User talk:DoctorW

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Contents

Barnstar[edit]

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For dedication to improving and expanding Wikipedia. Good job! Sharkface217 02:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for finding where my articles were going[edit]

I copied a couple of short paragraphs from another site, put the content in quotes, indented it, and led with a sentence saying, "The following information was located on the web site for the University of..." It would certainly fall within the contraints of "fair usage" outside of Wikipedia!

I had no idea that would result in having the article deleted. I was just trying to create a stubb after looking the names up on Google. I'd like to convert more of the 'red' entries, but I find it tedious to do more than a copy-paste stubb when it's an entry I have no any real interest in. Thanks for tracking that down for me. Steve 22:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ph.D. for categorization as psychologists[edit]

I am a bit worried about the implications of the remark that you made at talk:Steven Hassan regarding the fact that the APA said that only people with a Ph.D. should be labelled as psychologists. This is unusual in the Netherlands and I do not think this should be applied for Dutch psychologists in the English language Wikipedia. The jurisdiction of the APA does not apply for the Netherlands as far as I know, nor is this an American encyclopedia. Nevertheless, it would be strange if Dutch people without a Ph.D. would be labelled as pscychologists, while Americans would not. There is not a concrete case yet that I have in mind, so you may disregard this remark as academic. Andries 22:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I made the same comment at Category_talk:Psychologists. Andries 23:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I've responded there also. -DoctorW 04:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Joyce Brothers.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Joyce Brothers.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Also Image:Catherine Hicks 7th Heaven.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quadell (talkcontribs) 13:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Apology in regards to List of cult and new religious movement researchers[edit]

DoctorW,

I apologize to you for my response to your recent edits on List of cult and new religious movement researchers. What I should have done is to follow WP:BRD and invited you to discuss on the Talk page rather than rebuking you for making the change "unilaterally". That was improper of me. Tanaats 02:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for bringing some common sense and NPOV to these articles. It is a daily chore to keep these articles neutral and having another pair of eyes on these is great. Happy New Year. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Developmental psychology forum[edit]

I thought that you might be interested to know that there is a developmental psychology forum over at the Psychology Wiki. It was set up a little more than a month ago but still hasn't been used yet. I'll inform other Wikipedians who I think may be interested, as well. EPM 00:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Citizen Kane.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Citizen Kane.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 06:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Positive Coaching[edit]

You can find the text of the article at the above link. If you decide to recreate in mainspace, please let me know because I will need to restore the history for GFDL purposes. Cheers. Spartaz Humbug! 05:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of life[edit]

There's a bunch more stuff that was commented out, including in the philosophy section. Note that according to WP:VER, any editor can challenge any material, and remove it if others fail to provide citations - it'll take weeks to find citations for all that material. I opposed the removal, but had to go along with policy. The material was commented out pending the addition of citations, which I've been hunting down sporadically. See the talk page. The Transhumanist 05:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

C.B. Ferster[edit]

Why did you remove Charles Ferster from the seminal writers category? Schedules of Reinforcement (1957), which he co-authored with B.F. Skinner, was cited nearly 1200 times in the literature by 1979 and is considered by most behavioral psychologists to be a major milestone work in the field.

That work alone -- leaving aside Ferster's other two books and some 90 journal articles -- warrants inclusion on the list.

JFF —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jff119 (talkcontribs) 02:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Jff119 15:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Learned helplessness[edit]

It should also be mentioned in this article that Steve Maier (now a Univ of Colorado prof) co-discovered learned helplessness with Seligman when they were grad students together at Penn but never published a general audience book to boost his name recognition.

Original citation:

J Exp Psychol. 1967 May;74(1):1-9.

Failure to escape traumatic shock.

Seligman ME, Maier SF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.167.186 (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Peer-review journals[edit]

This information is all ready on the site linked. Remove the external link, remove the list of journals, or integrate all the information in to the page. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 05:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I will respond to your orders in what seems like the much more appropriate place, on the article's talk page, where you have left no comment. -DoctorW 17:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice I have a lot of those who I have supervised in the past. NLSM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.242.40 (talk) 09:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

List of cult and new religious movement researchers[edit]

May be you can explain the definition and criteria for inclusion and also try to assess in advance whether these criteria can yield a maintainable, verifiable, informative list. I think that we have different definitions of the concepts "resarch"" and "empirical studies". Andries (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated the list for deletion because the combination of strict inclusing criteria on which you insisted and the strict sourcing criteria yields an empty list i.e. a list without properly sourced entries. Andries (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Rfc for Community Psychology article[edit]

Craigtalbert has initiated an RfC on the Community Psychology talk page. A further comment from you on this subject might be in order. Sunray (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Citizen Kane.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Citizen Kane.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Reactive attachment disorder[edit]

Hi. I've put this article up for FAC. I then discovered I had to find reviewers! I note you have an interest in development. Would you mind awfully casting your eye over it. Its a bit of an obscure subject and there's already alot of off-topic rambling on the comments page but I would welcome some input from clinicians or academics in the field. Here's the comments page.[1] Thanks. Fainites barley 22:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Broaden and Build Model" article[edit]

Hi! I never deleted that page, but tracked down the deleted history here. Since it was deleted because it was a copyright violation, I've emailed you the content. Regards, east.718 at 17:21, March 25, 2008


RfC on article on Intelligence[edit]

Wikipedian psychologists are invited to comment on the worthiness of a source on this request for comment. Ward3001 (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Community GA Sweeps Review: On Hold[edit]

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Community and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and related WikiProjects to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Child development[edit]

Hi. I just noticed that shortly before you came and did some editing on the child development page recently, an IP number removed great chunks of the content that was within the 'aspects of development' section, leaving dozens of headings with one unsourced line under each. I don't know whether this was vandalism by the IP or a genuine attempt to cut down the article to more manageable proportions. This was what the article looked like before. [2] and this was what it looked like afterwards [3] Could you have a quick look at the aspects section covering cognitive development/motor/physical/language etc and tell me what you think as there has been a spate of rather odd vandalism on the page - one bit from a known banned user. Fainites barley 21:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification[edit]

Hi! I noticed your 02:45, 10 December 2008 edit of Genius removed an external link I'd suggested and that someone else added. You may indeed be correct to have done so however, since there is a section of the talk page discussing the link, could I trouble you to add to it your reasons for removal? Thanks. DouglasReay (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Answered on the relevant talk page. -DoctorW 05:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Tao Te Ching[edit]

I've rereviewed the links and removed the vast bulk of them with an eye towards our external link standards. Reagrdless of other issues, Wikipedia is not a link directory. Some of the links removed are obvious copyright violations. Regardless of their common appearance on the internet, they remain unauthorized repostings of copyrighted material. Some of the links removed are obvious commercial sites. Others are translations with no particular noteworthiness. The links removed all fall under one of these categories. Please do not restore any potential copyvios without clear proof that the text is in the public domain and do not restore any commercial/spam links. If it's just a matter of disagreeing about noteworthiness on some links, I'm sure we can work it out. Vassyana (talk) 12:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Musical notation[edit]

I was just reading your accomplishments page, and I'm quite impressed. There was one item in particular that grabbed my attention though, and that was the system of musical notation which you invented. I'm a musician and a person who appreciates math, so I'd be interested in discussing details of your system. I mostly do improvisations on the piano, and enjoy searching for patterns when it comes to music. So if you feel like it, just leave me a message on my talk page, or drop me an email. Thanks! Spidern 05:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Lend a hand?[edit]

Hi hi. Me, you and about two others have helped the most with Kohlberg's stages of moral development over the years, and it has been 1 of about 8 good articles that are psychology based over that time as well. Psych articles tend to be tougher to get to GA, and now this article is up for re-assessment and it'd be a shame to see it loose it's GA-status. I'm gonna go at this too a bit myself, but mind lending a hand here in addressing some of these small issues? It's hard to find editors who know Kohlberg well enough ('bout us four people is the most I can hope for), so if you can help, that'd be wonderful! JoeSmack Talk 21:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd really like to thank you and JoeSmack for the work you've put into addressing the concerns I raised during this review. I know that my arrival must have seemed like a bolt out of the blue, but the GA criteria changed quite significantly in 2007, particularly in regard to citations, so there's an ongoing reassessment of every GA listed before the end of August 2007, which this one was. I'm a psychology graduate myself, so the last thing I want to see is Kohlberg's article delisted. The only remaining reservation I have over closing the current review as a "keep" is the two remaining uncited paragraphs. If they were moved to talk until sourcing could be discovered, or they were admitted to be original research, then I'd be happy to close the review now.
I don't entirely agree with JoeSmack's point that it's tougher to get psychology-based articles through GA. My perception is that in general psychology-based articles are just not as well written or sourced as articles on "harder" sciences, but I don't see any obvious reason why they can't be. An article like this one, for instance, could fairly easily become a plausible GA candidate IMO; "cognitive dissonance" is a term I use not infrequently even today. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with you. There's a saying that the layman's knowledge of a subject is 30 years out of date. There are many aspects of Wikipedia psychology articles that suggest a view which is more than 30 years out of date! -DoctorW 21:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Content dispute on Thumb sucking[edit]

For a couple of years now there has been an editor, Elsiemobbs, who has repeatedly inserted content into the Thumb sucking article promoting her particular theories of what causes children to suck their thumbs. She often uses IP's and has an easily visible edit style. Until recently, these edits were always unreferenced and so I simply removed them as OR and thus kept the article more or less stable. Although there was one edit which I left in with the caveat that I put her name on it -- see the section beginning with "Researcher Elsie Mobbs" ... this is from a time when I was not yet convinced she was such a single-purpose account. I was never able to verify that the paper she claims to have published actually exists because I don't have regular access to a public library with ILL capabiltiies and just had to assume she was making legitimate claims. I've begun to doubt that now, since she has moved towards using referenced citations now and so far as I've been able to check none of her references actually contain the information she claims they do. As I said I don't have regular access to a public library and I can no longer help watch over this article. I would like to devolve the responsibility onto somebody else who can check to make sure that everything she says is actually true. I apologize for coming to you directly but there doesn't seem to be a WP:Wikiproject Psychology or child development messageboard where I could get a wider audience; and also my experience is that when such message boards do exist they tend to be little watched. A final note: this is her latest edit; it may seem ridiculous but I don't doubt the claim can be found somewhere; I just have doubts it is in the journal she is pointing to, which is I assume is really all that matters when considering how worthy of belief it is. To sum up, I am abandoning this article because I don't have the authority to dispute Elsiemobbs' claims any longer, but I do have serious doubts that they are legitimate and I hope that you or someone else might be able to handle the situation better. Soap Talk/Contributions 14:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Note, I just realized you haven't edited since March 31 so I will copy this message to other users as well; still, I'd appreciate your help if possible. Soap Talk/Contributions
Thank you. How would you suggest I handle this in the future if Elsiemobbs keeps up? Soap Talk/Contributions 22:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
We can address situations together as they develop. Feel free to leave a note here or use the email function if I don't respond right away. -DoctorW 23:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ...[edit]

... for your comments on Template talk:Psychology sidebar‎. I don't know if you have any interest in testing, but I invite you to take a look at Talk:Rorschach test#RFC: Top Image - Hermann Rorschach or first card of the Rorschach inkblot test? and especially Talk:Rorschach test#Other pages with controversial images. I'm trying to prevent a physician from pretending he has expertise in an area that he clearly does not from having undue impact simply because he has "Doctor" in front of his name. There are lots of opinions in the discussion, some from experts, some from others, and that's perfectly OK. It's the pseudoexpert that I'm most concerned about. But, if you have no interest, thanks the same and happy editing! Ward3001 (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Outline of psychology[edit]

I've started adding to this outline.

What new sections do you think it needs?

Please reply on the outline's talk page.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist 04:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

List of authors opposing cults nominated for deletion.[edit]

As the creator of the List of authors opposing cults I am informing you that I have listed it for deletion. Discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of authors opposing cults. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Chart on Human Development[edit]

Do you or anyone elseknow who, or what the original source is for the chart given on the Human Development entry?

Nicole PhD cannidate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.242.40 (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

International Society for Quality of Life Studies[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of International Society for Quality of Life Studies, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://manta.cs.vt.edu/isqols/content/about.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of International Society for Quality of Life Studies[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on International Society for Quality of Life Studies requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. RadioFan (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

A cited quotation is not a copyvio. I have addressed the issue on the article's talk page. -DoctorW 02:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Rouge test[edit]

Hello my favorite wiki-bound developmental psychologist! I found that there was no article for the rouge test, so I made it a few days ago. Mind giving it a look-see? :) JoeSmack Talk 06:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Personal commitment[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Personal commitment, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal commitment. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Cirt (talk) 09:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I did not create the article, at least not originally. It is possible that I recreated it in the process of attempting to salvage an article about a marginally notable topic, but do not recall doing so. I had no special knowledge of, or interest in, the subject of the article previous to happening upon it here on Wikipedia. -DoctorW 21:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Jim Thompson (coach)[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Jim Thompson (coach), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Thompson (coach). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Cirt (talk) 04:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I did not create the article, at least not originally. It is possible that I recreated it in the process of attempting to salvage an article about a marginally notable topic, but do not recall doing so. I was not familiar in way with the subject of the article previous to happening upon it here on Wikipedia. -DoctorW 21:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Core Knowledge Perspective[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Core Knowledge Perspective, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Core Knowledge Perspective. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Cirt (talk) 08:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I did not create the article, at least not originally. It is possible that I recreated it in the process of attempting to salvage an article about a marginally notable topic, but do not recall doing so. I was not familiar in way with the subject of the article previous to happening upon it here on Wikipedia. -DoctorW 21:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:John C Wright.jpg[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

Thanks for uploading File:John C Wright.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have forwarded the owner's email in which she released the photo into the public domain. -DoctorW 21:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Created new subpage[edit]

I just created a new subpage: User:DoctorW/List of Colleges and Academic Departments of Human Ecology. I moved the list here to prepare it to become (potentially) a new article after the list was deleted from Human Ecology. Any and all are welcome to comment or improve the page. -DoctorW 07:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Donald Winnicott article[edit]

You may remember from years ago, that you were one of the first Wikipedians I left messages on the talk page of, pertaining to the article on Psychology of Religion. I just wanted to say that you had left a note on the talk page of Donald Winnicott saying that this article needs the notability tag but I would consider Winnicott is notable - he is covered well in many books on personality psychology, and certainly in my home country, the United Kingdom, he is a well-known figure. I have left a reference to Adam Phillipps book on Winnicott on the talk page of the article, and it says on the blurb of this book that he "is increasingly being regarded as one of the most influential contributions to psychoanalysis since Freud" - surely this is evidence of his notability. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Just in case that last comment mislded you, I think that when we first began to communicate via Wikipedia, I was using my older username - simply ACEO (it became ACEOREVIVED after I had some technical problems). So, I am the same person. I just wanted to repeat that I think that Winnicott easily makes the criteria for notability for inclusion in Wikipedia (in fact, I would say he merits inclusion far more easily than many other people who have entries!) ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:List of cult and new religious movement researchers[edit]

I doubled the time period, for future archiving. But please, let's not un-archive old discussions that were stale for over three months. If you wish to, please feel free to start a new subsection for discussion, at the article's talk page, at Talk:List of cult and new religious movement researchers. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing other users[edit]

Please mindful of WP:CANVASS. These multiple user talk page postings [4] [5] [6], are most certainly not "Neutrally worded notifications". Please avoid such inappropriate behavior in the future. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks For Thinking Of Me, But No[edit]

Sorry, but I've given up on Wikipedia as even retaining the possibility of NPOV under the current byzantine and rigid rules that have accrued, like filth, on the process. So long as people like your nemesis (whose agenda is plainly visible in the articles and edits he's made) are given the same consideration (or, in his case, more consideration due to his "Administrator" status) as people with real qualifications, then the site will continue to degenerate and continue to become less useful. Until something is done about the process used to grant special privileged status on this site, it can only be seen as an increasingly irrelevant and dying anachronism. Whateley23 (talk) 05:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editor (64.252.28.1/12.76.153.163/etc.)[edit]

In checking his edit histories, I see that you've dealt with a particular disruptive/difficult editor. His disruptions are continuing, under new IPs and usernames. I've posted at AN/I.[7] An admin suggested I notify editors who have had dealings with him. Eurytemora (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I have receieved a message from you dated Feb 2010 that tells me to refrain from vandalising. WTF? I didn't even have this laptop or internet connection last Feb so how can receive this message? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.33.29 (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

New improved WikiProject[edit]

DoctorW, I see that you have contributed a lot to the List of important publications in psychology. You may be aware that several similar lists have been AfDed recently. In response, I revived WikiProject Science pearls. Now a few of us, including myself LadyofShalott, are interested in broadening the scope of WikiProject Science pearls and making it into something like WikiProject Academic bibliographies. Would you like to join us? Please reply on my page. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

List of important publications in anthropology[edit]

Hi DoctorW, I noticed that you were involved in the List of important publications in psychology. It has been requested by Cnilep that List of important publications in anthropology be moved to Bibliography of anthropology. Your comments on this request are most welcome. Please see Talk:List of important publications in anthropology#Requested move. Anthrophilos (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)