Welcome!
Hello, Fuzzybunnyhare, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place ((help me))
before the question. Again, welcome! maclean (talk) 07:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. This note is just to let you know that on Wednesday, Wikipedia will be blacked out for at least a portion of the day in protest of the SOPA and PIPA bills in the United States. The location (global or US only) and the duration (no more than 24 hours) haven't been concretely decided on yet as far as I know, so it may not affect you at all. But if you're busy on Thursday and Friday morning and have any pages to read/articles to choose/edits to make before your class, you may want to get to them before Wednesday if you can! Here's an article from Reuters Canada on the matter; and the Wikipedia community's discussion is here if you're curious about why the blackout is happening. Cheers, Melicans (talk, contributions) 01:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
RaeD09 (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)RaeD09
Here are some thoughts on the topics you've identified:
Affective forecasting: This would work. Personality is not central to this literature, but there are certainly enough examples of individual differences that you could add a section on this. (Moreover, this line of research certainly relates to 'personality processes' and how cognition and emotion come together in people.) I think this would make a good topic.
Psychological Distress: I'm less clear on where you would go with this. How is it different than Stress (psychological)? Where would you incorporate personality? Are there other pages/terms that capture this idea? I'm not ruling it out, but please tell me more if you'd like to pursue this topic.
HEXACO: This one is clearly related to personality and the page can use some significant work. I have a good idea of where this could go, but the next step would be for you to articulate this, i.e., your plan for edits.
So, 2 strong choices here, and one other that may still have potential... --Jayzzee (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello Fuzzy Bunny:
I added my name to the table on the class page to edit your article - as I am particularly interested in the H trait of the HEXACO model. Maybe we can talk in class sometime to make sure that you will want me as your editor. Good luck with this project.Owleye769 (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
where do you get all those clif bars? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilgoretrout10 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes for sure, sign up as an editor on my page! Rae09 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaeD09 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Fuzzybunnyhare: I enjoyed reading your article today. I took the liberty of making a few minor corrections - in term of adding a few commas, apostrophes etc. I will review it in more detail soon. I left this same message on your talk page of your sandbox.Owleye769 (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey Fuzzybunnyhare, I have reviewed your work so far and have made some edits on your page and gave some suggestions on the talk page. Nice work Mr. Fuzzy! Kilgoretrout10 (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
HEY! thanks for the edits, they were very helpful. I think the wording is a lot better. Feel free to put the rest of your comments on the talk page of nature connectedness (or an email is fine too). Rae09 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaeD09 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Fuzzybunnyhare. Great writing job. I just left some editorial comments on the HEXACO talk page. I especially enjoyed the addition of the Dark Triad section - as this helps to understand the H factor of the model in a more tangible way.Owleye769 (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I checked the HEXACO article - but could not find the duplication of content that was noted earlier??Owleye769 (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I will check back later than.Owleye769 (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Owleye769 (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The Modest Barnstar | ||
You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.0.87 (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC) |
Hi Rae,
I'd like to preface my comments with some positive feedback: You have a really good article. It's very informative, very well researched and very accessible. I also want to add that these are just suggestions I won't be offended or anything if you disagree or decide not to use them- in fact you probably don't even need them.
Okay here goes. You have a very strong article. Your introductory paragraph is nicely laid out and really sets the tone for the rest of the article. The picture you took is also a nice touch! My main criticism, though, is the length. You've done a good job picking out the important stuff but if there is anything that you feel might be redundant I'd say give it the axe. One way you could cut down on length would be to consider condensing the "As a measurement tool" and "measuring environmental behaviours/attitudes" sections into a more concise less technical "measurements" section. Those are important sections so to maintain them maybe consider creating a new wikipedia article that deals with the measurements section (this section could provide a brief overview of Nature Connectedness then would list all the measures). By condensing and creating a new page with the original sections you would have a more streamlined main page that deals in the breadth of the topic but would add depth for the more technically literate through the creation of the measures page.
As well, this is really more of a personal preference, but the use of bullet points for the limitation section, to me, disrupts the flow of the article. On the one hand I like how concise it is, however, I am more in favour of paragraphs. As you can see I am torn on the issue...
Finally (sort of), the Gould quote...i'm not sure. I like it, but will wikipedia like it. Actually keep it. It frames that section nicely. Now the other quote, from the "theory and Biophilia" section... Kellert and Wilson (in their book "The Biophilia Hypothesis") have another quote to describe Biophilia which is, "the inherent human need to affiliate with life and life-like processes" pg 42. It's only one word difference but affiliation might be better suited to your article than focus.
So hopefully all this is helpful or at least food for thought. Like I said, I like your article- I would totally take it out for drinks if I could- and think it could easily be a "did you know" article! Let me know if you want me to clarify anything or if you want me to proofread something else!
Sincerely,
Rob
Hello,
My name is Andrew. I'm the Regional Ambassador for the Canada Education Program. The goal of this program is to engage students and professors in using Wikipedia as a teaching tool. A professor from Carleton University, which you indicated your affiliation with the university through your userbox, is participating in the program for Fall 2012 semester. We're seeking campus ambassadors, which we currently don't have for Carleton University, who are available on-campus to help students. If you're interested (or have any other questions), please leave a message on my talk page. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)