User talk:Cswrye

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive

Archives
1

Contents

[edit] Eb 3.0 article

I noticed you have listed the Web 3.0 category I created for deletion. The Web 3.0 article has already disappeared. What happened to it? Peter Campbell Talk! 11:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC).

I checked the deletion logs - its was a speedy delete. I have requested that this be reconsidered here. You may wish add your opinion Peter Campbell Talk! 22:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IPA2: Article for Deletion

Hi, Cswrye! I just logged in and noticed that my article is tagged as AfD. I read the comments and I think it is tagged for personal reasons of the AfD initiator. Would you pls leave your comment? As the author, I do not see myself the right person to give comments. I really appreciate your opinion, regardless of what you decide. Thanx! -DrMoslehi 11:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC+3:30)

[edit] Hii

Hi - reply posted on the NPA personality theory talk page. How are you? - D-Katana 30 September 2006, 00:10 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

I just wanted to say thank you for leaving the definition as is. This and many other terms/words have made dance instruction very difficult due to there misusage. I'm not an english lit. professor so I'm more than happy to have someone correct my typo's as I'm more than certain they are plentiful. However, history in some areas is clear while others it is vague. An example would be: the macarena...you lived during the era of this dance, most likely did this dance, but do you know it's history? Most likely no, so that would require research. The Who, what, when, where, why, and how is something popular culture doesn't really care about. It's just a fad. The aftermath is that others have to go against the grain because few take the time to research and ultimately we sound like fools because for every one of us there are ten thousand saying something different. This medium is a powerful educational tool to help straighten out many things long taught wrong. Forrest Outman of Tampa Bay, Florida USA 19:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User cat guidelines

Hi there! If you're serious about this proposal you should definitely advertise it to get feedback on it. At the moment there doesn't appear to be any substantial response other than your own. Since Wikipedia guidelines must be based upon consensus, you will need some outsider opinion. Yours, >Radiant< 13:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Okay, that's a reasonable solution. Thanks. >Radiant< 15:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swing/Lindy Hop Dance Moves: Wikipedia vs. Wikibooks

Hey Cswrye, I have a question: What do you think about moving the most (if not all) of the swing/lindy hop dance move articles to the Swing Dancing article on Wikibooks? I think PlainJane may have suggested something similar (though less sweeping) a few months back. The reasons would be:

  1. We will always run into the "uncited info" problem on Wikipedia with every dance move article.
  2. Many of the dance moves just have step by step instructions in them anyway, and most will never get more information (excepting something like the Swingout which can have information on how the step evolved).
  3. Wikibooks is made for "How to" articles. And although it also says "no original research", I haven't seen a single reference or in-line note used and the policy seems much less strict.
  4. We can still have one "List of dance moves" article, linked in the appropriate Wikipedia articles, that points to the Wikibook entries.
  5. It would cut down on the number of "bad" articles that people like you and I police, and help us focus on what articles really should be kept in the 'Pedia and expanded.

Essentially I'm coming around to: if we can't source it, but it's good info - it should probably be moved to Wikibooks. Of course there are some things (e.g. Lindy hop today) that are virtually unsourcable, but also far more than a "How to" article. I'm not sure what to do about those yet, but I think moving the instructional pages off Wikipedia and into more appropriate hands is the first step. Any opinion?--Will.i.am 23:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Excellent! Unfortunately I too rarely spend time on Wikibooks, but it seems like a convenient repository for things like Dance moves, which we'd like to clean up (on Wikipedia) without throwing away quite yet. (Quite frankly, I'm dubious of how useful a text account of a dance move is anyway. Have you ever tried to follow some of those directions? Yikes.) Anyway, thanks for the opinion, and yell if I go to far with something you think should stay.--Will.i.am 04:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete away! Here's a tenative todo list for the remaining articles in the category (unless you have other ideas for them):
  1. Unfortunately most of Aerial should probably move to Wikibooks, which will leave it pretty bare.
  2. Per your suggestion, move Swingout and Aerial to the Lindy Hop category.
  3. All of Charleston has been copied to Wikibooks, but one of us should essentially blank the page and write a stub so there's something there. Know anything about the history of Charleston or its culture? I don't ....
  4. Apache should be transwikied entirely. Have you heard it called this much? Perhaps after transwikification we can create a redirect from Apache to Texas Tommy, whose page isn't nearly as bad as the other dance move pages.--Will.i.am 10:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merging the Charleston articles is a great idea.--Will.i.am 21:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I saw that removal of the merge tag. Sans discussion too, which I thought was particularly abrasive. Dance moves are strange because the same exact motion can be used in salsa, lindy, west coast, you name it, but it has a different name (and possibly even different "history") in each case - all undocumented, of course.--Will.i.am 18:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My information is verifiable

I do not put down anything that I will not stand behind. I know that thousands view this daily and many things I write may come as a suprise. I do this because A: all my information is legitimate and can be backed with historical documentation...albeit rare and unknown to most, except historians and B: There has been for sometime more misinformation and speculation than fact available online. I haven't taken the time to write down all my information sources...I most likely will publish a book for this and for educational purposed a dvd set in the future. This type of documention of so much information is VERY time consuming. That is the reason I added my personal information to my signature so if anyone doubts it I'll be easy to track down. Sorry I don't have more time...I'm stretched too thin as is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dancefusion (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Articles for Deletion: Anthony M. Benis and NPA personality theory

Articles that you have been involved in editing, Anthony M. Benis and NPA personality theory, have been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony M. Benis. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --Psychonaut 06:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:PSY

Feel free to drop a note whenever you tag an article and maybe we can get a real discussion going about ratings? It crosses my mind that it might be an idea to tag article with a provisional rating (and a note on the tag to that effect)? Or would that be a bad idea? --Zeraeph 23:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did u get my message

Did you get my message reference the changes I made? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.79.37.118 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] NPA personality theory

Hey, thanks for the message! User:Hoary was much less happy with the post than you were, so I tried to clean it up as much as I could -- I think the version you read might have been much more reasonable than the one he did.

Yeah, I did some looking through the history of WP:GAC, and did find that it was promoted (off the top of my head, by User:Srikeit, but not guarantees on that one) on 29 May this year. That doesn't show up in any searches, though, presumably because the page wasn't indexed in that time. Thanks also for the background knowledge on this, by the way.

I'm really tired, time to get back to bed. :) Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 21:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mailbox Alert

Chad, time to check your email. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.117.70 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Assessment on RC page

Hello, I saw your recent assessment mark on Talk:Re-evaluation_Counseling. I'm curious - how does that get judged, and what effect does it have, if any? Thanks in advance for your help! MarkThomas 18:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation on my talk page. I suppose what I was wondering is if you as a christian are influenced by your background in that in your assessment of something like co-counselling, which I am aware some fundamentalist christian organisations would view as anti-christian since it does not place belief in God at the centre of it's philosophy. Looking at some of your other assessments though it appears you are more influenced by what you consider to be part of mainstream psychology/psychiatry? Not meaning to be pejorative about your motives, just curious where you are coming from, and what the scope is to alter it - do people get into tussles about how these things should be rated? MarkThomas 22:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Low-importance?

I have noted that in Talk Anti-psychiatry article you inserted the phrase: "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale." (Doesn’t the fact that 200,000 people are being electro-shocked each year and that millions of healthy children are drugged with psychiatric drugs is remarkable?)

I wonder if this is your opinion or if the rating has been consensual? —Cesar Tort 17:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improvements to the Psychology portal

Hi, I'm working on trying to get Portal:Psychology up to Featured portal status. Any tips you can offer on how to improve it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Rfrisbietalk 16:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If you're interested in adding selected articles, pictures, psychologists, etc., I can help out with any questions you might have on how to do it. If not, that's fine too. There's always another article assessment to do. ;-) Rfrisbietalk 19:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE:hoax tag

Whoops! must've over looked the external links section before placing the tag, sorry. Storm05 19:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] I just found your reply message

I too do not mean to come off as harsh. I simply felt it was my duty as one of the few higher educated dancers to finally correct some long misunderstood areas of dance culture. This medium I felt was the best to help have a broad based impact on general dance education. I have edited so far jitterbug, swing dance, east coast swing, added eastern swing, and just tonight revamped collegiate shag. I do not remember if I checked Foxtrot yet, but that one is usually way off so I better as well as quickstep. And for the record I respect everyone out there trying to make a difference, I commend you for you work and encourage you to keep learning, growing, and sharing. Thanks, --Forrest Outman of Tampa Bay, Florida USA 06:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User category nominations

Thanks for nominating all those user categories. I've looked through the categories many times, and most of those are all categories that I've wanted to delete or rename myself but never had the guts to do it! I'll go back through and put in my votes for them later, but I'll probably be supporting most of them. —Cswrye 22:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the "vote of confidence" : )
I finished the first and second "waves". I'm about half-way done, I think. (There are some rather large renames that I'm not looking forward to tagging : )

Anyway, hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 14:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick note: Due to the current length of the page, I think several nominations may have been overlooked (some with only 2 comments). While you are obviously welcome to comment as much or as little as you wish, I just wanted to mention that (since I just noticed you were online : ) - jc37 17:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It looked like the majority of the user categories have a pretty clear consensus to go with your nomination, so I didn't think there was much point in my going through all of them just to add "Delete per nom". So if I didn't vote on one, you can probably just assume that I support it. I am trying to vote on the controversial ones, but I probably overlooked some while I was scanning through the list (or I may have just forgotten to back to some of them). If there are any in particular that you want me to look at, feel free to point them out to me. —Cswrye 17:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that's been pretty much the situation with most commenters. See User talk:Mike Selinker#UCFD nominations, for what is hopefully a better explanation. - jc37 17:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lindy Hop Wikiproject?

So... I've been thinking about this again. What do you think of a Lindy Hop Wikiproject? At first I thought "what's the point? It'll just be Cswrye and me." But then I was very inspired by the Ballet Wikiproject, and some other small projects with only a few active members.

PROs:

  • It would provide a forum for Lindy Hop stuff besides the Lindy Hop talk page for things we want to be consistent across all the pages (e.g. capitalization of Lindy Hop).
  • I have a tenative To Do list in by brain, but it would be nice to have a public laundry list than anyone can add to, or look at to say, "hey, I can do that during my lunch break" and cross it off.
  • I REALLY like the way the Ballet Wikiproject lists what each user can contribute (e.g., a subpage of all the members references and who has them, who has access to photos, etc.)
  • I also like how they have a list of "active" and "participating" members (i.e. people who don't add consistently, but that you could go to for some fresh eyes).

CONs:

  • Having to write and upkeep another page.

You've seen this come up a few times now, what do you think? (you can add pros and cons to this list too, they're just all I could think of).--Will.i.am 19:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I'll start with a more detailed To Do list in my userspace, but invite you (or anyone else) to add to the list, comment on it, or work on any of its items. If it does turn out to be helpful or necessary to do the Wikiproject thing then we can always switch it over.--Will.i.am 23:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disco

Sounds good to me. If there's info on disco dance then it could be moved to its own article. Cheers, Fang Aili talk 16:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about disco either. I'm cool with whatever at this point. --Fang Aili talk 01:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

My apologies for wasting your time by creating the nonsense category Wikipedians who stop the cars and wave in the children.
Please accept this peace dove.
Wdflake

[edit] List of colleges and universities in California

Hi Cswrye. You changed my entry on List of colleges and universities in California as being spam.[1] I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. The state of California classifies Pacific Western University just how I entered it on the list. Further, because of the confusion surrounding the classifications by the California Bureau of Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education institutions, I added an explanation and link on the list so that others may properly categorize such institutions. Listing California Bureau of Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education institutions as Two-year institutions when in fact they are not exposes Wikipedia to liability. (Not that you did this, but) listing California Bureau of Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education institutions as unaccredited institution when in fact they are not exposes Wikipedia to liability. I hope you reconsider your change to my entry on List of colleges and universities in California. Thanks.-- Jreferee 20:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your reply. You placed Pacific Western University under the two-year institution section. Pacific Western University is not a two-year institution. It is a correspondece school where there is no defined time to obtaining a degree. For example, a PhD degree takes about nine months. California Bureau of Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education (BPPVE) institutions are unique in that respect and should have their own section on the List of colleges and universities in California page. If you really want to break it down, look at the bottom of this page and you will see the six categories:
  • BPPVE Approved Institutions - Degree
  • BPPVE Approved Institutions - Non-Degree
  • BPPVE Approved Institutions - Non-WASC Regionally Accredited (CEC §94905)
  • BPPVE Registered Institutions
  • BPPVE Religious Exempt Institutions
  • BPPVE Approved Institutions - Title 38 (Veterans)
Rather than being a two-year institution, Pacific Western University is a California BPPVE Approved Institutions - Degree. Pacific Western University should be listed under such a heading on the List of colleges and universities in California page or under a heading of BPPVE, which is what I chose to do.-- Jreferee 23:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asssessment of James McClelland

I've changed the assessment of McClelland to Mid.[2] This guy was actually quite influential in increased attention of neural network and connectionism in psychology and cognitive sciences. By the way, thanks for following up all of those assessments. Your assessments are normally spot on. --Comaze 01:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grin

this is kinda cool, isn't it? (I especially smiled that during the same edit, while "dating" became "engaged to", the category "Single Wikipedians" was removed : ) - jc37 09:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing; I honestly didn't think that anyone would pay attention to that! Of course, I'm very excited about the whole thing. (And there's no category for engaged Wikipedians or else I would have changed to that category instead of just getting rid of one. :) ) —Cswrye 05:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, Congratulations from me, and I do wish you both all the best : ) - jc37 04:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks and noted

Thanks for the work you're doing completing all the WPPsychology templates I've been adding! I've noted your correction to the templates and will do them that way from here on. Aleta 20:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

For your advice and for helping to make zombietime presentable. Zombiefan 19:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Psychology question

I started to evaluate psychology articles for the project a few days ago. Well, the next day I saw that you had corrected a few of my assessments. When I looked around at them and other info I found, I saw that there was more to the assessing process than just changing the template on the talk page. What exactly is the process of evaluating an article? I would like to know because I believe that this is one of the best ways for me to contribute to Wikipedia. Thanks!--Cassmus 04:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'll get started again. What you described on my talk page isn't too different from what I was doing before. I'm glad to help.--Cassmus 08:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiMT

Please accept this invite to join the new WikiProject MTSU, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Articles related to Middle Tennessee State University. Simply click here to accept! –Pomte 01:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

JNAllen 17:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] featured article assessment

Are you the one who has done the "featured article assessment" to the article on La Bayadere?

If so, where is it that you discuss with others how to go about rating an article? Are you the only one that does it? Can anyone do it? can these "grades" be changed?

Im asking this because I am having difficulty understanding how an article on one of the most important ballets in the classical repertory can be given a "B". Where can one find what the specific breakdown is as to why the reasons that the article get the grades they get. Was the article on La Bayadere judged based on its importance to the dance project as a whole or the way in which it follows wikipedia guidelines, etc.?

Thanks!!! :) --Mrlopez2681 02:53, 14 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 19:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings

I am sent you message some time ago about the wiki project dance rating system, and I recieved no response. Did you recieve my message, or perhaps overlook it by accident? If so, please read my message sent to from me, :)

Thank you! Mrlopez2681 22:23, 2 March 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, if you are so inspired. Thank you!! Psykhosis 20:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Age category

Hello! If you are receiving this message, that means that your user page is in a specific year category. Per a recent user-category per deletion, all specific year categories are to be deleted. If you wish to continue using year categories, you have two options:

  • Using an age group category, such as Category:Wikipedians in their 30s
  • Using a decade category, such as Category:Wikipedians born in the 1970s.

If you wish, you may do both. Hopefully, this change in categorization will be quick and painless. Happy editing! --An automated message from MessedRobot 12:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reparative Therapy

Do you know anything about Reparative therapy? It is highly politized issue and we wanted to know what the official viewpoint of psychology.Joshuajohanson 05:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Methodism project

It occurred to me that there is not now a functional group dealing with articles related to Methodism. I have thus created a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Methodism for a group which might deal with such content. If you are interested, please feel free to indicate as much there. Thank you. John Carter 17:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:TreveccaNazareneUniversityLogo.gif

Hello Cswrye, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:TreveccaNazareneUniversityLogo.gif) was found at the following location: User:Cswrye. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 04:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:OlivetNazareneUniversityLogo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:OlivetNazareneUniversityLogo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jumpswing (2nd nomination)

Since you have edited Lindy Hop articles in Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jumpswing (2nd nomination). panda 15:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Minnesota Lindy

An article that you have been involved in editing, Minnesota Lindy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota Lindy. Thank you. —Christian Campbell 09:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nashville photog needed for Wikinews

Any photographers (and by that, I mean anyone with a digital camera) that can make it to Nashville this Sunday at 6 pm, to photograph the final show of Jump5?

Details here: http://nashville.craigslist.org/crg/505941578.html

Let me know! -- Zanimum (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Importance scale

I see you were involved a while ago in the psychology article importance scale. Can you tell me please who and how makes these assessments? I've asked on the psychology project page but the whole project seems pretty moribund. I've been a bit puzzled by some assessments I've seen and was wondering if it was just individual editors with perhaps an exaggerated sense of the importance of the particular articles they write. Fainites barley 12:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Cswyre. Can I assume then that assessments should be left to the team and not just put in by the authors? Fainites barley 21:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I wondered - because I've come across a couple of articles where the assement of 'high importance' has been put in by fond authors for obscure topics or utterly unnotable unvalidated therapies. Also anomolies where attachment disorder, which is a fairly inchoate term is 'high' yet reactive attachment disorder which is a specific diagnosis with a body of research is 'medium'. Does this mean I could just swap them round? (Speaking as a fond author). Fainites barley 20:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think 'mid' is probably fair for RAD - though it gets 16,000 hits a month. Just that high is way too high for attachment disorder. I suspect it was put there by the old pro-attachment therapy socks as they're the ones who diagnose this alleged disorder. I'll raise it on the talkpage. Fainites barley 17:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back : )

The name says it all : ) - jc37 04:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)