have a short list of such sources. czar 20:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, many thanks Czar. Here is, for example with respect to DAWBA, a paper by Tamsin Ford, the new Professor of Psychiatry at Cambridge University:

Ford, T., A. Last, W. Henley, S. Norman, S. Guglani, K. Kelesidi, A.-M. Martin, P. Moran, H. Latham-Cork and R. Goodman (2013). "Can standardized diagnostic assessment be a useful adjunct to clinical assessment in child mental health services? A randomized controlled trial of disclosure of the Development and Well-Being Assessment to practitioners." Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 48(4): 583-593.DOI: 10.1007/s00127-012-0564-z

Another key paper for the DAWBA: Achenbach, T. M., L. A. Rescorla and M. Y. Ivanova (2012). "International epidemiology of child and adolescent psychopathology I: Diagnoses, dimensions, and conceptual issues." Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 51(12): 1261-1272.DOI: 10.1016/j.jaac.2012.09.010

Some review papers from the list of over 5000 papers referencing the SDQ at https://www.sdqinfo.org/py/sdqinfo/f0.py

Wolpert, M., H. Cheng and J. Deighton (2015). "Measurement issues: Review of four patient reported outcome measures: SDQ, RCADS, C/ORS and GBO - their strengths and limitations for clinical use and service evaluation." Child and Adolescent Mental Health 20(1): 63-70.DOI: 10.1111/camh.12065

Warnick, E. M., M. B. Bracken and S. Kasl (2008). "Screening efficiency of the Child Behavior Checklist and Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A systematic review." Child and Adolescent Mental Health 13(3): 140-147.DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-3588.2007.00461.x

Vostanis, P. (2006). "Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: research and clinical applications." Current Opinion in Psychiatry 19(4): 367-372.DOI: 10.1097/01.yco.0000228755.72366.05

Sharp, C., T. J. Croudace, I. M. Goodyer and D. Amtmann (2005). "The Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire: Predictive validity of parent and teacher ratings for help-seeking behaviour over one year." Educational and Child Psychology 22(3): 28-44.DOI

I don't know if you have academic experience but to me there seems to be a very different standard of evidence from Wikipedia. Academics are rated by their positions and institutions so that easily verified professorships at UCL, LSE (top-ranking world universities) immediately establish my place, no matter how snooty some might be about how I got there (I have pursued parallel business careers and crossed subjects: computer science to medicine). In academia, publications in peer reviewed journals are essential for advancement and the author is expected to present their own list. Ironically, reviews, journalistic citations and second or third party sources are viewed with suspicion because these are far more easily manipulated than peer papers and may misrepresent subject matter. Notoriety is likely to be viewed with suspicion and such citations likely to be ephemeral (at least pre-internet); while there has been journalistic interest in my work on occasion, even recently, this material has long since "wrapped fish and chips". Anyway, sorry to get that off my chest: it's hard to be a public figure for decades and be kicked off Wikipedia by non-experts when a guest appearance on a TV show now seems sufficient basis for an entry ... vanitas vanitatum! ;) Mike Professor M F Smith (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]