User talk:Research Psychologist

Welcome![edit]

Hi Research Psychologist! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Justi yaya 08:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your sandbox[edit]

Hi Research Psychologist, I've noticed your questions on Hajoon0102's talk page and your substantial amount of work put into your sandbox. I would like to start off by saying that I'm slightly interested in the field of research psychology after reading The Righteous Mind, a somewhat controversial book about social psychology and is sort of considering studying it for college. Looking over your sandbox, I'm sure some of the information is relevant to Wikipedia, but I'm also quite sure parts of it might need to be removed or changed in order to better reflect our guidelines on article writing. I, however, have no experience editing in this part of Wikipedia, as I mainly focus on writing articles for albums. So I would like to ping Doczilla, who is probably the most qualified editor in terms of psychology here, to look over it. I have fixed a few issues in your sandbox using a script, mainly the usage of curly quotes and the placement of references. We generally use straight quotation marks instead of curly ones and we generally place references after punctuation, not before. I hope you succeed in getting your article published and happy editing! Justi yaya 07:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Justiyaya,

Thank you for the advice and help with curly quotes and placement of references. Thank you for the clear advice! Yes, some of my sources are social psychologists. John Bargh is probably the most famous contemporary example, and he has lots to say about subconscious psychology. I have drawn on social psychology and other subdisciplines too.

Research Psychologist 24.46.4.137 (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Justiyaya, and hello, Research Psychologist.

I don't like to discourage people from putting such work into developing an article, but specific problems immediately leap out at me.

The opening statement, "Subconscious psychology is beyond conscious awareness," is simply not correct, mainly because that is not how we use the word psychology. Your sandbox topic, unconscious psychology, is not a distinct area within the field of psychology. Before we can even get into other errors in there, though, we have to look at why this article would be needed at all. Wikipedia already has articles for Pierre Janet's concept of the subconscious, the related term unconscious mind (which is more popular within the field despite public perception), and subliminal perception (which is related but not synonymous).

Clearly you've put work into this, and I am grateful to see people gather information from external sources. Some of the information you've gathered might be useful as additions to the aforementioned topics. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 03:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you were previously editing under another username, your contribution history indicates that your edits have been to (or regarding) your sandbox article this whole time. Please get involved in making simple edits such as adding some sources to other articles, not big changes but little improvements here and there, as a way to develop your experience with how Wikipedia articles are developed and refined. Build up your contribution experience by making direct contributions. Learn through effort. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 04:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Doczilla,

I appreciated your informative messages. You did a good job of firmly saying "no" without being insulting.

Please let me know if you think any of my sandbox would be appropriate and useful if added to an exisiting Wikipedia article; I think that is what you are suggesting. But I don't want to play a guessing game about what you would find acceptable and what you would not accept.

I am reluctant to mess with someone else's Wikipedia composition, so I've been refraining from amending existing Wikipedia articles. For example, a PhD physicist friend and I were working on an application of the Box-Cox transformation in statistics. He found some errors in the Wikipedia article on that subject. But I'm too timid (and maybe not confident enough about my friend's insight) to make the changes to the corresponding Wikipedia page. Is there a way to offer corrections/amendments to an authority for a particular Wikipedia page? Collaboration would seem a more-natural Wikipedia mode than one-sided "correction." As for your specific objection to my sandbox offering, I had my sandbox read by several experts, including a Harvard PhD in psychoogy, a student of Zajonc (who served with me as a military Research Psychologist) and a Harvard-trained psychiatrist. None of them mentioned your objection (e.g., "that is not how we use the word in psychology"), although they offered many constructive criticisms I used to improve my sandbox. One of them said she was informed by my explanation in Appendix A of use of the word "subconscious." On the other hand, you have the authority, and I can respect your decision.

Research Psychologist 24.46.4.137 (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Research Psychologist, please don't be afraid of editing any existing article. We encourage users to be WP:BOLD and fix any mistakes or add any new information directly to an article. An article is usually not written by a single editor but quite a few editors collaborating through bold edits, reverting (if they disagree with the edit) and discussing (WP:BRD). If you make a mistake in your edit, someone else will most likely fix it for you and leave a friendly message on your talk page. For example, we have 278 editors (Guessing 60-70% are inactive) watching the article Subconscious (which needs significant expansion and citations), I'm sure at least one of them would look through your edit if you directly edit the page. Furthermore, the page is authored by roughly 10 editors with the top contributor writing only 11.8% of the article, so no need to worry about messing up someone else's composition. In sum, be BOLD when editing and don't be afraid to make mistakes! Also pinging Doczilla for comments :D Justi yaya 17:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing articles is how we learn around here. We become editors by editing. You will make mistakes. We all make mistakes. Still do. Others will point out those mistakes. Some will be nice about it, some will not, and some will be wrong themselves. It's how we learn and build Wikipedia. I respect your caution and think that will serve you well as you progress. I appreciate your enthusiasm and look forward to your future contributions. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (July 9)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Timtrent was:

Please reach consensus on the talk page of the article you wish to modify. Please do not submit this proposed changes here. This route os for 100% new work.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Research Psychologist/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Research Psychologist/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Research Psychologist! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding User:Research Psychologist/sandbox[edit]

Hello, Research Psychologist. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that User:Research Psychologist/sandbox, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]