User talk:Sietse Snel/Archive

'''THIS IS AN ARCHIVED TALK PAGE. PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE. '''

Welcome/welkom
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! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Lst27 18:28, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Hallo Sietse, welkom op Wikipedia. Ik werk zelf het meeste aan de Nederlandstalige wikipedia. Ik wens je veel plezier hier. Ellywa 21:00, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Personality disorder
Nice edits on this subject! I know you are a psychologist but I feel I have to point out that the DSM-IV is published by the American Psychiatric Association. As a psychiatrist who has enjoyed working with many psychologists over the years, welcome to the multidisciplinary team! --CloudSurfer 03:56, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help with the personality disorder article! Samvak

Narcissism vs Narcissistic PD
At present there is only one article on this subject. Ideally the subject of narcissism should be a separate article dealing with Freud and others on this subject looking at the theories of primary and secondary narcissism etc. Then there should be a DSM type article on Narcissistic PD. I wonder if you are interested in doing this? --CloudSurfer 17:38, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I think I read you were studying psychology and I thought you might use the restructure as a time to read about this subject. There is already a fair bit in the article on the subject of narcissism but once the two are split I hope that will provide an impetus for some neo-Freudian (and that's really not me) to write more. By the way, you are doing great work! --CloudSurfer 17:51, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi, CloudSurder and Sietse Snel - great work, I agree. The separation of narcissism from NPD was long overdue. I wrote the entry for the Narcissistic Personality Disorder, BTW. I granted Wikipedia a GNU license to use portions of my textbook about narcissism "Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited". In the article, I added an external link to the relevant Web page, where you can view the original text (titled: NPD at a Glance). Would be happy to send you both electronic copies of my book, if you are interested. Anything else I can do to help?Samvak


 * Samvak and Sietse, I have replied to this on Samvak's talk page. --CloudSurfer 06:31, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Guys, lets's continue this conversation on my talk page - many thanks. Samvak

Foto Oude Gracht
Verwisselen van de foto's is geen probleem! Elke verbetering is uiteraard prima. Fruggo 13:59, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)Hi, test

DSM cautionary statement
Valuable improvements. The original was modified from the one at the front of the DSM-IV. I have added a little to what you have said and changed your footnote into a reference for style consistency. I have been looking at adding this to each and every DSM diagnosis on Wikipedia! I guess I'll get around to it eventually. --CloudSurfer 18:30, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Categories
I noticed you changed the category for compulsive hoarding. I have gone back and added the anxiety disorder I had added a few days ago. Just recently I have created an entire heirachy of categories under Category:Disorder. You might like to go there and add Category:Abnormal psychology to each of the sub-categories under disorder. That way you will follow down the DSM tree, if that is suitable. Psychology                 Psychiatry Abnormal psychology      Disorder All the others That would then give both psychologists and psychiatrists and entry point from their own categories. Alternatively, you might want to do the simplest change and that would be to add Abnormal psychology as a category, and thus a parent category to Disorder. That would then mean the tree would be: Psychology                 Psychiatry Abnormal psychology Disorder All the others Anyway, lets work towards the same purpose if possible. If you really want to organise your categories differently then there is no reason why you can't. But please add yours rather than changing ours. If I have changed yours then I am truly sorry. I made about 50 changes or additions that day and I didn't at that time understand the psychology tree. --CloudSurfer 12:25, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know that compulsive hoarding doesn't fit easily into a category, however, once you embrace the DSM you have to put it somewhere. Now, another alternative would be to have a category for "Not otherwise classified" which would have a DSM type logic. That proposed category would be under the "Disorder" category. For the time being I lumped it with its closest relative. --CloudSurfer 22:24, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

P.S. as you would understand, unless it is in a category under "Disorder" it can't be immediately accessed from the "Psychiatry" category. --CloudSurfer 22:33, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Symptoms and signs
Dear Sietse, I have copied part of your recent question on this subject to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychopathology. Please go there to see my reply. If we keep psychopathology discussions here then the entire project is aware of them and can contribute. Mind you, its a bit of a slow group to respond at times. --CloudSurfer 22:36, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I reverted your user page
I reverted some anon edits on your user pageGeni 10:11, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Indigo children
Dear Sietse, I thought it sounded like nonsense too so I did a search for "Indigo children" in Google. I was surprised when I got 22,600 hits. Including this homepage. Further down on the page is a description of "Indigo children". Sounds like it could go back into the article on Insanity as an example of differing views but with a qualification. It sounds like it deserves an article of its own looking critically at the concept. As Hamlet says, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,/ than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Speaking of which, I hope you caught up with my edits to Homosexual panic. I have tried to be NPOV on it but I must say my references and coverage of it mainly suggest that it should not be used as a defence for gay bashing. Let's wait for someone to come along and challenge this. --CloudSurfer 05:53, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Dear Sietse, not at all aggressive, I see it as more the impetuosity of youth which so reminds me of myself at your age. I am thoroughly enjoying collaborating with you and the others on the project.  If it were not for this rather public forum I would share more of where I am coming from, preferably over a coffee and a chat.  I had a great amount of fun in expanding the Homosexual panic article that your comments had prompted.  It is now a bit silly in that it is more authoritative than many other articles on much more important subjects.  The issue with the Indigo children is that some reader thought it was worth putting in.  I think THAT should be respected providing that it is relevant to the article.  I am very much aware of the NPOV issues after having worked on Involuntary commitment and other pages.  What I now believe is that we need to encourage disparate views when they are tentatively added to articles, often by new editors.  They may need some word-smithing to put them into context and render them NPOV, but rather than deleting them, we should embrace them as a contrary view.  The issue with insanity is that it has been seen over the centuries as a sign of divinity.  If you look at what the saints experienced then it is clear that many of them would today be treated as psychotic.  In their day their experiences were respected.  I think that is what the IC reader wanted to convey.  Your addition to insanity now reflects that.  Working as I do in a culture that still has many of the ideational trappings of its recent Neolithic past, I am constantly confronted by different ways of conceptualising mental illness.  I find this challenging and interesting. Even in my 50s I am "growing" from this. All the best. --CloudSurfer 20:06, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

notenglish
Please, when you add to a page, also make a note on Pages needing translation into English. It's rather tedious following up on this otherwise. But thanks for doing at least step one. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:10, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Hi there
Just a note to say welcome to the Psychopathology Wikiproject and thanks for your contributions! - Vaughan 12:04, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Norodom Chakrapong
Hallo Sietse leuk dat je een van de artikelen die ik ooit geschreven heb hebt vertaald. De meeste artikelen in de Thailand regio op nl.wiki zijn van mijn hand. Het is 1 van de oudere artikelen die ik heb gemaakt bijna een jaar geleden. Misschien kan hij nog wel wat bijgeschaafd worden. Waerth 18:38, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Poutine
Poutine actually tastes very good, so one couldn't conclude that the vandalism was a personnal attack against Grunt's mum. J/k. --Valmi[[User_talk:Valmi| &#10002;]] 16:22, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Clay Beal
It is a truly wonderful thing to share the Legend of Beal with others. Clay Beal really does attend Texas A&M, and will walk on the team, and is 6-11. He has dubious ties to Pippen, and some people suggest that he is indeed his father. His mother is Merlene Beal. All of the "characters" actually exist, and have done all of the things that the article claims thay have. If Clay someday is in the NBA, wouldn't you like to already have a page about him, including a comprehensive history of his life?

You getting in my face?
Ok, I edit like any normal person and expect no fantasies in the articles-especially those about my royal family. This isn't the day for adding Slavic delusions of grandeur with the Danish Empire and England. They may have had greater relationship with Sweden, but not Denmark and certainly not England! It is you who has indiscriminately applied a percieved rule when none such applies. I merely corrected the disoriented versions. If I attempted to mediate with the Poles, they'd have none of it and still insert their POV as the favoured truth. Don't mess with me on this, I swear to fucking God I'll have your ass for dinner! 24.255.40.174 15:07, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, and I apologize for my comment. I'd like you to know that I understand your position. 24.255.40.174 16:33, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * For information: User:24.255.40.174 is an alias of the banned User:Kenneth Alan. - MPF 17:57, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for taking care of the vandalism on my user page back on 29 October. So fast I didn't even notice it until I happened to look at the history today. :) Jamesday 07:24, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

viri
Thanks for the message. I responded via email, via wiki. Jjk 22:56, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi
Please don't systematically change "External links" -> "External link". &mdash; Matt 16:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Hi Matt. I was fixing other things about the 'external links' sections (see Neilc's project) and was fixing this as well when I encountered it. As far as I know, making headings of list sections compatible with the number of entries is recommended practice by academic style guides (e.g. the APA style manual says to make a 'reference' section if there's just one reference). Why do you want me to stop doing that? Sietse 16:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I was a little terse above, and thanks for helping out with the external link maintenance! But to the question: "References" is also a valid style, and many Wikipedians prefer it (including, for example, Neilc who you mention above) &mdash; there's a pramatic argument too, and "External links" is the heading specified in the Manual of Style. I know people disagree on this, but before starting a systematic project to change large swathes of pages to one or the other, it's probably best to get a consensus first. &mdash; Matt 16:58, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My adminship request
Thanks for your support and your kind words! --jpgordon{gab} 06:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Me too! --Woggly 21:18, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unification of the different Wiki fixup projects?
Greetings TB, Neilc, Sietse Snel, and Erik Zachte! I'm posing this message on each of your four talk pages, asking you if you're interested in unifying the different Wiki fixup projects (User:Topbanana/Reports + User:Neilc/External links + User:Sietse_Snel/Fix_common_mistakes + Wiki Syntax Project + Erik's list of HTML problems that he emailed me a subset of).

Currently, we all have different pages at different locations listing different types of problems. What I'm wondering is whether we and the Wikipedia would all be slightly better off if we had one location that contained all of the outstanding problems from all of these different projects. It would be the ultimate clearing-house for problem-finders like us to list problems, and for contributors to go find list of things that need fixing, and fix those problems.

Consider the benefits:
 * One page address for all problems is easier to remember, and we'd set up a super-short shortcut (e.g. "WP:WF") that was very easy to remember.
 * It's easier to avoid duplication by seeing what other people are already doing - for example, I've started searching for redirect problems, only to find the Topbanana was already doing something similar. I didn't mean to do this, but I simply didn't know it had already been done.
 * It evens out the workload - currently one person's problems all get finished, and another person somewhere else has a new batch that's suddenly done and ready for fixing - and it's hard for the contributors to know where to go to find outstanding problems.
 * If we have one page with everything on it, we could list it as a place for newbies to start out doing productive stuff when they're new to the Wikipedia - and by seeing and fixing the types of problems that came up, they'd be that much less likely to make those mistakes themselves.
 * There's a momentum that builds up from having a continuous supply of problems, rather than having a stop-start supply. If problems stop coming, contributors stop checking - they like to see new problems, and feel a part of community project that's getting somewhere and doing something useful.
 * With one central repository, if you go on holidays or disappear for a few weeks or contribute new problems very infrequently, it doesn't matter - someone else will still be doing something useful while you're off doing other stuff.
 * New developers could easily add problems they found to the page, and indeed would be actively encouraged to do so. Rather than a series of independent and competing efforts, it would be one combined effort, with people actively encouraged to expand the scope with new systematic searches for problems (such as Erik, who out-of-blue sent me a list of HTML problems a conversion script of his had found - this is the exactly the type of thing we need to actively encourage, because the whole Wikipedia is that much better off for it).
 * It would make it easy for the contributors to know what's out there - There may be other fixup projects already running that I don't know about, and it would be really good to include them - I haven't omitted anybody deliberately, so if there are omissions, it just proves my point that currently it's hard to know what's out there.
 * As the number of articles in the Wikipedia grows, the need for some systematic central repository of problems grows - and the pace of growth shows no signs at all of slowing.

What do you think? Are you interested? I'm completely open to your suggestions - and to get us started, can I just throw some ideas out there:
 * It would be good to have a WikiProject location (and it does NOT have to be "Wiki Syntax" - it could be "The SuperList of things that need fixing", or "Wiki Fixup", or any other name you like).
 * All problem-finders would be listed in a special credits section (and for the record I'm more happy to be the last name on the list :-) ) - so that everyone still gets recognition and credit.
 * It would be good to have the current list of locations redirect to the new central location, wherever it is, so that any pre-existing links still work.
 * Some basic criteria for the scope of the new project would be good (something like: Covers the whole English Wikipedia; Has lists of problems; The list of problems should be generated by some type of automated process - e.g. software or database query - which ensures that it's systematic and repeatable; The problems listed should be simple to fix, so that the barrier to entry for contributors is low; And it would be good if when contributors fixed problems if we could ask them to put a link in their edit description that pointed back to the central location).

Maybe I'm crazy. Maybe it's a bad idea. I'd really like to think it could work. Maybe it's a good idea. You tell me.

P.s. To save lots of different messages on different pages, can we please have one location where everybody can speak their mind? How about Topbanana's talk page ?

All the best, -- Nickj 07:11, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest, being the nosey sod that I am, the project talk page for maximal coverage? --Phil | Talk 09:31, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Re: Your work
''Hi Sam, I have noticed your name on Wikipedia because of your impressive amount of contributions with fixing spelling, grammar, and similar errors. I have recently started a project which also aims to improve this aspect of Wikipedia: User:Sietse_Snel/Fix_common_mistakes. I thought you might be interested in joining, or maybe you have ideas about ways to improve this project. If you don't feel like joining, maybe we could coordinate our activities a bit so that we are not both trying to fix the same things at the same time. Compliments for your work and best regards, Sietse 14:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)''
 * Hi Sietse, and thanks for pointing me to that page. I was currently fixing duplicates such as and/and and the/the, so I will subscribe and update the page. I'm glad to see I'm not alone! --Sam Hocevar 15:18, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Excellent minor edits.
You and the rest of your team have been making excellent and much needed minor edits. In recognition of your dedication, I offer you my sincere gratitude, and this Minor Barnstar. -- User:ClockworkSoul 07:08, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

fix common mistakes
Hey, thanks for setting up the double-by and other error lists. I've just spent a happy half-hour fixing a couple dozen of them, and in the process read articles I never would have seen, and made a few other fixes, too. Beats the heck out of work! - DavidWBrooks 15:47, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'd like to point out that a large part of these lists, including the 'by by' list, has been made by Sam Hocevar. So the credits go to him :) Sietse 16:20, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, I take my comments back. After doing more than 150 of these things all afternoon, despite valiant efforts to turn away, I curse you all as creators of time-sucking wiki-addiction lists! Boy, I hope my boss never finds out. - DavidWBrooks 20:45, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Just enjoy them while they're still free. We may change our mind and switch to a pay-per-view scheme ;-] Good work, by the way! Sietse 22:24, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. – Ram-Man (comment) (talk)  15:34, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

new miscapitalisation list?
Hi, is it possible to put a new list of possible miscapitalisations on the page? It looks like more and more people want to do fixes! Also, you may be interested in the Wikispeling project: it is a lot less ambitious (for the moment), but I find it fun and instructive to fix articles in other languages. Regards, Sam Hocevar 00:33, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Alas, I can't add new entries for the moment. The problem is that my harddisk is full. I don't have enough space to download and extract the database dump of the English wikipedia. I plan to buy a larger harddisk this month, reinstall all the software I use from scratch, and then continue with the project. I think I can put the next entries online in a few weeks.


 * Thanks for the pointer to the Wikispeling project. It looks fun to me too. I'll certainly contribute (if only a bit). Best regards, Sietse 10:18, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for the update. I still have a database dump, so I will try to add more to the list. Maybe new double words, I don't know yet. Sam Hocevar 12:02, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RFA thanks
Salve, Sietse Snel! I wanted to drop you a line to thank you for your support in my successful RFA candidacy. It was very gratifying to see the kind remarks posted in the debate. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 17:45, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)