User talk:Yoradler5

Welcome!

Hello, Yoradler5, 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 place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Arnoutf 11:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phsycology stub

Hi - I've just deleted your article Phsycology stub. For future reference, stub types aren't articles, they're templates, which are different from articles, and should be proposed before creation anyway at WP:WSS/P. In any case, there's already a stub type for psychology (not spelling!) at {{psych-stub}}, as well as one for psychologists at {{psychologist-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 05:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% sure you understand what a stub template is for... (it might be worth having a read of Wikipedia:Stub). In any case, most stub templates do have small icon-sized images. Freud wouldn't be a good choice, though, (in fact no indivifual psychologist is that good a choice) since the field of psychology is so widespread a field that no one psychologist could well represent it - and Freud in particular is a very controversial character in that field. Though some stub icons are uncontroversial choices, some are deicded only after quite a long debate, and even then there is often complaing (you should see the complaints currently going on regarding Cyprus-stub's icon, for instance). Grutness...wha? 22:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Douglas LaBier.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Douglas LaBier.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Book-Cover-Modern-Madness.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Book-Cover-Modern-Madness.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 10:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Untitled-1 copy-2-.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Untitled-1 copy-2-.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The Avenue of The King

A tag has been placed on The Avenue of The King, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 23:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need more time to finish this page. There is a lot more info that I would like to add. The book is based on considerable documentation coming from very reliable sources and relying on writings often unedited of the Marquise de Maintenon. About language restrictions. Can the page stay if it's about a book writen in French only? I am not sure if the book was translated to English, the title in English is just a translation of the French title. Hope this is the right place to ask questions, can somebody answer? <Yoradler5 07:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)>[reply]

I CREATED A NEW PAGE The Alley of the King, to replace The Avenue of The King.

Yoradler, I've responded to the question you left on my talk page. To answer your questions here, though, yes, the article can be about anything, as long as the content of the article is mostly in English. If you'd like and are able, it appears as though the the French Wikipedia doesn't have an article on this book yet - any French content or summaries you might have could be placed there. Also, since it looks as though you've made a second page about that, I'm going to turn the original page, The Avenue of the King, into a redirect to send people to the new article you've created. Good work, on both versions! Hersfold ^(talk/work) 22:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

Although most of it is self-explantory, external links are not references, and this requires something. Things such as a source, perhaps an alumni webpage showing she once went to École nationale d'administration, and especially the statement "finishing two years later at the head of her department, the first woman to reach this position." x42bn6 Talk 17:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Emotional conflict is a very general term in Psychology, used in all sorts of settings, workplace, prisons, home life etc. Where are the unbiased third-party references verifying the information in the article? Seems like an advert for the book and the book seems like OR. Sincerely, --Mattisse 00:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia - not a place to write articles recommending a book

There are rules about what kind of article is acceptable. An article cannot be your opinion -- that is considered Original Research and is forbidden. Also the article must be sourced by unbiased third party references -- see WP:V. Sincerely, Mattisse

Reply

Sorry. I will answer you tomorrow. Too tired now. Sincerely, --Mattisse 05:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try to explain

It is not a question of whether the information is helpful or not but rather a question of following Wikipedia article rules. Original research means that you are giving your own opinion which is not allowed in articles. Every statement in an article must be verified by a third party, reliable, unbiased source such as a peer-reviewed journal. It will look around for some articles to show you what I mean. You are free to post your own opinions on your user page. Sincerely, Mattisse 16:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Most likely, a University Health Center page would not be a reliable source because it would not reference where it got its information from, eg. what journal publication etc. because it is written for the general public. Unsigned sources are not acceptable. Also, you cannot use another Wikipedia article as a source. That is not acceptable either. And although Tension headache has some sources, great chunks of it are unsourced anyway.

One of my problems has been trying to find you a well sourced article in psychology, and almost all of them are badly sourced. Discouraging. A well sourced article looks like this: Siraf, Ralph Bass, Open the Door, Richard, or in a long article Hoysala architecture. I'm embarassed, being a psychologist myself, that the psychology articles are in such bad shape.

Have you read WP:V and the other articles under WP:HELP? I wish I could help you more. You must proof that this is not Original Research by citing reliable, unbiased, third party sources such as newspapers, peer-reviewed journals etc. Sincerely, --Mattisse 18:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea

I know that what you had written was the truth :) It is just that there is a line between (pretty gray) between matter-of-factly describing something and analyzing a bit too much, that's all. Otherwise there is a lot of stuff we can write for many articles.. I generally don't get involved in that page, so I will let the regular contributors iron it out - when I had seen that it was an anon, I automatically assumed that it was the usual harassment that certain articles from random readers.. Cheers! Baristarim 05:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you to adhere to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy for editors. Thank you. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 05:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Françoise-Chandernagor.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Françoise-Chandernagor.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, 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. 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 specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bigr Tex 16:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:L'alee-du-Roi6.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:L'alee-du-Roi6.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 00:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Douglas-Labier-Book-Cover-2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Douglas-Labier-Book-Cover-2.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 08:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Douglas LaBier

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Douglas LaBier. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas LaBier. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]