User talk:Skagedal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome to skagedal's talk page!

All comments are appreciated.

Please add new messages to the bottom, use this link! I usually respond on this page, I think it's easier if discussions are kept on the page where they're started. If you would like me to add a note on your talk page when I respond, say so and I will do that. /skagedal[talk] 19:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Skagedal, 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 (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! , SqueakBox 00:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:American psychologists

You wrote:

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)
Thanks. I would have realized that, had I thought about it in the last few days since learning how it really works, but didn't know at the time that it would be put on a list of famous psychologists on another page. BTW, something you probably didn't know: citing the category link (Category:American psychologists) as you did on my talk page (with double brackets), showed a blank in the text and put my talk page in the Category:American psychologists! I was surprised too. I fixed it. Do you know whether there is a category like Wikipedians by profession? I couldn't find one. Seems like it would be helpful. Update: I couldn't find it using Wikipedia's search engine, which I already know is almost worthless. It came up as the top hit in Google.... -DoctorW 23:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I see you found Category:Psychologist Wikipedians. I have also just created Category:Wikipedians interested in psychology. -DoctorW 00:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting vandalism edits

Thanks for the advice about reverting vandalism edits. In the past it was easier just to cut and paste to revert the minor vandalism I'd seen. I tried to set up the User:DoctorW/monobook.js by copying your source code (of User:Skagedal/monobook.js), but it didn't automatically come out the same. It was hard to see how to fix it from WP:US. I'm not yet familiar with the dotted-border paragraphs, though I've seen them (including at User:RSugden/Sandbox3, a psychology project I'd like to revive which you might find interesting).

1. If it's easier for you just to fix User:DoctorW/monobook.js than to explain to me how to do it, please feel free. If not, could you explain or point me to the right place. In searching for instructions, I ran across User:Rparle/monobook.js/purgebutton, which you might also find interesting if you can figure out what it does, as it contains "Purge Cache" (is this what you're doing with your control sequences?)

2. Can you explain to me (or point me to the explanation) of how to use this monobook.js after it's correctly configured?

3. I noticed that your control sequences use the "control" key. Would you happen to know whether the cache can be bypassed in Safari on a Macintosh by using Command-Refresh?

Thanks! -DoctorW 21:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Just a note to say thanks for creating the reference re-ordering script for the schizophrenia article. It looks fantastic as a result and is much less of a headache to follow up the academic articles.

Thanks!

- Vaughan 22:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, thank you for all the great work on the article! /Skagedal 22:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Help with {{ref}}

(Copied from the help desk)

I'm trying to convert Schizophrenia to using {{ref|...}} for references instead of {{fn|...}}, as it does now. I created a little script to do this, but I'm not happy with the results. Under the "History" heading, you'll find the very first reference ("However, a recent study..."). However, it is assigned number 2, not 1! What's going on here?

My first theory was that there was an external link (like [http://foo.org]) somewhere earlier in the text, because these use the same numbering sequence (right?), but this seems not to be the case. /Skagedal 17:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

There is considerable controversy over conversion to this format. You might want to look at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SEWilco before you continue with this project.
That said, no there is not normally a URL link in the text area -- in fact an article that uses this format must not use inline URLs without link text, because they screw up the numbering system. {{ref}} inserts a link, which goes to the corresponding use of {{note}} -- coresponding according to the note name/lable. The calls to {{note}} are normally all in the Notes section, and they include the actual citation info, which may or may not include a URL. If this dean't help, reread Wikipedia:Footnotes which expalins the method in some detail, and/or find a page that uses the system. I used it on Thomas Shipp, perhaps that page will help. DES (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
On further examination, note 1 is in an image caption. Perhaps that is the issue. DES (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbox categories

Hi. I was wondering if you could please remove the categories from your Sandbox article so it doesn't show up in the category listings themselves. Thanks!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh! Certainly. Thanks for telling me. /skagedal[talk] 05:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corpus striatum

The corpus striatum is actually the basal ganglia and internal capsule together. For now I just had it redirecting to the BG, but I'll make the corpus striatum page more clear. Semiconscious • talk 02:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing this up! /skagedal[talk] 21:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move to commons

I'm curious why you changed the file name of an image that you moved to commons (Image:A01 6097 640x427.JPG). I realize the new file name is descriptive, but now we'll need to go back and change over any articles that pointed to the old image before we can nominate it for deletion. If we don’t do that, then we’ll end up with redundant images (also not useful). I realize it's only a couple of extra steps to edit the articles, but these steps seem so unnecessary. I also strongly oppose descriptive file names for photos, but that’s a different matter. I’ll write that one up on my user page for comment. Rklawton 19:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, the reason I changed the name is that I thought it should have a more descriptive name. I did not know that there was a debate over whether to have descriptive names on pictures or not, I thought that was obvious. The problem with changing articles pointing to the images is not a big one (two articles + your userpage), I was already on it, then Wikipedia started behaving strangely for me... I'm sorry if I stepped on your toes, I will look at your arguments on your user page. Nice picture, btw! /skagedal[talk] 19:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Frankly I don't even know if such a debate exists. I may be the only one with these concerns. As a photographer who produces up to (but not usually) a thousand images a week, the easier it is for me to manage my photos, the better. I may shoot five or ten subjects in a set, and with descriptive file names, I'd never know they came from the same set. Creating descriptive file names takes time (time is money), and I may have a dozen first-rate images of the same subject from the same set. Since they all have the same subject, setting, and date, what would I use for a descriptive file name then? I'd have to start taking numbers onto the end. When it comes to this Wiki media, if someone asks me about Pavlov’s dog or other photos of the Pavlov Museum or Ryazan, all I need is the file name, and I can locate that photo immediately. If someone now asks me about “One of Pavlov's dogs.jpg” I’d have to rely on my memory to find it. Alternatively, I’ll need to follow in your footsteps and add the original file name to the image summary so I can relate it back to my own catalogue (again, extra work for me).

For the sake of photographers who are tracking their images and maintaining galleries of their contributions, I recommend not changing file names – except where a file name has already been used by another image in the Commons (yet another problem with descriptive file names). Of course, I have released these images into the public domain, and you are free to use them as you wish. Certainly you have done nothing wrong or ill intentioned, and I appreciate your candid response. I may attempt to strike up a debate in an appropriate forum, but I’d rather hold off unless this becomes a more significant problem for me – and until I’m sure that my own ideas have merit. The latter concern is why I posted a note in your talk page – and why I appreciate your response. Perhaps I’ll change sides before any debate has a chance to begin. Thank you also for your patience. Rklawton 19:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Psychology Project

Thanks for helping out with the portal, skagedal! I think a WikiProject does sound like a good idea. I can't say I have any experience with them (or much else; I'm pretty new), but I would love to work on one and am sure we could get plenty of interested people on board. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeligf (talk • contribs).

Yep, I think it's time! /skagedal... 14:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the invite, skagedal - happy to be on board - thanks for initiating. Sincerely, James Jtneill - Talk 04:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: WikiProject: Psychology

Thanks for the invite. I just added myself to the page. Have a great day =) -therearenospoons 10:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice work, bravo. thx, pyl 14:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about the late reply! Is it okay if I think about it? Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 21:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hejsan

Läget?

(Deng 10:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] RSS

Greetings to a fellow RSS feed scraper! Glad you were inspired. I must say your Python looks a lot cleaner than my Perl :) I pondered doing multiple entries at once which is more in the spirit of RSS, but I had been using Bloglines, and as such I didn't have a need for keeping older items in the feed. In any case, it's good to have a choice. Cheers, Dze27 22:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psychology wiki

Hi I see that you have been contributing to psychology articles on Wikipedia. Just to let you know that we are working on an academic psychology wiki for our professional community and their users. This can be found at: [1] We would really welcome your input and ask you to join us. We already have over 7000 pages up. Orientation, help and community portal pages are available off of this link. Please pass the good news onto anyone you feel would be interested Part of our mission is to develop the site as a multilingual professional resource and your language skills would be particularly valuable Lifeartist 15:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to invite you to have a look at the Psychology Wiki again, because we are redesigning it and its starting to come together :) Mostly Zen 02:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some articles that may interest you

[edit] Health Wiki Research

A colleague and I are conducting a study on health wikis. We are looking at how wikis co-construct health information and create communities. We noticed that you are a frequent contributor to Wikipedia on health topics.

Please consider taking our survey here.

This research will help wikipedia and other wikis understand how health information is co-created and used.

We are from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The project was approved by our university research committee and members of the Wikipedia Foundation.

Thanks, Corey 15:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback that you posted on my talk page. I appreciate all your comments. All were very valid. I have passed those on to my fellow researcher. Thanks again for taking the survey and then taking the time to give us feedback.Corey 17:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course, glad to help! Sounds like interesting and important research. Hope I didn't sound too sarcastic in the comments on your page... /skagedal... 21:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: R. C. Sherriff/Sources

Skagedal wrote:

Hi! On december 8, you deleted the page R. C. Sherriff/Sources with the comment "left over from page move". I don't know what the content on this page was, but I'm noting that it is still linked from R. C. Sherriff. I'm thinking that the contents of that page should be saved somewhere, either directly in the article as usual or on Talk:R. C. Sherriff. The page was mentioned on m:Talk:Wikicite. Also, I want to know how your user page works! :-) —skagedal... 18:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I failed to notice that it was still linked from the article. Before I deleted it R. C. Sherriff/Sources was actually just a redirect to Talk:R. C. Sherriff/Sources, which had been left behind when the page was moved there. In other words, I haven't actually removed any content; the content that was linked to in the article is now at Talk:R. C. Sherriff/Sources, and it looks like someone has updated the link to point there. If you want to move that content elsewhere, or do something else with it, that's up to you. As far as my userpage it concerned, it's a secret – Gurch 22:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! —skagedal... 23:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schizophrenia

(header added by me /skagedal... 09:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC))

Thank you for your comments. I have ammended my message. Unfortunately, I am afraid Yoy will find no resourses on this particular problem in wikipedia. Please, try in the google with "oneiroid" and "stoyanov". Best wishes —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.148.73.190 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 30 December 2006.

Reply on your talk page. /skagedal... 09:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Merging journals list

I left a message here which may be of interest to you. EPM 18:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me! /skagedal... 19:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to your comment

Hi, Thanks for your kind comments about the Social trap article I wrote. I am really new to writing in Wikipedia and am just trying to learn the format. It is quite different from what I am used to. Thanks for working on the categories. I had troubles getting the categories to show up and still am not sure how to do it right. Your changing Psychology to social psychology is good. I was sorry that the two categories "social economies" and "economic models" were dropped from the list, because they are both relevant to the topic. Maybe wikipedia only allows five categories? I don't know enough of the rules. I will look into the Psych project you talked about. Thanks for pointing it out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Time River (talk • contribs) 09:30, 6 January 2007.

Hi! The way to add multiple categories to a page is to add a line of [[Category:My category]] for each. Sometimes you also want a "sort key", as in [[Category:American psychologists|Skinner, B. F.]] — for more information, see Help:Category.
The reason why I dropped Category:Social economies and Category:Economic models is that neither of these categories exist. You see this by the links being red. There might be two reasons for this: the first is that they do exist, but under other names. Look around in the category tree, for example under Category:Economics. The other possibility is that they should exist, but haven't been created yet. Creating a category is just like creating an article, but you should make sure it shows up in the correct place in the category tree. There is no hard limit as to how many categories can be in an article.
Hope this helps! Again, feel free to ask any questions. Another final tip is that it is recommended to sign entries that you write on talk pages by adding four tilde signs: ~~~~ to the end of the message. /skagedal... 11:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RSS feed for POTD

The RSS feed for POTD has produced the wrong template for two days in a row. Apparently there has been a change on the templates used by Wikipedia:Picture of the day. Can you please fix this ASAP? --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 03:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I schedule the PsOTD and yes, we changed our system. We no longer have them at [[Wikipedia:Picture of the day/mmmm dd, yyyy]]. Instead, it's template-driven now. The daily POTD can be accessed at Template:Pic of the day but there's no page that permanently displays previous ones except for the archives, and those are for the entire month. Are you caching those yourself or are you just reading it from the old days? howcheng {chat} 05:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, after a little bit of thought I have an idea. If you are caching previous PsOTD on your site somewhere, then there's no real issue here. I kind of doubt you are, though, because that seems like a lot of work and I wouldn't program it that way myself. So what can we do? I'm thinking I make 20 pages for you at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/RSS/-1 day through Wikipedia:Picture of the day/RSS/-20 days (since today's is available elsewhere). On each page, I use {{Pic of the day|date={{#time:Y-m-d|{{PAGENAME}}}}}} which will thus create the PsOTD for -1 through -20 days. Since I don't know Python, I can't tweak your code, but how does that sound to you? howcheng {chat} 05:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi guys, sorry for being late in responding. Thank you Midnighttonight for notifying me and Howcheng for being helpful. Nice to hear that someone is using this.
As a matter of fact I am caching the pages, to minimize server hits. It was quite simple code, I have a class that returns POTD (or FA...) for a specific day, and if it has it in cache, it returns that, otherwise it tries getting the page. If getting the page fails, it just ignores this day and retries the next day. So, it would be possible to change it to just add {{Pic of the day}} to the cache every day. One possible drawback would be that if it for some reason fails to access Wikipedia, that day will be lost in the RSS for the whole 20 days. Possibly I could make it retry several times in a day.
So this solution might actually be a simple hack for me, while the "Wikipedia:Picture of the day/RSS/-1 day through Wikipedia:Picture of the day/RSS/-20 days" might make it more failsafe. I'll have to look more into this, but I'm unsure how soon, quite busy right now... :/ Howcheng, at what time of day is POTD updated? /skagedal... 15:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Glad to hear you are caching it. As I thought about it after I posted, I realized that caching also makes sense because you only have to get the latest one every day. Anyway, the POTD is written about a month in advance, so barring any unforeseen circumstances, they don't get changed (it HAS happened once where the RSS feed differed from the actual POTD because it had to be changed at the last minute due to copyright concerns). But if you only get the daily POTD after it's been posted to the Main Page, you won't have any problem. We're using magic words to put the POTD up so it's automatically updated at 0:00 UTC. If you grab Template:Pic of the day at 0:01 you can guarantee you get the correct POTD. Hopefully this is a quick hack for you so you can devote a couple of minutes to get the feed working for people again. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 17:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed that my script actually hadn't been running since December 28! Anyhow, I hacked it, and hopefully it should now be working again, running every night at 00:30 UTC. Since it hadn't been running, I have no cache for the past 19 days, but from today on it should be running... hopefully. :)
Re:your question. I subscribe to the RSS feed, and it has been coming through to my reader a bit like this. Very weird that it updated even though the script didn't run. Are you sure of that? --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 23:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
It appeared to me that http://helgo.net/simon/wikipedia/potd.xml had not been updated since december 28, and my log file had no entries since that date. Weird. /skagedal... 23:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Aha, I just discovered {{POTD title/2007-04-01}} and friends. This is excellent, by using this directly I can more easily format the RSS the way I want it, and will no longer have to "guess" to get the title from the caption! (although the guessing seems to have worked quite well.) /skagedal... 13:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this Skagedal! I've been enjoying this feed for a long while now and I'm sure many others are as well! Jack 14:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm glad to hear that!
Unfortunately, it seems that it still doesn't work. It just adds the same dragonfly picture from yesterday all over again, must be hitting a cache somewhere, but I can't figure out where or how. Using {{POTD title/2007-04-01}} etc. would probably be a much more stable solution. I'll work on it... soon, maybe tonight. /skagedal... 14:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Skagedal -- the feed seems to be working again today (ish). I got a nice picture of a raccoon in my reader this morning, strangely that's the picture for tommorrow! I'm in the UK so I would have thought I would get the picture later rather than earlier considering you're behind us! Thanks, Jack 08:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That is strange indeed! :) Good to hear that it's sort of working, at least. Hopefully, when I've found the time to work on the other solution, it will work more predictably. Thanks for the input. /skagedal... 09:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Skagedal, I think the POTD feed is getting the cached version sometimes... I notice a lot of repeats in there. Besides Template:Pic of the day, you can get them from [[Template:POTD/YYYY-MM-DD]] also. That will bypass the server cache for sure. howcheng {chat} 23:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions, please.

This is Ben 10. I noticed you visited the articles I made about Lady, Tramp, Scamp, and Angel. What do you think of them? Ben 10 17:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I think that some of the text, especially the "Personality" sections read a bit like original research and non-neutral statements such as "Scamp is an extremely entertaining character". I'd recommend you to try and find some external reliable sources that you can cite to support the text. Good luck! /skagedal... 09:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, admittedly they are often based on my own research, especially the personality sections. But I've learned to be wary of doing too much searching online. A search might turn up some excellent backstage info on movie characters, but sometimes it turns up... other stuff. Of course, I try to verify my statements whenever possible, but let's face it: some things are up to the viewer to decide. Ben 10 12:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skinner article

It appears that vandals are repeatedly editing the entry on B. F. Skinner. Do you watch it regularly to correct this? I haven't waded through the talk to see what's being done, but I would support efforts to keep the entry accurate and respectful.

Thanks,

JohnL 16:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, this seems to be an often vandalized article. It's on my watch list, and I revert whenever I notice something bad. /skagedal... 16:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Technical restrictions" title fix on svwp

Hi! I have a question about the wonderful "technical restrictions" title fix hack. I have copied it to Swedish Wikipedia, and it works like a charm. One odd thing though: the title of the template sv:Mall:Liten begynnelsebokstav, our equivalent of {{lowercase}}, gets changed to "Template:liten begynnelsebokstav", instead of the Swedish namespace prefix "Mall:". Do you have any idea of how to fix this? /skagedal... 12:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is the wgCanonicalNamespace javascript variable. It always has the default name of the namespace, instead of the translated version. For example, your "Mall" namespace has wgCanonicalNamespace == "Template". This won't be a problem on articles, but if you want to fix it, you can set up an if..then loop for each of the namespaces, or you can just leave it alone :-). You should also change document.title = realTitleText + " - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"; to document.title = realTitleText + " - Wikipedia, den fria encyklopedin";, too. —METS501 (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! /skagedal... 16:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rating the ToK

Hi. I'm trying to get members of the Psychology Project to get together and rate the both the quality and importance of the Tree of Knowledge System. Hope you're interested. Have a great day! EPM 19:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for peer review

The article Clinical psychology has just been listed for peer review. You are invited to lend your editing eyes to see if it needs any modifications, great or small, before it is submitted to the Featured Article review. Then head on over to the peer review page and add your comments. Thank you!! Psykhosis 20:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/k/a/User_talk%7ESkagedal_ca3e.html"