User talk:DoctorW/Archive 1

This Archive contains discussions 1-30, which took place from 11/11/2005 to 10/28/2006.

Welcome
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) will produce your name and the current date. You should always sign talk pages, but not articles. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Ann Heneghan (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Your questions on my page.
Hello again, DoctorW. Thanks for your message. No, I don't get paid here, but the admins don't either. I found you as a new user because you edited a page which was on my watchlist, and your name was in red, not in blue. If you're interested in any page, you click "watch", near the top, and that page is added to your watchlist. Then, when you click "my watchlist" at the very top, the most recent changes to your favourite pages appear, with the names (in blue or red) of the editors who made the changes. If a talk page is red, I sometimes send a welcome message, and then it turns blue. If you want to turn your userpage blue – and it's entirely up to you – you can add a few details like where you're from and what your interests are.

To find out how to change your signature, go to WP:SIG and scroll down to the section "Customizing your signature".

Redirects don't happen automatically; they have to be created. For example, there's a link to an article called Eucharist and and another link to Holy Communion. But there's no article for Holy Communion; if you click on it, you'll find that you're taken directly to Eucharist, but just under the title, it will say "(Redirected from Holy Communion)". If you click on Holy Communion there, you'll be taken to a page with "Holy Communion" in the title, and then an arrow showing the redirect to "Eucharist". If you click on "edit this page", you'll see the following in the top line:


 * 1) REDIRECT Eucharist

So, for example, if you created and saved a new article on "Toenail fungus" (I think there is one already, but I'm just giving this as an example), and then decided that some people might look up "Fungal toenails", then you should create a new page called "Fungal toenails", and then put in the top line:


 * 1) REDIRECT Toenail fungus

In the same way, Benedict XVI redirects to Pope Benedict XVI.

That said, we don't normally create redirects for articles when it's just a question of using upper case or lower case letters. I recently started an article called "Grapefruit seed extract." I did not create any redirects. If I were you, I'd experiment, using the preview button, to see what links work and what ones don't. But I wouldn't create a whole new list of redirect pages with lots of different combinations of upper and lower case letters without being quite sure that it's necessary. Since we don't have them for other articles, it suggests that it's not normally done. Hope that helps. Feel free to send me any more questions. Ann Heneghan (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Community, sociology, etc.
Hey thanks for noting the Sense of community reference on the community article. I've been looking for better sources on sociology-related articles. (Welcome to Wikipedia!). -- CQ 02:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * BTW, DoctorW. If you haven't tried the What links here button in the toolbox (over to the left), It's a great way to see the current referential context for an article. For example just go to Special:Whatlinkshere/Sense_of_community and you'll see a list of articles and other pages that link to Sense of community. It's a fantastic tool! -- CQ 15:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * OK. Peer review/Sense of community/archive1 is posted on the big list. See my reply here and please consider Portal:Community as you expand your enfluence. Thanks again for these much needed efforts. -- CQ 10:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey Doc, Long time-No type! Just a quick note to let you know that the Community article is now (finally) becoming a hot topic. Your expertice on the subject would be highly valued if you get the time. Thanks in advance! CQ 21:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

More replies from Ann
Hello again, DoctorW. Thanks for the dedication on your user page. This is where I first saw you. I have quite a few of those kind of pages on my watchlist. So we may not have any shared interests in the Wikipedia articles. (I'll admit, though, that I do share your love for leather-bound books.)

To answer your second question, as to whether you should discuss your edits on the talk page before editing, I would say that it depends on the page and on the nature of your edit. If the page is on a controversial subject, then it's best to discuss it first, unless you're just fixing spellings and punctuation, etc. If it's not a controversial topic, and you're just adding more information, like, for example, expanding a stub, then it shouldn't be necessary, as long as you understand and accept, when editing, that someone may revert your edit. Regards, Ann Heneghan (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Kumdo
Thanks for your message. As you'll realise, I've no expertise in this area, but I'll certainly look at the page and see what I can do to help. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 23:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Kumdo &mdash; I see what you mean; what a horrible mess (and much of the English was too obscure for me to be able to work out what was meant). I dived in, being bold, and did a rewrite based on the version you said was the best, supplemented by what I could salvage from the most recent version. I hope that that helps.
 * 2) My sig. Thanks for your advice, but after I'd turned on "raw" (and edited accordingly) it seemed to work; do you not see it correctly above? --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 23:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your message &mdash; and no, I have no problems with being given advice by "newbies"; being new to Wikipedia doesn't mean not knowing more than me on all sorts of issues. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Category:American psychologists
Hi DoctorW. First I must say, great work on the psychology articles! I was just thinking, I saw you had your user page categorized as "American psychologists" - I don't think this is meant to be used for pages in the User: space, since it makes it show up on "Category:American psychologists". Just thought I'd point that out... Greetings, Skagedal 20:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Whoops - actually I did know about that but completely forgot about it! (also, when will I learn to always use preview?)  There is a correct way to do it: Category:American psychologists, shows up like Category:American psychologists.  And yup, there appears to be a Category:Wikipedians by profession!  That's another thing I've recently learned, which is pretty obvious once you hear it: instead of searching for a particular category, just see if it's there.  Good thing us Wikinewbies can learn from each other! :)  /Skagedal 23:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * [rereading your comment] Ah, you found it too, good. :) I seem to remember a few years ago, Wikipedia's search was disabled due to server load, and instead it took you to Google with , that might actually have been better. :) /Skagedal 00:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Wonhyo, etc.
Hello, again, DoctorW. First of all, thank you for your kind words, and for your support for my RfA. So far, I've thanked about half the people who voted for me, and I'm skipping a few to thank you, but I thought I'd get straight back to you because of your message to me. It's not possible to move a page to a page that already exists, even if this new page is blank. I deleted Wonhyo so that I could move Weonhyo to Wonhyo. However, if there had been any kind of substantial page history, I would certainly have hesitated, as the page history would be destroyed, and it's one of the few admin actions that can't be undone. However, in the case of Wonhyo, there didn't seem to be any page history, other than a redirect to Weonhyo.

With the talk page, it was not possible to do a direct move, as a talk page existed in both addresses (Wonhyo and Weonhyo). Wikipedia does not like cut and paste moves, as they destroy the history of the page. If you just paste everything into an article at the new address, and the old edit history is lost, there's no way that it can ever be proved that it really was a particular person who made a particular edit. You're probably familiar by now with looking at diffs, and they would all be lost.

I have no particular view on which spelling is correct. I'm happy to take your word for it, but I actually hadn't heard of it with either spelling. So, if there is disagreement on the talk page, I'll have to move it back. We'll leave it a day or two, and see what happens.

By the way, you've probably realized that I've changed my user name to "Musical Linguist.". It gives me a little more anonymity. Regards, AnnH (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply to second Wonhyo message
Thanks for your additional message. Yes, you have to be an admin to delete pages. There doesn't seem to have been any outcry, but no doubt someone will get back to me if there's a problem. I've never seen any objection to the use of paragraphs. The subheading does make it easier to find a new comment, but in any case, I usually read my messages by going to the history of my talk page and checking the diff for each new one (by clicking on the word "last"), so I don't miss anything. Glad you liked the old photo. I changed photos because the old one had my name in the title. Let me know if you need any more help. Regards, AnnH (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

About the revert of User:Michael1981
As far as I can tell, it looks fine - you can compare the version before the vandalism with your latest version. See Revert (if you have not already) - I use the "godmode-light.js" script which makes it very easy to revert vandalism with one click. To enable it, create User:DoctorW/monobook.js, make it look something like mine, then follow instructions on that page (reloading cache). Then you will see a "rollback" link on the diff page of the latest change. Very handy! Greetings, Skagedal 18:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Answers to your questions on my talk page:
 * 1. I'm a bit confused over the monobook.js matters myself. When I first created mine, it looked exactly like yours does now, i.e. without the dotted-border thing and without the instructions about reloading, which are supposed to be added automatically according to the tutorial.  Apparently, other people have the same problem.  However, it just kinda "solved itself" somehow!  Your page looks right, and it should work after cache reloading (it did for me).
 * 2. Yep: Go to the history of any page, and then go to the "last" link for the top entry (latest change). On that page, there should now be a link that says "rollback" under "Current revision".  Just click that, and it will revert all changes by the same IP number and insert a standard edit summary.
 * 3. Sorry, don't know about Safari/Macintosh, although the auto-inserted instructions say that holding down shift while clicking reload should work?
 * And thanks for the link to User:RSugden/Sandbox3, that sure looks like project worthwhile to revive!
 * Skagedal 22:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Emotional detachment
Hi, I found you through the Wikipedians by profession category.

I found a stub today at Emotional detachment and thought it needed some expanding, so I expanded it. However, I'm not a psychologist and was hoping you could give some peer-review. If you are interested, I might ask question or two, such as: is the term ED used to describe the first definition phenomena, or should the article be split? I just think the things in this article deserve a little coverage.

Anyway thanks for your time, and if it doesn't pique your interest, just ignore this message. Thanks. --DanielCD 18:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Kung fu article
Hi!

I saw that you recently reverted a redirect edit on kung fu by User:Shawnc. That edit was due to a discussion at Talk:Wushu about how we can make these articles more clear, fair and correct. I understand your concerns, but could you please join the discussions at Talk:Wushu before making other major reverts or edits? I have taken your latest comment into consideration and made another change to kung fu. Please take a look at it, and if you have objections comment at Talk:Wushu.

All the best, Wintran 02:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I wasn't aware of the fact that there was a discussion somewhere about this. Though I studied Taekwondo and Tai Chi Chuan, I'm no expert; I'm a psychologist. A secondary area of expertise of mine is in issues related to the spelling of Korean words in English (using Roman characters), and I add related pages to my watch list as I encounter them; so far that's mainly Korean martial arts. What I saw (and perhaps I caught a responsible person in the middle of a process involving multiple pages) was that Kung fu was changed to forward to Kung fu (disambiguation), that many users would then click on Kung fu (term), and they would then discover that the "real" Kung fu information was on yet another page (Chinese martial arts). So I looked at "What links here" for Kung fu and saw that there was a very long list of pages that would be forwarded to Kung fu (disambiguation) and that almost all of them should have bypassed the disambiguation page. Not knowing that there was some larger plan in the works, it seemed irresponsible that someone had rerouted all these people without updating the forwards. I only had room in the edit summary to mention the problem I describe above for new visitors. Now that I see the end result, it looks like a good solution. (It seems far better to forward Kung fu directly to Chinese martial arts rather than through TWO intermediate pages; it avoids all the problems I describe here.) I have some ideas for minor edits I think would clarify the situation further for new visitors; if you will indulge me simply to make them rather than taking far more time to explain fully, I'd appreciate it. (Of course, anyone is welcome to revert my edits if they don't fit with the consensus.) - Do c  t  or  W  05:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did not mean to discourage you to make further edits. My concern was mainly that Shawnc stated in his comment for the edit on kung fu that it was done according to these discussions, but I know those comments are easy to miss. Feel free to make any changes you like, just glad to see more people interested in helping out with these articles. - Wintran 15:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Ballroom dance
Hi, the idea is to be as specific as possible with categories. Since the article is in category ballroom dancing it should not be in category dance which is a parent category of category ballroom dancing. Ballroom dance is even the main article in category ballroom dancing. Regards --Roland2 22:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
I just I thought I would thank you for all your debate on the Psychology of Religion page, which I have found of interest. As with you, my background is in Psychology (I teach and research the subject, and completed my Ph.D. in Psychology last calendar year, 2005) and have found your contributions of interest. I applaud your suggestion to use American Psychological Association referencing. I am based in the United Kingdom myself, and would not mind meeting up some time (although I guess it could be difficult if the Atlantic is between us!) ACEO 18:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Psychology
Hi again, DoctorW! I just started WikiProject Psychology, maybe you would like to join? /skagedal... 16:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Psychology Wiki
Hi DoctorW,

This is just an update on the The Psychology Wiki. Our project is a lot more organised than it was initially, with a mission statement, and an organised community portal and Tasks to Do portal.

We also have a general forum now, and are structuring our Wiki in terms of categories far better than we were initially. If you haven't done so already, give our project 5 minutes of your time, just to explore its potential. I can see you do a lot at Wikipedia, and please feel free to copy any content from our site to here, if you wish.

I won't say too much more, as I'd like you to judge it for yourself, but you should find that it is different from Wikipedia, because approximately 90% of our contributors so far are psychologists, either professionals like yourself, academics, or students and trainees.

Its hosted by a company called Wikia, which was founded by Jimmy Wales and Angela Beesley. There are Google Ads on the site, but we dont make money from the project, they're just to pay for the bandwidth, storage and technical support that Wikia give us.

Have a look and see what you think

Mostly Zen 23:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Community
Hi. It looks like you haven't been around for a while. But when you have the time, might you be interested in helping with Community. We could use some expertise. For one thing, the article has few or no references. Maurreen 14:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Cornell
I have just started WikiProject Cornell University, an attempt to thoroughly cover topics related to Cornell. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Thanks! — mercuryboard talk 05:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sense of community
I've added Steven Wright's Doctoral Dissertation to the set of references for the Sense of community article. I' believe that this is the best way to handle the copyright issue.

On another matter, I wonder if I could enlist your help on the Community article. We have been adding citations wherever possible. The section that stumps me is the one on "Sense of community." The first two paragraphs are without citation. I've looked for appropriate citations, but found none. So I contemplated rewriting the two paragraphs, with citations. However, I rather like the message conveyed and would it would be nice to leave it. It's just that to advance the article to FA status, it will get picked up, since there are assertions that need to be supported by research. Would you be able to take a look and let me know your thoughts? Sunray 20:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Lists
Fair Use images should not be used to decorate articles, per point 8 of WP:FUC. ed g2s &bull; talk 00:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Image Use Thread

 * Ran over your recent chat about images and their use here, so I thought I would pass along this thread. Thx. &mdash; MrDolomite | Talk 00:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And you may also be interested in this. Johntex\talk 04:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

arae hangul
hello. you mentioned you had worked on a korean wp program for mac. well, i have one and i have trouble with files sent me in arae hangul, the most popular wp program in korea. would you know whether there any hope that a mac version of this program might be on the way?

thanks and sorry to bother you with such a tiny question. Hongkyongnae 23:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank You!!!
I tried to tell them that you can't start a sentence with "However" and they just mocked me. Even check the talk page for "Pluto," I tried to change it yesterday and was voted down. Thank you so much for having the sense to know that you can't friggin start a sentence with "However!!!!!!"

Thank you for your message of August 24, 2006
Hi, ACEO here, and I just wanted to thank you for your message of August 24. I do not know when I might visit Washington D.C. - I have never actually been to the States. I live in Northampton, United Kingdom, myself, and you are welcome to pop by if ever you are in the midlands of England and would like to visit The University of Northampton, where I work. By the way, I see Wikipedia has an entry on this university, and I have edited it, but, as far as possible (in keeping with Wikipedian policy) have tried to write it in a neutral way. ACEO 19:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

ETA
I've modified your edits to ETA (disambiguation), and just wanted to make sure you understand why. Right now, the article ETA is about the Basque organization. This has been decided as the primary topic for the use of "ETA". If you feel that this is incorrect, you should bring it up at the talk page of ETA, since that is where the change would need to be made. However, it's likely that even if you did bring it up, it would be hard to convince everyone to agree to the change. But if you want to, that's where you should discuss it.

Additionally, since ETA is the primary topic, per the Manual of Style for disambiguation pages, the link to it actually belongs at the top of the page, where I've moved it to. For more information on that, you can take a look at Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages). And lastly, it's not necessary to repeat every puncutation variation of "eta" (see Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)). Feel free to let me know if you have any other question. -- Nataly a 20:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, and the Manual of Style also says important entries first, so I like your solution. The page is much better than before our edits. - Do c  t  or  W  20:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Creativity as a Featured Article?
As some one interested in psychology, I wondered whether you might be interested in my nomination of the article on creativity as Featured Article. I agree that some work still needs to be done on this, but I think that with some modification, the article could be there. Have you read the article? I do think it is one of the better psychology-related articles in Wikipedia. ACEO 11:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Citizen Kane.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Citizen Kane.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 23:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Source and copyright holder added. - Do c  t  or  W  23:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use at List of Cornellians
Per our fair use policy, and per the very wording of the tag, the non-free images (promophotos, screenshots, and all other kinds of fairusein's) may be used ONLY to describe the subject of the image. That *IS* fair use. To say fails fair use is to say, the article does not describe the subject and therefore cannot contain unfree images. The reason I gave in the edit summary is plenty enough. Certainly, reversion was impolite and unwarranted. Please re-revert the removal on the images. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * How can you possibly assert that the article does not describe the subject of the image? I'm sorry, but I simply can't understand your point of view on this. - Do c  t  or  W  21:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. I submitted this matter for consideration at WP:AN. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, you ought to shorten your signature per WP:SIG. I did it for you: see here. The top is what you have now. The bottom is the same exact thing with a lot less code. Enjoy. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Your formatting is more elegant and concise. I have updated the signature file in my preferences and in a few recent edits. - Do c  t  orW  06:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:psychology navigation - thanks
Thank you very much for your contribution, i just did not know what to put in the writers subsection and was waiting for someone to expand it. Good job! Frédérick Lacasse 23:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Kohlberg's stages of moral development
Heya Doc. I'm going to start pushing Kohlberg's stages of moral development towards GA standards, but I need more sources (specifically some inline citations). I (un?)fortunately finished with my psych degree but now have no big university library access. Any chance you have some refs lying around for the article? JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 18:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Social psychology (main page)
Have put up a proposal here. If you agree or disagree, you are invited to comment. Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 20:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images in lists
Hello, I see you have contributed your thoughts to Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. It's been dead for a while, but I have archived it and taken a new fresh start. I hope this time we will be able to achieve something as I have summarized the main points of both sides (feel free to improve them) and I call you to express your support or oppose on the concrete proposal that I have formulated. Thanks, Renata 02:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)