User talk:Greta Munger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hi Greta! Welcome to Wikipedia.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

GA review[edit]

Hey, just wanted to let you know that I've started the good article review for Representational momentum MadCow257 (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

A small cup of coffee.JPG Hi again Greta! I see you've made it most of the way through the course page wizard. Now just create the tabs, beginning with the discussion tab, and you'll be ready to go! Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox naming, and your course page[edit]

Hi again! Those bugs with the tabs on your course page were a MediaWiki caching issue; they should appear correctly for you now.

You can name your userspace subpages however you like.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

sandbox draft[edit]

Hey! Your draft is looking great! I wouldn't worry about waiting for feedback; now is the time to move it into mainspace and nominate it for DYK. After that (immediately after, if you're pretty happy with it yourself and think it's a well-rounded account of representational momentum) the next step could be nominating it for Good Article status; let me know when you do that, and I'll find someone to review it in a timely manner.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd wait until after it appears on the main page (about a week after it's nominated) for DYK before moving on to Good Article. That will give it a chance to be seen by a fair number of both editors and readers before moving on to the next stage. As for talk page conversations, either way is acceptable. Some people prefer to ping-pong like we've been doing, others would rather keep the discussion wherever it starts (and either notify the other person on their talk page that you've responded on your own, or assume that they are watching your page and will notice changes. In general, I prefer to ping-pong, so that each time a message is left the other person gets a notification.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Excellent. The key thing to be aware of, especially for when your students are doing this, is that articles need to be nominated for DYK within 5 days of when they are moved into mainspace. (It's still worth trying if it's been a few days longer, but the nominal rule is 5 days.) The same applies for DYK articles that have been expanded rather than started new... they are eligible if they are nominated within 5 days of the beginning of a series of edits that expands the article 5-fold. That can be a good option for students who expand stubs of just a few sentences or paragraphs.--ragesoss (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


It looks like you've figured out the categories. One thing to note is that articles are generally placed into only the most specific applicable categories--so just "visual perception" and not "perception".--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Representational momentum[edit]

Thanks for the article Victuallers (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice work[edit]

Greta, I meet with Sage Ross today, who mentioned you had created a new article. Nice work! This should give you lots of insight into how you will want to use Wikipedia in your classes. Robertekraut (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


Hi Greta, welcome to the Global Education Program! Annie Lin (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Student incentives...[edit]



DYK for Global precedence[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Misinformation effect[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Culture in music cognition[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

A request[edit]

Hi Greta. Congratulations on helping your students create some really good articles. There is one thing that was done slightly incorrectly though - if students work on an article in a sandbox, rather than copy and pasting from there into the new article, they should put {{adminhelp}} on their talk page to ask an administrator to move the new article (and all the individual edits in the sandbox) over the old one. This ensures that everybody's contributions are visible in the page history. We can do it afterwards (I'm doing some now) but it is easier to do it before. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Sorry about that and thanks for the help. Which talk page? Their user talk or the article's talk page on main space? Can you point me toward an example? They are going to be doing some more editing, is it best to have them edit on the main space article now, or again in the sandbox and correctly ask for an admin to help move it? Greta Munger (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    • No problem. They should put it on their user talk page. You can see an example here although it is not obvious as all the edits get merged together into one history. WP:HISTORYMERGE explains the process though. If the articles need more work, I would say it is better for them to work on the mainspace article. Sandboxes are useful for complete rewrites or if you want to have messy work left somewhere, but if they know how to edit and it will be relatively tidy then it is easier to directly edit the article. After all, the joy of a wiki is that you can never break it! SmartSE (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Greta, you've become a great Wikipedian! I'm delighted to see that you're still at it. Thanks for all the excellent work you and your students have done so far. Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's Collaborative[edit]

WikiWomen Unite!
Hi Greta Munger! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative.

As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by:

We can't wait to have you involved, and feel free to drop by our meta page (under construction) to see how else you can participate!

Can't wait to have you involved! SarahStierch (talk) 04:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)



Hi Greta Munger, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the course instructor right to your account, as you have demonstrated a need for it through the Wikipedia Education Program. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and will just allow you to be able to access the course extension as well as create and edit course pages. If you are interested in accessing the course extension so that you might be able to create a course page right now, here is the link. For more information on the course instructor right, see this page. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Online Volunteer[edit]

Hello Greta Munger, I just added myself as an online volunteer for your course on Wikipedia, as you requested through the Wikipedia Education Program. Just let me know how I can assist you with this course. Frankcjones (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Confirmation bias[edit]

Hello Greta. I'm very glad to see your students improving articles related to cognitive psychology and I hope that you and they have a rewarding experience on Wikipedia.

I see that a couple of your students are working on Confirmation bias, which is already a Featured Article. This means that the article has already been through three detailed review processes and badged as comparable to professional work. It's a good idea (speaking as a campus ambassador myself) in Wikipedia assignments for students to work with a lower-quality article such as a Stub- or Start-class. This way, there is much more room for improvement. Your students have made some improvements that I'm keen to keep, but they've also replaced some grammatical sentences with ungrammatical ones. I am working through trying to restore proper English, but to keep their better work. Is it too late in the course for them to be directed to an article which is less finished? MartinPoulter (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Hello Martin, thanks for the tip! My students are actually now finished with the assignment (edits were due yesterday). I'm sorry I didn't realize about the featured status and so direct them elsewhere. I'll be back with a new group editing in the spring, and I will make a note to avoid this mistake. Greta Munger (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Flexibility (personality)[edit]

It looks to me like flexibility (personality) was created by somebody who didn't realise that cognitive flexibility already existed. Cognitive flexibility is of a high standard (good article status) and was part of an educational assignment. I'm no expert in this area but it seems to me that there is at least major overlap and it may be that flexibility (personality) is completely redundant and should be deleted. One not too well developed article that your group might like to look at at some point is attention seeking.--Penbat (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for helping us with this! you'll probable see this on the flexibility (personality) talk, but I'll post here, too.
My next step is going to be taking a close look at the proposed references and seeing whether they really do fit with the existing Cognitive flexibility page. My first read was that they were really quite different, but I will take a closer look. Greta Munger (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Just finished the comparison, and all 15 of the proposed articles are not part of the Cognitive flexibility page, so this is new information Taylor would like to add. I would not recommend a new sub-section "personality" on the cognitive flexibility page because the questions being asked when you look at personality traits (implications for health, particularly various mental health connections) are quite different from what a cognitive researcher looks at (implicated for problem solving). The topics (personality vs cognitive psychology) are taught as separate courses after Psy 101. Penbat, what's the next best step? Greta Munger (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/First impression (psychology) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for First impression (psychology)[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


Since you appear to be running a course that edits medical topics, please make sure your students are aware of our medical sourcing guidelines. Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)