User talk:Haider.z.28
Welcome!
[edit]I am fine with doing Likert! I think we have come to our final person! Jordie.Salwei (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree, let's do Likert! Bradi.carlson (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
My vote would be Likert!K2padden (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I would still be ok with doing Rorschach as well otherwise my second choice would be Likert. I think Likert would have more information compared to Marcia? We should all try to come to a final decision here within the next day or so, so we can then do the next assignment for class! Let me know what you think! Haider.z.28 (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Yes I like the idea of Marcia, because her page is so empty. Even though she's still alive, I still think we would be able to find information about her contributions and works. The downside is, I do not know if we would be able to find her background information, such as her past. Likert also has a pretty empty page, that deserves more credit. I would still be game for doing Rorschach, because Dr. Council said the editor may not be as opposed to the page changing as he was before. Bradi.carlson (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey team, I want to get this conversation started back up since we have not decided on a topic yet. Looking at Dr. Council's suggestions and comments, I believe Marcia K. Johnson and Rensis Likert would be our best bets. I think I'm leaning towards Likert. What do you all think? K2padden (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I re-wrote this message as I forgot to sign it! Kasie, I think Jane Loevinger would be an excellent topic! She has a significant contribution as you said to personality psychology, which I am very interested in. Her Wikipedia page is very bare, so I think she would be a good person to write about as well. I think we could narrow it down to her and Rorschach as our topics. Bradi.carlson (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I think Loevinger is a great back up option! I think we have made our final choices! first pick: Hermann Rorschach, Second pick: Jane Loevinger. Awesome! I'm excited to learn more about these great people! Jordie.Salwei (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I am on board for having Rorschach as our first choice and Loevinger as our second choice! K2padden (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
From the list he gave us, I am interested in either Jane Loevinger or Marcia K. Johnson. Both have interesting focuses for their psychology contributions, although Loevinger is my favorite of the two.K2padden (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I agree for our second option it may be worth looking at the stub articles of the women in psychology since we are beginners it may be nice to have a backbone to go off of as Kasie said. Have any of them looked appealing to anyone? Jordie.Salwei (talk) 03:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I think it is safe to say that Hermann Rorschach is our group's first choice, final answer. Dr. Council put a list of women in psychology on the Wikipedia Resource page that we should be able to find some good material on. Are we interested in putting one of those stub articles as our second choice? I think, since we are beginners, contributing to a stub article would be our best bet.K2padden (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Kasie! Welcome to our group! I agree with Jordie to use Hermann Rorschach as our main topic of interest and then maybe Lisa Aspinwall as our second. But if there is nothing on Lisa Aspinwall besides the link Jordie posted, then I think maybe finding another second option would be better? Haider.z.28 (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Welcome, Kasie! I looked at Hermann Rorschach's talk page, and it seemed to be a heated discussion on the changes that were made by the group last semester. I think we could do justice by improving this page, as many people would want to find out more about him I'm sure. His contributions are limited on the Wikipedia page, and we would be able to add a lot about him as long as we could find valid information about his life. I haven't stumbled across any other topic that has caught my interest as much yet, but feel free to chime in if you have an idea! Bradi.carlson (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey Kasie! I'm glad you agree with our thoughts. I think with Hermann Rorschach as our main pick we would be able to find a lot of information from many different sources including books, encyclopedia's and internet sources. As for Lisa Aspinwall as a second pick might be tough because from what I have found for her so far is only internet resources and what journals she has published but we could maybe get a decent wikipedia page started on her. But does anyone else have any other second option ideas? Jordie.Salwei (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey guys, my name is Kasie. Sorry for such a late notice, but I have been moved to your group. I am also trying to figure out this whole talk page thing, hopefully this works. After reading your discussion, I agree with what everyone is saying. I think starting with a stub article would be beneficial for us because we are beginners at this, but I'm not opposed to creating a new page. I like the idea of editing Hermann Rorschach, his contributions to psychology are rather interesting, but I am not afraid to go with Lisa Aspinwall for the challenge. K2padden (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree that we should use Hermann Rorschach as our main topic of interest but maybe Lisa Aspinwall as our 2nd choice. We can keep looking for other back up options as well because there are still many to choose from. Jordie.Salwei (talk) 02:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I like your idea about Lisa Aspinwall because there is no Wikipedia page for her yet, but I think it would be hard to find information about her since she is not as well known. We could still choose her, but it would require extensive research through the Internet to find what we can about her life. Even then, we may not form a great page for her. I agree that using a stub article would be easier than creating a new one, but we don't need to take the "easy" route. Bradi.carlson (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey guys! I looked at both the people you two mentioned. I think starting a page from scratch will definitely be more of a challenge. However I am not apposed to the idea. I am leaning more towards Hermann Rorschach though. I feel like we would be able to find more information on him. What do you guys thing? Haider.z.28 (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Lisa Aspinwall is a women psychologist that I found on the women in psychology stubs and here article is not yet created. Do we want to start from scratch or do we want a stub article that has some starting content? Here is a link I found on her just off of google but with this I wonder if it would be hard to find more information about her. http://www.psych.utah.edu/people/person.php?id=47 Jordie.Salwei (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I think I finally figured it out! I agree that I think Hermann Rorschach would be an interesting topic and would be able to find a lot of information on him and really fill in his wikipedia page. I think we should stick to doing people maybe start one that doesn't exist yet? Jordie.Salwei (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi guys, I was looking at topics for our Wikipedia assignment. I came across Hermann Rorschach, which is an example Dr. Council gave us. The Wikipedia page for him was really minimal, and he is an important figure in psychology. What do you think about having him as one of our options? Bradi.carlson (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Haider.z.28, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Dr. Council's comments on your article choices
[edit]- Your topic choices are good, but I need to comment on Hermann Rorschach. One group last year tried editing this article, and they ran afoul of an editor who seems to be invested in this article and hovering over it. He reverted the article, and will keep on doing this. People like this will always win because they have more time than you do. I tried to work with him. Anyway, read the talk page and look at the history. The most recent revision from my class was in early december. I think my student was Lavendergrl. I think this editor, martinevans something, might be ready to work with another group of my students. It would be interesting to find out what he's like. Rorschach was one other groups number one pick, but I recommended they go with their second choice.
- Your other choice of topic, Jane Loevinger, went to another group. Sorry.
- If you don't want to take on the Rorschach article, Lisa Aspinwall could be a good choice, but I think it might be hard to find biographical information on her since she is relatively young. Another woman who came up in your discussion is Marcia K. Johnson. She would be a better choice because she has had a long and distinguished career, and has received many honors. When people get awards, it's often written up with biographical information. Another suggestion that was not in your discussion is Rensis Likert. Very important contributions to psychology that don't appear in the current Wikipedia article.
- Lots to think about. Let me know what you decide. J.R. Council (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)