a few boxes
|
 | This user hasDiabetes. |
 | This user isleft-handed. |
 | This user is aChristian. |
 | This user is a member of WikiProject Psychology. |
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Original_Barnstar.png
A little information about this editor:
I expect I have been reading Wikipedia articles ever since they had a high Google search - which, as of 2011, is quite a long time now. My earliest edits, before I had learnt to set up a user page, were under the pseudonym "Cardamom" and were largely either on the articles onCarl Jung or the articles onpsychology of religion. These date back to aroundJuly2005, after I had completed and passed myPh.D.. I later made some edits under the name "ACarl". Both "ACArl" and "Cardamom" still appear in the history of some Wikipedia articles, such asPsychology of religion, but in red letters, because these were edits I made before I had become au fait with userpage establishment and maintenance.
I first set up the username "ACEO" inMarch2006. My former username "ACEO", due to some technical problems has now been discontinued; hence the "revived" bit of my name. I am sorry if any one had any hypotheses about it being a name fromscience fiction, although it would make quite a good name there, n'est-ce pas?
I had a period of inactivity, but got back online again inSeptember2007, after purchasing a newlaptop computer, and have been actively editing since then (except for a period when I need a newrouter).
Psychology, especially relating to personality, social psychology, transpersonal psychology, psychology of religion, counselling;
This would be my main area of interest, as I teach this subject, so most of my edits would be likely to be on topics connected with psychology or the allied disciplines. Or rather, I did teach this subject - sadly, I lost my job quite recently (I know that quite a lot of staff at the university where I did teach were made redundant in recent times (2011 to 2012) at the time of typing).
Religion and theology (I created the article onKosuke Koyama);
Days of the year;
Some literature topics.
I may occasionally contribute by making edits to an article on more "popular media culture" topics, such as television or radio programmes. I have interests in philosophy, too, and also in medicine - but I had better say that I am not a qualified medical doctor (my ability to use the title "Dr" comes from aPh.D., not anM.D.) so I shall be more likely to contribute to talk pages on medical articles than to change the articles themselves.
I have made rather a lot of edits to the article onlocus of control.
I created the article oncross-cultural psychology, and the article onDaniel Batson; also created an article on the Swedish psychologistHjalmar Sunden (there was an article on Sunden in the Swedish Wikipedia before I made one for the English Wikipedia); I have also created the page on the Japanese theologianKosuke Koyama. I have created several articles on fields germane to transpersonal psychology, such as that ontranspersonal ecology.
Before editing an article, ask:
Am I helping to make the article more up-to-date?Am I able to reference my sources, using books and journals, not just other internet sites?Does my edit help to give the article a better context?Am I able to establish wiki-links to other articles in Wikipedia?Do I have credentials in that particular field?
Am I able to structure an article better? Are my edits likely to help other Wikipedia users?
Please be aware that the wordbias, which derives frombowls, just means a systematic tendency, it does not implyprejudice, so I merely mean this by this term:
Exopedian or Metapedian? I would definitely say I am quite strongly exopedian. However, I am not against leaving messages on userpages, so my commitment to expopedianism, while strong, is less than 100%.
Deletionist or inclusionist? I come down on the side of inclusionists - I do not like to suggest deletion of categories or articles, after others may have worked hard on them. This is not a licence to say that in Wikipedia, anything goes, however - I would object to use of foul language in Wikipedia, for example. I am also against a category of user language Level 0, which has always seemed rather pointlesss to me. I did call for a deletion of a former article on Turinah, an Indonesian lady who made the far-fetched claim of being 157! I do remember that the Wikipedian who was responsible for that article was no longer linked with Wikipedia, so I did not think that that Wikipedian would miss the article too much.
Religious biasses. As you can see, I have categorised myself as a Christian, but am also a relatively liberal one, who has no problems in being both aChristian and a believer inevolution, at least of sorts - I tend to have sympathy with theGaia hypothesis.
My news is likely to come from the BBC, especially,Radio Four or theBBC Two programme,Newsnight. I tend to read local rather than national newspapers, and would say that the internet search engine which I use most often isGoogle. I frequently listen to the Radio Four programme "Today". You may wonder about my political biasses - well, I do not belong to any political party. There are probably wise views and foolish views which all of the main political parties have espoused at some stage in their history.
As for views on a European union, I would object to Europe becoming some sort of superstate, but I would prefer to see myself as an anti-federalist, rather than an anti-European (which I am certainly not) - I may be Euro-skeptic, but I am definitely not a Euro-phobic (there is a difference).
Academic background. My academic field ispsychology, so I shall edit mostly articles relating to this field.
Believe it or not, I am interested in bothtranspersonal psychology andsocial cognition, and have sympathy with both of these approaches in psychology. I consider the following great among our living psychologists:
Martin SeligmanRobert SternbergRobert Zajonc
I have also long had interests in the work ofDaniel Batson, and created his article inWikipedia.The following were, in my view, two of the most over-rated psychologists of the twentieth century:
So, you can see, I am not sympathetic with behaviourism. I do admire bothCarl Jung andAlfred Adler; as forSigmund Freud, I find that there was both sense and nonsense in his many writings. I have contributed to the article onpsychoticism, and would agree that this is rather too motley a trait. Finally, a big vote of thanks to all three of the "greats" ofhumanistic psychology, that is,Abraham Maslow,Carl R. Rogers andRollo May, all of whom, in my view, made important and significant contributions to psychology.
Although I do not possess qualifications as a counselling psychologist, I have taught this subject at my local university. I have some sympathy with most, but not all, of the forms ofcognitive therapy, but I somewhat skeptical about theRational Emotive Therapy ofAlbert Ellis. I have rather more time forCognitive Analytic Therapy. Please note that these opinions are based on reading, not on personal experience.
Do not believe my editcount given atWikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits - this says my editcount is 6,500, but last time I checked my editcount, it was 3,632.
A main reason why this user likes Wikipedia is that it is surely the most up-to-date encyclopadia in the world - just check out articles on subjects in the news, or articles on people who have recently died (one can often find out that a public figure has died through Wikipedia sooner than one can through the BBC news). I also like the breadth and comprehensiveness of coverage of topics in Wikipedia, which rather makes me an inclusionist - deletionism has long seemed a misguided philosophy to me, as deleted articles may get recycled elsewhere on theworld wide web. I should also say that I like the fact that Wikipedia does not involve learning anything too complex about technology - one does not have to be au fait withPDF files to use it, which, in my book, is certainly a good thing! I also like the fact that there isWikipedia: Help desk - an extremely valuable resource. Finally, one thing I admire how kind and helpful other Wikipedians typically are, this is certainly a project characterised by collaboration and co-operation. I still think that Wikipedia is my favourite website - what is remarkable is that although there might be some people who vandalise it, about 96% of people who write for Wikipedia work extremely hard making very sensible edits to it.
Well, here are some of my major groans about Wikipedia. Sorry to be predictable, but I am rather inclined to repeat the common criticism that it does, at times, tend to be about popular media culture, rather than more academic subjects. I have also noticed how it tends to be rather culturally biassed - it is an excellent resource for those who wish to learn aboutNorth America or selected parts of Western Europe, but may say less aboutAfrica orAsia (consider, for example, how few Japanese theologians have an entry in Wikipedia, or how little there is on the African philosopherJohn Mbiti).(OK, last time I looked at the article onJohn Mbiti, there was there - good to see that people have edited it). Finally, I have to echo another common criticism - the English in Wikipedia is not always brilliant, although to be fair to Wikipedia, some of the grammatical, vocabulary and punctuation errors that occur in it are rather common ones (I do wish people would leaves apostrophes out of decades, and know that the correct way to write "1960s" is "1960s" and not "1960's").
This user is currently in several WikiProjects, including that forpsychology and that fordisability. I am sure that I could be in a lot more - so many things are interesting to me - education, theology, philosophy, religion, spirituality, paranormal, to name just a few - it is a shame that there are only 24 hours in the day!
I hope that the future of Wikipedia will be characterised by a greater stress on academic articles, written in an in-depth but still accessible way, as would be appropriate for a reference work. I would also like to see consistency in styles of referencing (I am used to theAmerican Psychological Association referencing style myself). Finally, it would be good to think that one day, Wikipedia might - just might - break free from its cultural biasses, and become a truly comprehensive compendium of knowledge about all parts of the world.
 | What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
| For your great creation:List of pastries. This new article will probably get over 600 hits a day, forever!!! Nice.Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC) |
 | The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
| You have tirelessly improved the mainspace, unsung. I hereby sing your praises with another long-overdue barnstar. Perhaps not as nice as the first, but this one spins round and round, and, if stared at long enough, can induce a psychotic episode! :) Best, wishes,Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC) |
| |||||
| |||||
| Search user languages
Fred Goodwin[edit]Hello. I see you have previously contributed to theTalk page on the Fred Goodwin article. May I ask for your views on a piece I have added relating to his role in the BCCI liquidation. ThanksLord Mauleverer (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC) _____ |
