User talk:DCDuring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, DCDuring, 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --TimPope 21:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)



Contents

[edit] Re: Thanks, Sorry, and I Didn't Do It

Thanks for the explanation for why you reversed changes I had made to Self-help (capitalization of section titles). It is a valuable part of my Wikipedia education. I also tried to make the hyphenation more uniform, but neglected to consult MOS and may have done it wrong. Sorry for acting without consulting MOS. In case there is confusion in this regard, the commerical links were not mine. I was actually very tempted to remove them. DCDuring 03:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing. I meant to link MOS:CAPS in my edit summary. Your caution with removing content (links included) is sensible, especially for someone starting out — while one was blatantly selling a product, the other was borderline-helpful (tho not uniquely so).
I'm no expert on the Self-help topic, and watch that article mostly for spam, but feel free to message me if you have questions. / edg ☺ ★ 03:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harry V. Roberts

Hi, DCDuring! Thanks for this article. It looks pretty good.

I did notice that there are two entirely empty sections, which don't look so good. Are you planning to work on the article again sometime soon? If so, you might consider placing an "underconstruction" template on the article, to let the rest of us know about your intentions. The template looks like this.


Thanks! Have a great day. DavidCBryant 15:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction to Evolution

It might merit such a disclaimer as it is changing moment by moment. A problem for someone using it as a reference. I am not sure how much changes are yet to come. I attempted to lay a foundation; but it may crumble under the critiques. In which case such a disclaimer is needed. Tim might have the answer to its stability at this point. Other than catching the typos I'm done.

Don't be gun-shy. I've begged for help intially and little to none was forth-comming from the main article guru's. I think the two failed GA's got there attention. Although the first was unfair - since we were lead to believe it was adequate other than the citations. By all means --- have at it. The primary theme is to achieve some level of readability; as edits should lean in the direction of reducing complexity without losing content. At some point - when everyone is invested we may wish to discuss changes on the Talk page or we will be undermining each others efforts. Thanks for the interest. --Random Replicator 19:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dawkins

Thanks for your edit, but we shouldn't describe Dawkins with such a strange and ambiguous idiom as "a lightning rod for controversy" (which can be interpreted in all sorts of ways that don't make any sense at all) without a source. --McGeddon 17:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your question

Hi - I answered your question on my talk page. MastCell Talk 16:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferefenced template

Hi. I'd suggest you don't add {{unreferenced}} to articles that do have references, like Theory of computation. Also, I think it would be great if you could use an edit summary when you contribute, so that we understand what you changed. Thanks! You can reply here if you have comments. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, templates like {{indiscriminaterefs}} are more appropriate at the bottom of articles I think, where they don't disrupt reading the article. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about wrong tag. I thought that part of the point of the tags was to help users recognize the level of authority, objectivty, and care in the article. High placement, to give fair warning, supports that. Otherwise its a bait-and-switch: Start reading, thinking it's authoritative, only to be disappointed at the bottom. DCDuring 03:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not authoritative. Even if there are plenty of careful inline citation, there is no guarantee that the text was not modified later. I can't tell you what to do, but I'd suggest you consider putting that {{indiscriminaterefs}} templates at the bottom, where it won't distract people. By the way, you can reply here, I'll keep your talk page on my watchlist for a while. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for causing me to consult WP:WHEN (essay) and WP:PROVEIT (policy) about the density of citations. I understand the issues more. To me, the Algorithm article is well-referenced and illustrates a desirable standard. I'm sure that an expert would find reason to quibble, but it provides points of entry for specific sentence-by-sentence (or at least paragraph-by-paragraph) improvement. Many of the "See Also" articles from that article are not up to that standard.
I am not yet all familiar with all the WP style pages. Where would I find something that recommends bottom placement of the various section tags? DCDuring 12:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
{{Indiscriminaterefs}} itself recommends that it be placed at the bottom of articles (if you visit that link and read towards the bottom). You can ask more information on the talk page of the template I think. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I see that there is no consensus. Until there is I think I will use placement location in my discretion to indicate how serious I think the problem is. If a warning is really needed (IMHO) then top, if it's mostly to improve quality, bottom. DCDuring 17:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Entourage GTD Links

Hi DCDuring, I had flagged the "Earth2Adam.com (Entourage GTD Series) AppleScripts for implementing GTD with Entourage 2004" link you added to Getting Things Done as possible spam because it was placed near the head of the list, because there was already another GTD Entourage link, and because it probably belongs in the Comparison of GTD software list instead. I couldn't find Entourage in the latter, so you might want to add it. I'm not enough of an Apple user to know if they belong in that software list. I did go ahead and remove both Entourage links from Getting Things Done. Regards, ChemGardener 23:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent on it. The link doesn't have high info value, IMHO. DCDuring 23:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prospective memory

Hi there. I was at one stage quite busy on several ProM projects, but they're sort of mothballed at the moment. I'm still reasonably familiar with the literature, probably up to about 2005, and I guess that's why there is a good whack of sciencey stuff in there. I guess part of the problem for me is that I have my own thoughts on ProM, which may not necessarily fit with current consensus (and I don't really know what current consensus is). My sense, when I was last looking at it actively, is that there were really 2 competing camps I guess, somewhat arguing over what ProM was. --Limegreen 01:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: New York, Westchester and Boston Railway

To answer your questions... Yes, the current naming convention is to omit "Company" from the article title. Yes, "and" is preferred over "&". And yes, it is up to the editors to determine how best to mix corporate and operational histories within an article; there are so many special cases in this regard that it would be very difficult to build a consensus on this issue. Slambo (Speak) 10:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Affect

I answered you on my talk page. In the end it seems like "emotion" is the subjective experience of a person. Affect and mood are what the observer sees or deduces. However, the quotations on my talk page imply that the person may not be aware of his or her emotion, or judge it incorrectly. --Mattisse 20:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emotion

I do not think the word "emotion" is even mentioned in DSM-IV, although I am still looking. --Mattisse 21:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. "Mood" and "affect" are core words in DSM-IV criteria. --Mattisse 21:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on affect

The book I was quoting from (which I can't find now because I have so many books piled up around me) was relatively old, I believe. I think its explanation was very muddled. I believe that affect and mood are the relevant words, as DSM-IV uses those terms and does not mention emotion.

I believe emotion is just a general word that may be used loosely. I know that I have written thousands of psychological reports, evaluations, and notes in medical records and never used the word unless, perhaps, I was quoting something the client said. Regards, --Mattisse 00:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Affect display

I saw that and was surprised. That was a definition provided by the American Psychological Association? I noticed that neither of the two links you provided in the article mention "affect display". I don't know what to think. I have never heard the term. We are all bound legally to DSM-IV for diagnostic terms so, in my opinion, we should stick to that in defining and using technical terms. --Mattisse 00:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

As a normal human being, I am not bound by the DSM. Since this is a psych article, I thought the APA dictionary would the good definitive source, including many schools of thought and the research community. At least the concept has a label. Now you just need a generally accepted concept for the label "Affect". DCDuring 01:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I know it is hopeless. Psychology is a joke on Wikipedia. (Fortunately that is not true in the real world as there are laws to prevent it.) In engineering, architecture and other discipline, people do not feel free to make up terms, and the professionals do not put up with it in those disciplines on Wikipedia. Fortunately, psychiatry seems more professionally strict so I will move my interest there. However, there was a big negative reaction to the emotion footer, so I believe that some day, psychology will get a grip on Wikipedia and clean this mess up. And I will continue to try to return Psychology to the discipline it really is instead of a free-for-all for crank ideas and original research. Regards, --Mattisse 01:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
On Amazon, I have found a great deal of use of the term "affective display", some of it in professional works like the "Handbook of Emotion" and also dating back to "I'm OK, You're OK". I'll put that in as an alternate for "Affect display".
You might have to fight your battles at the APA. THEY don't seem to have the terms straight or THEY don't want to do too much violence to the popularly used terms. DCDuring 01:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emotional labor

The article is a mess. The most important problem is that it not sourced. Listing references at the bottom is not providing reference citations with page number, book ISBN's etc. so that the reader can go directly to the source and verify if any statement made in the article is correct, and that the information in the article as a whole is correct. If that is not possible, then the article stands as original research. Wikipedia policy is that any information that is not properly referenced can be removed from the article by any editor.

Secondly, the article does not make sense. It reads like a grab bag of entries with attempts to make it look legitimate which it clearly is not. When people who don't know what they are talking about try to sound like they know what they are talking about, it almost never results in a product that seems like they know what they are talking about. --Mattisse 03:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Lay off the newbie, bully. DCDuring 04:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two weeks old!

No wonder it is a mess. It is way to big for an article two weeks old. That essentially means that one or more people copy/pasted or in some other way inserted massive amounts of information. I would suspect copy/paste by the way the pseudo-references are tacked on to paragraphs. Ideally articles build slowly through editors carefully adding small chunks of carefully cited material. That clearly is not the case in that article. --Mattisse 04:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, looking at the article history I would suspect copy/paste. On one day one entry was 5000 kilobyes (half the entire article) and unreferenced. It is just a question of where the copyvio came from. --Mattisse 04:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hila

Who is Hila? Are you Hila? You posted on my talk page first. I tried to be helpful and did spend some time and effort to reply to you originally, even though I did not know who you were and had no previous contact with you that I am aware of.

However, we are now at the point where I do not know what you are talking about. Perhaps you contacted me in error. In any event I do not think further communication between us will be beneficial so I will ask you not to post further on my talk page and I will not post on yours. Regards, --Mattisse 04:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hila (I forgot the four digits at the end of the actual registered name) is the user who is working on the article that you dumped on. You can find the exact name at the article. DCDuring 04:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re : Redintegration Deletion Query

Content of the deleted article is pretty short : "The reinstatement of a memory upon the presentation of a stimulus element that was a part of the stimulus complex that had aroused the event. Eg., The phrase "knocking on heavan's door" will bring to your mind the whole song sung by the Guns 'n' Roses band.". - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 15:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abitration decision on appropriate sources: Science vs pseudoscience

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Proposed_decision#Appropriate_sources

An article that has existed two weeks has more than enough time to have sources. Tags are meant to alert the editor(s) that there is a problem. If the editor is unaware, it is not helping the editor improve to allow the editor to continue in ignorance in wrongful practices. Regards, --Mattisse 23:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abitration decision on appropriate sources: Science vs pseudoscience 2

The arbitration decision was addressing medical, science, biology, neuropsychology, psychology, etc. -- any discipline that has a body of scientific knowledge. The decision arose because of the vast amount of faulty knowledge in those articles and the reluctant of editors to delete misleading material for fear of backlash, don't bite the newbies, etc. It does not pertain to all articles on Wikipedia because the huge majority of articles do not have a scientific base.

The concern is that, since now large numbers of people consult Wikipedia for information, to have misinformation or wrongful information in areas that can affect someone's health and well being does real damage. Yes, it is a big job as we have all recognized for a long time. That is why it is all the more important to halt the creation of more misinformation and misleading articles in areas that have a scientific base, as Psychology does. Surely, you do not want to contribute to the problem. --Mattisse 23:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Confessions of St. Augustine Book 8

Frankly, I'm stumped myself... The article itself is largely a retelling of the original text, with some WP:OR apparently thrown in. Hardly useful. GregorB 14:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm also leaving it at that, for lack of a better idea. No usage statistics are available at this time; however, dated cleanup tag ensures that the article will eventually be reviewed again. GregorB 14:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not place "fact" (citation neeed) tags on simple statements. This is waste of time for editors to clean up. In this case, you put a "citation needed" on the statement that New Thought "continues to be practiced by adherents throughout the United States to this day". The article contains a See Also link to a List of New Thought denominations and independent centers as well as External Links to the home pages for a number of denominations, hence no citation is necessary and your "fact" tag was deleted as unwarranted. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 03:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, references or links to other Wikipedia articles do not count as references, nor does a list of articles under "See also". I would encourage you to place fact tags on statements you think need citing. It is not that hard for an editor to find a legitimate source if the statement is true, like for the sample statement quoted in the posting above. Keep in mind that the burden of proof is on the editor who placed the statement in the article to provide its validity, not on you. --Mattisse 03:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] emotional exhaustion

Hi, I've been rewriting the article about emotional exhaustion, I'll be glad if you could read it and tell what you think. thanks --Hila2410 15:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We will be glad if you join us

Hi, it can be great if you are interested in joining WP:TIMETRACE, we need someone like you and mostly with your lines of interest :) ℒibrarian2 08:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scrolling

I'm afraid my work on 'scrolling reference lists' really was just a copy edit. The info was in an unrelated paragraph so I just brought it out. I don't know the history or discussion about 'scrolling' in general. I agree with your points. I'm not certain which Wiki forum is the best place to discuss it. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 15:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Selfism/Paul Vitz

I currently seem to have displaced my copy of the book. I'd hate to buy another one, since I am in profound disagreement with Paul Vitz's views, but I might cave-in if I see it at a discount or used book store. I wish I could tell you if there was anyone else who explicitly used the term or shared his views, but I currently don't know of any. However, I do remember him referencing another work by Christian authors---I can't think of their names---but it seems to me like it was a husband/wife team who wrote something that was critical of ALL psychology (insisting that religion is absolutely incompatible with any psychology whatsoever). If I happen to stumble across their names, I'll let you know. If you want to use the article as a place to collect critiques of Nietzsche, Rand, Dawkins, et. al, I don't mind. In fact, I'd love to see more material regarding these figures.Shanoman 20:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ma'at

Please see the footnote at the end of the list. It is 1) sourced and 2) the source repeats the line. Please don't change sourced text. IPSOS (talk) 05:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Functionalism

Good catch. Doczilla 07:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heuristic

Thanks for all the fine and thorough work on Heuristic, DCDuring! --Ben Kovitz 23:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emotion, emotion

You are not involved in this, but there is a huge discussion going on about the article Psychiatric abuse. Basically, it seems to boil down to the fact that the name of the article is wrong. Perhaps that is the problem with Emotion. That title implies that there is one definition. Maybe the article should be entitled something like Definitions of emotion or some alternative. --Mattisse 23:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Here is one for your collection

Yes, I was watching you struggle on the compersion thing! Limerance is a term (meaning, I have heard of it) but I believe it is associated with the author that coined it and her adherents. I'm being to think that Emotion is as good a place as anywhere else to stick these terms. I'm becoming convinced there is no one definition of emotion and there are multiple uses of the word with no attempt at consistency that I see. I admire you for wading through all this. --Mattisse 19:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there appears to be a huge need for people to talk about these things so there needs to be a category or categories where they can. (By the way, your statement about Polyamory being a hub of neologisms was an understatement.) There is no way of cleaning all that up. I think the way to go is to section it off so that standard psychology/psychiatry is in a different place. There is an RFC out against me now because I dared to removed Drapetomania from the psychological conditions and psychiatric diagnoses category and the psychiatric conditions header! However, the good news is that the article has been completely cleaned up by a few good editors. But the Polyamory et al stuff is hopeless. There is a whole world out there. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people (4th nomination). There are apparently a million lists along those lines.

That is just the beginning. --Mattisse 20:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you are doing a good job and being very circumspect in your edits. Some of this stuff is a mind blowing revelation but I agree that the best attitude is the one you have, a very constructive one. Anything else is dangerous. I made a horrible error of judgment and nominated an article for AFD, not to get it deleted but to get it improved. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drapetomania which I withdrew shortly after. (Ironically, it was greatly improved over night as a result.) Two editors filed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 2 which in itself I am not worried about. However, now I am being attacked and just now filed an Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents because I did not know what else to do. You are doing much good work and you are being much more careful than I was. I see what you are doing and it is very positive. --Mattisse 23:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modeling / observational learning

Hi. I redirected the modeling (psychology) article to observational or vicarious learning. To the best of my knowledge, That is the generally accepted terminology in psychology. Your recent edit might be valuable there because it is broader than Bandura's experiments on modeling aggression in children. ----Action potential t c 04:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

What is your source for that? I am going by the 2006 APA Dictionary. DCDuring 04:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Are you talking about the modeling technique often used in therapy, eg. assertiveness training? ----Action potential t c 05:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
As used in Cognitive Behavior Therapy and some similar and derivative schools of psychotherapy. What did you say your source was for your proposed and/or reversed changes? You really have to make this a two-way discussion for it to work. You can ask questions, of course, but you need to answer some as best you can. If you don't have a source yet, that's fine. Just let me know. I'll be here when you're ready to continue. In the meantime, I'm going to review the whole set of the articles on related concepts to see whether there is any of them that has enough meat to be a main article now or potentially. DCDuring 12:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sociocultural evolution FAR

Sociocultural evolution has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

[edit] Dawkins (again)

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. My thoughts on the matter are on the article's talk page, which is the correct place to discuss the content of the article. I agree that whether or not to have a controversy section is not open-and-shut, but I do think that this particular persistent attempt by RucasHost to insert a carefully selected quote under the guise of a section on "controversy", against all consensus, was quite out of order! Snalwibma 17:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Dawkins

Yes, it is interesting. It could have just be a mistake, in which case he should applogize. Although, I find it a bit difficult to believe when you consider how much practice he has with public speaking and the media. I'd imagine someone in his position would have everything they say carefully choreographed.

Anyway, thanks for the friendly message. (^_^)

--RucasHost 17:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I generally distrust Wikipedia on controversial subjects like politics and religion. I've found the articles on chemistry and aviation to be quite good though. --RucasHost 18:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gary A. Klein‎

A link to the company that the subject of an article works for is not considered a valid external link by my interpretation of EL and SPAM. --Ronz 18:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heuristics

Hello, I noticed that you have done some editing on the heuristics article and I am writing my first WP article on engineering heuristics. I was going to add a category of engineering on the main heuristics page and put a link into my own article. With that said, I was wondering if there is someone I should ask so I don't step on anyone's feet? Furthermore, I was wondering if you could give my some feedback on my artcle, Heuristic(engineering). This would be a massive help in my learning process of Wikipedia. Thanks! --Penni17 15:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Health Realization article NPOV tag

Hello,

I'm the main author of the article on Health Realization. Thanks for your feedback on the tone and neutrality (or lack of it) of the article. I've made a number of small changes throughout the article in an attempt to eliminate whatever non-neutral and/or advertising character I could find. I'd appreciate hearing what you think of the tone of the article as it is now, and whether you think we might be close to being able to remove the NPOV tag. Specifics would help.

Thanks, RRWayne —Preceding unsigned comment added by RRWayne (talk • contribs) 18:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Norm

Hi, I'm making edits to the page on social norms and I see that there are a bunch of messages stating that my edits need citations/references. I'm new to this whole wikipedia thing so I'm not sure if I'm citing things correctly, but in most of the paragraphs I have the names of my sources in parentheses, or I use direct quotes with the source's name following. I want to make this page more informative and credible, so if there is a different way I need to cite sources, please let me know. I'd like for my changes not to be removed. Thanks! M0rganmay16 01:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a lot of sources that do back up the information I'm posting, I guess I'm just not sure how to cite them in a way that is recognized as appropriate or verifiable. After reading through the help page concerning citations, I thought what I had done to cite my sources was acceptable but I suppose I'll just keep playing with it or something. Oh and many thanks! M0rganmay16 01:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Your changes are subject to editing and removal by any other editor at any time. If you need on-line storage of your notes, you've come to the wrong place. I put some hints on your talk page. (See "my talk" at the top of the page.) Also, don't forget to sign your comments with four "~"s. It is converted to look like: DCDuring 00:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I posted the articles I got my sources from under references. Is this a step in the right direction? M0rganmay16 01:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And this isn't a place to store my notes, this is a project for my sociology class ... which is why it's important to me that things be done correctly so that I can avoid my posts being removed. And yes, I am a newbie, so I'll just keep hounding you until I'm wikipedia-savvy. M0rganmay16 01:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Refs look good. I'll post to your talk page. Thanks for signing. I can't protect you against editing by others. Also, I expect you to put the Freudian stuff in perspective. It's just one point of view and a dated one at that. It might belong in some kind of "History" section. DCDuring 01:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I tried. When do the warnings about proper citation come off? Also, what Freudian stuff are you referring to? Most of the stuff on this article was written by someone besides me a while ago; I'm supposed to be adding to what they have so don't blame it all on me if it's all bogus information haha. And I know there could be any number of editors that come in and want to wipe out my stuff but since you were my first real threat I'm just stressing to you how much I DON'T want that to happen. M0rganmay16 01:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I know about how easy it is feel attacked by editing by others, especially when you are new. What you are doing looks promising to me. I will read the article, probably over the weekend and remove (and insert) tags. The idea is to get the article tags off first, then the section tags. Article tags become section-specific tags. Section-specific tags can get converted to specific sentence tags, which are not so bad and focus effort. Each tag is removed when the condition that warranted it has been corrected.

The way wikipedia gets better is when someone like you gets involved in an article, for whatever reason. Others who have been involved in the past may have the article on their watchlist and come to see what's happening. Some others may get drawn in by other means. People will take sides, based on the specific issue, other larger ideological battles within the WP community and the outside world, as well as personality and communications issues. You will get to guess at the norms that everybody operates under. It is a great opportunity to see social forces at work. Congrats to your prof. DCDuring 01:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for updating all the references in heteronormativity. Article still needs a lot of work, but it is not such a joke anymore.207.69.137.23 06:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scrapbooking

Thanks for the support on this article. After saying I'd work on it, I wonder if I will really have the time. Especially if there will be resistance to change! I like the article on commonplace books, though. That's exactly the place to start. SlackerMom 17:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emotion Work

Will you take a look at what I added to emotion work and provide some feedback? MC36 00:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)MC36

[edit] Naturalistic decision making

Move rationale Per the name of the article, the concept is capitalized. I guess. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 06:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Vague Reading my comment, I can see how vague I was. I only moved the article to the caps name because that's how it was capitalized in the text of the article - I have no idea if it should be there or at "Naturalistic decision making." I agree with the MoS and appreciate your efforts. 66.35.170.26 18:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)