User talk:In the known

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, In the known, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  / edg ☺ ★ 23:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I was just writing to see if you fully understood our image use policy. The reason why is because on Image:FOF monitor.jpg, you said that the image could "be used for the fear of the feminine article" which implies you only want it to be used there and no where else. However, the license tag you added was that you released it into the public domain. If you release something into the public domain, then it becomes part of the public domain, which basically means anyone can use it for any purpose without attribution (no legal restriction on use). That not only means that we can use it on any article we want, not just the fear of the feminine article, but also that a competitor could use the image in their psychology book without permission, or that bloggers could take it and use it on their blogs. Because wikipedia for the most part only allows free content (i.e. things that licensed with a free license, including public domain works), there is no issue with wikipedia using your image as is. I just wanted to contact you to make sure you understood this based on the conflicting comments you left on the image pages. Sorry if this is a bit confusing, if you have any questions, feel free to ask me.-Andrew c [talk] 22:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] on images and conflict of interest

Dear editors, Thanks for your comments, which I shall take on board. I will change to image properties to make them publicly available. These thinks take a bit of time since it is the first time I am doing this so I am still struggling (the tutorials are not always user friendly though).

On the issue of conflict of interest: I am indeed Werner Kierski. In the initial discussion on the male psychology site I proposed a section about the male fear of the feminine in the following way: "the topic as such has been under discussion since the early 1930. O'Neil, Blazina and Kierski are currently the most important people working on this. This is my first Wikipedia posting, so I hope I get it right". This suggestion was received positively.

I did not think there is a conflict of interest since I am the only person who has ever empirically researched this topic. I have tried to present the topic as clear as possible, describing the historical development till present time.

The links I have included to some previous publications are just there for the sake of completion. I have done the same with the other publications. All my previous publications and conference presentations were within respected scholarly communities and independent publishers. This may look like a conflict of interest but at the same time presents the facts. I have not left out any other contributor and have kept the description of my work to a minimum.

{{helpme}}Is there anything you can suggest that I can do to rectify this, such as changing, editing, deleting? Bearing in mind that whether or not I am the author of that research the research still speaks for itself. Look forward to your comments. Best wishes, --Werner 13:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it needs to be verifiable, but, if you are trying, you can create your own Sandbox, or use the public Sandbox. Hope I helped! User:Goodshoped35110s/Welcome Signature 23:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, WP:V and WP:RS are important. If in doubt, though, until you really get your "sea legs" and become comfortable with what is and isn't acceptable as far as possible conflicts of interests are concerned (as I see you presently have less than fifty edits), you might want to work much of your magic through the talk pages. Since your previous publications should be able to stand on their own as reliable sources, you might find success bringing up points in those sources that could/should be incorporated into the article through the talk page.
I agree that the job of avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest is a pain in the butt. But in the end, it should work out. Hope this helps... SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks guys for your support. {{helpme}}What I still need to figure out is a way of how to satisfy requirments to counter balance conflict of interest. As I said in a previous posting, the section relating the references and bibliography was not easy to understand, because most existing references do have in-build links, I did not figure out how to do this which resulted in many small changes. And when I discovered that links can be created between sources, including my own, I simply applied them and did the same with the work of other people. Do I need to delete these? Do I need to delete the two images I have uploaded? Shall I include indirectly related sources from other authors? Many thanks.--Werner 16:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you need to delete the images, in fact, unless you are an administrator, you can't. And, no, you do not need to delete anything; it's best to have more than one way to get to the article. Goodshoped35110s 23:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous person deleted my contribution

Hi, {{helpme}} An anonymous person as today deleted the chapter on the male fear of the feminine. This person has violated Wikipedia's code of ethics by not participating in discussions or offering any other form of mutual engagement. I have reverted the whole chapter to the previous version and have posted a message on the anonymous user's talk page. Has anyone got any suggestions about how to continue with this problem? Thanks. --Werner 13:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That happens; it's generally referred to as vandalism. What you did is fine. You may want to add the page to your watchlist, if you haven't already, but just continue to revert any nonconstructive edits but be open to suggestions if the IP editor does bring concerns to the talk page. Hersfold (t/a/c) 14:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I have left a more appropriate warning on the users page. - Rjd0060 14:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. I am learning all the time about all the things that happen here at Wikipedia. Things like this are obviously unpleasant and speedy replies to my request for help are the nice aspects of this community. --Werner 14:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)