User talk:Vrie0006

Welcome!
Hello, Vrie0006, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Psychology has not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. Sundayclose (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Institute for Behavioral Genetics article
Hello, thanks for writing this!

I've just read your article and I'm a bit concerned that the article may not meet notability guidelines for Wikipedia articles - basically having had coverage in the media. (Wikipedia's policy on things like university departments is that "Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article. Information on chapters and affiliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization.")

Are there any citations you can add about the department's activity, like news media, coverage of it as an unusually notable university department or so on? I'm worried since the article may get marked for deletion otherwise. If so, adding them would be great, or if this is something you want to discuss with me just click on my talk page and have a word. All the best. Blythwood (talk) 05:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

National varieties of English
In a recent edit to the page Francis Galton, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to India, use Indian English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Howdy
A few things that might be useful for you:
 * Great advice for experts who are starting to get involved in Wikipedia: WP:EXPERT (experts who read that and take it on board have a much easier time adapting to this wierd world of Wikipedia)
 * WP:MED this is a "Wikiproject" for editors interested in biomedical or health topics.  WikiProjects are semi-formal groups of editors with similar interests, who work together to improve articles in a given field.  There are lots of these. They do things like develop field-specific manuals of style (see for example WP:MEDMOS for articles about diseases/conditions, drugs, etc)) and other guidelines too. WP:MED developed WP:MEDRS, which is a sourcing guideline, parallel to WP:RS but specific for WP:Biomedical information. And the talk page for the project, WT:MED is where we bring each other questions or problems.
 * WP:WikiProject Psychology may of course also be of interest to you.

You can "join" either project by "signing" the main page, but if you just watchlist the Talk page and join in, you will get drawn in and become part, just by plain old socialization.

Anyway, good luck! Jytdog (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC
Thanks for setting up the RfC. I don't want to make an accusation, but I do want to make sure you are not inadvertently and seriously violating Wikipedia policy. I find it peculiar that created an account and made his/her first edit immediately after the RfC was created. created an account just in time to make a lot of edits on Institute for Behavioral Genetics almost exactly at the same time that you made a lot of edits on that article; then edits from both of you were administratively removed. Now both them show up to support the RfC soon after you set up the RfC and within 30 minutes of each other. Maybe as a new user you are not familiar with the strict prohibition against swaying an RfC by using multiple accounts (see WP:SOCKPUPPETRY). Again, I'm not accusing, just trying to inform you that if you have used multiple account without realizing it is against policy, and if you make that clear at the RfC that this has happened, my guess is that there will be no consequences for you except maybe a warning from an admin. On the hand, if you have done this and don't make it clear, you can be permanently banned from ever editing on Wikipedia. And you should know, Wikipedia has the ability to figure out if one person has created multiple accounts through WP:CheckUser, which routinely identifies sockpuppets. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, they're not me. I know them in the real world, both psychologists who I spoke with in real life who agreed about the sidebar so I told them they should make their views known! Vrie0006 (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. Unfortunately, recruiting editors off-Wiki is also prohibited. See WP:SOCK. I do believe you that it was an honest mistake (understandable with a newcomer), but you need to clearly explain this in the RfC discussion; it should be obvious to anyone who checks it out if they read this and see that you willingly acknowledged it and intended no harm. That way, in case the consensus is unclear or evenly divided, whoever closes the RfC will be aware and you can't be accused of trying to hide something. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:John K. Hewitt.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:John K. Hewitt.jpg, which you've attributed to John K. Hewitt. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Behavioural genetics
The article Behavioural genetics you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Behavioural genetics for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Montanabw -- Montanabw (talk) 09:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Notification of GA Reassessment: Behavioral Genetics
Behavioural_genetics, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Groceryheist (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Behavioural genetics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page African ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Behavioural_genetics check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Behavioural_genetics?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Auke Tellegen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Watson ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Auke_Tellegen check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Auke_Tellegen?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

External academic review and publication of Wikipedia pages
Hi, This is a note to ask: would you be interested in submitting any articles for external, academic peer review to improve their accuracy and generate a citable publication?

The WikiJournal of Science (www.wikijsci.org) aims to couple the rigour of academic peer review with the extreme reach of the encyclopedia. For existing Wikipedia articles, it's a great way to get additional feedback from external experts. Peer-reviewed articles are dual-published both as standard academic PDFs, as well as having changes integrated back into Wikipedia. This improves the scientific accuracy of the encyclopedia, and rewards authors with citable, indexed publications. It also provides much greater reach than is normally achieved through traditional scholarly publishing.

The WP:WikiJournal article nominations page should allow simple submission of existing Wikipedia pages for external review. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 03:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paul E. Meehl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Algorithmic ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Paul_E._Meehl check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Paul_E._Meehl?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Paul E. Meehl
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Paul E. Meehl you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Buidhe -- Buidhe (talk) 05:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Paul E. Meehl
The article Paul E. Meehl you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Paul E. Meehl for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Buidhe -- Buidhe (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sheldon C. Reed, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Barre, Vermont and George Snell.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)