User talk:Reswik - Wikipedia

hi, anything to share?

Sociology of science[edit]

Reswik, Sociology of science is the history of science collaboration of the month. If you're part of any active online sociologist communities (i.e., good listservs), spamming them with a link to it might be a good way to get more scholars involved. I hope your project goes well.--ragesoss 06:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Science wars[edit]

Reswik, science wars is the new history of science collaboration of the month. Hopefully it will go better than last month's.--ragesoss 04:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Law page[edit]

hello Reswik, could you do me a big favour and find a book on the sociology of law, and then write a bit about it in that section you added onto the law page? The article's being reviewed right now (link in the law page) and I previously haven't bothered to put anything in, because I'm unfamiliar with the concept, and the article on sociology of law is pretty unhelpful. I'd really appreciate it! Wikidea 20:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. OK. In the next day or two, I'll add a few sentences or a paragraph of substantance to the new section (and foot note or two or three...) and perhaps a bit more to the Sociology of law stub. Although, there is already some substance in the last Law section on institutions -- a more explicit transition could perhaps be made between the last two main sections. Btw, nice article :) --Reswik 20:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added some things in the sociology of law. Thanks for the copy-edit. Maybe, you could do a bit more of it throughout the article! One of the major criticisms to the article is that its tone is quite informal, and I basically agree. But I am not a native English speaker, and I do not trust completely my prose skills. So, any assistance would be welcome. Thanks in advance!--Yannismarou 20:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yannismarou. I am very glad you worked on the sociology of law sub-section. :) OK, during this next week, I'll look at the article in terms of copyediting (and also in terms of checking somewhat that social scientific kinds of terms and concepts are consistent across the article). I hope next week is soon enough. Right now, related to the article, my priority is to put some material in the sociology of law article, and then summarize a bit of that for the law article. I haven't made it yet to my library (a distance away); I intend to go on Monday. But, I do have some references to work with (as I'm familiar with some aspects of political sociology). So, it may take a few days for me to work on the whole article. Related to this: I am wondering if and how to mention explicitly anthropology, criminology, and/or political science regarding law -- I personally am not familiar with those fields. Perhaps a general mention could be made of those fields? Reswik 21:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm! Nice question! You mean mentioning anthropology, criminology, and/or political science in the law article or mentioning law in anthropology, criminology, and/or political science? If you mean the first, I'm not sure, but what is sure is that we must nor over-expand the article. I'm happy you work on the sociology of law article; it really needs improvement. As far as the "sociology of law" section in the law article, I think it is already quite fine. My main concern now with law is prose. Cheers!--Yannismarou 21:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, since the article is long already, I guess just a mention in the intro or somewhere in article is enough for other fields then. I copyedited the first two sections this afternoon, doing a fair bit of work on the intro. And I switched the order of two of the article sections. I believe all of those changes improved the article. What do you think? The intro still needed more work which I think I noted. Since Wikidea saw fit to revert my copyedits of the intro back to the previous version of the intro and to revert the section order and and delete the etymology section, so as not to waste effort, I will refrain from further copyedits for a few days. In relation to this topic, I'll focus on adding some content the sociology of law article. Btw, I have 20 years experience in editing and publishing in various contexts and have, what usually is regarded as a good eye for the organization of a piece of writing. Not sure if and how to proceed with copyedits. --Reswik 00:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning[edit]

I am hoping that you are not planning to turn a disambiguation article into something else. Your rating of "start" seems to be pretty ambitious for a disambiguation article. Perhaps you are intending to create an article called "Meaning (Sociological)" and add it to the list? I would resist any actual content in a disambiguation article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dunning (talk • contribs) 09:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I changed the evaluation of the meaning disambig page to a stub. Thx for pointing that out.

There are some types of meaning not mentioned in the disambig list. Perhaps an overview article is needed which summarizes various senses and uses of "meaning" (and major debates about such) in philosophy, the humanities, and social sciences. Perhaps meaning (social theory) would be a place for such discussion as the practice of social theory tends to draw on work from many disciplines. --Reswik 15:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue I - March 2007[edit]

The inaugural March 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 04:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

new sociology structure[edit]

Hi! I have moved this section to the bottom of the new strucutre article above so that people can read all of the discussions so far. Anyone interested in a new strucutre of the article will read the bottom of the old seciton even though it is in the middle of the talk page. Hope that's ok! JenLouise 00:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I read your comments (at the Talk:Sociology page) and will reply there. Thx, --Reswik 18:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you'll read my comments on the structure of the article, but I wanted to begin fleshing out the areas on a test page (things can easily be moved or changed once final agreement is reached on an initial structure. I don't want to jsut create my own one but I also don’t want to make significant changes to your one, unless you are happy for your page to be a 'work in progress' that we can all contribute to and update as the discussion on the structure progresses. JenLouise 00:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My original revised outline for Sociology, here User:Reswik/Sociology/sociology_article_outline, was only partly implemented. The outline needs revising. A revised copy of that could be a starting place or a new outline could be made. So far, the Soc article has been evolving bit by bit, section by section, over time. But, we need an outline too, I guess, to make sure stuff is not left out and balanced. A big need is to start going through and adding references or material that is referenced. I've only started barely pecking at that. --Reswik 03:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I revised the outline linked just above. Basically, the difference between the revised outline and the current article now the addition of sections on "sociological perspective" and on "subsdisciplines". Not sure if the second new section is needed. The current article plan could be revised based on looking more closely at good intro soc books and the emergent content of WP. I think I did the first when I made the first version of the revised outline. But several tries at looking at what is out there in practice are probably worth it. --Reswik 18:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sociological paradigms -> sociological theories[edit]

Hi! we seem to be having a bit of interaction at the moment! I've actually reversed your redict - possibly just temporarily! - because of the reasons on [Talk:Sociological paradigms]] but it is only to allow the discussion to happen first before a dramatic move like that takes place. JenLouise 02:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes, we're crossing paths in a few places it seems. Thanks for your thoughts at the Talk:Sociological paradigm page. I replied there. I think the redirect is a good idea and explain further why I think this is so. I look forward to more possible discussions on this and other matters. The organization of sociology articles in various ways needs more talk...over time. :) --Reswik 03:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you go to Category:Sociology and scroll below the sub-categories, you will see the beginning of the list of articles contained in this category. I have already started recategorising those that have absolutely no relationship to sociology. There are many more whose relationship is tenuous at best. I will list some suggestions on the Category_talk:Sociology#Clean_up_still_needed page for cleaning up this category. JenLouise 03:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. :) On the topic of this section: If you have time, check out the Sociological theory article -- there are some new subsections which list various kinds of sociological theory by a few subdisciplines. It would be nice if eventually main theories in most sociology subdisciplines were represented. (Then it would be interesting to cross-reference those by main frameworks/perspectives/general soc theories used.) Anyway, this is one reason why I think using "sociological theory" is a good title/category. Listing main subdiscipline theories with general theories seems helpful, interesting, etc. --Reswik 03:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Does this article belong?[edit]

Hi Reswik, thanks for your response. I'll look into expanding the article and/or finding a WikiProject and category for those relevant studies. Thanks. --Fbv65e del // _t * _c || 02:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Fbv. I just googled "Harry Potter bibliography" and, in case you hadn't seen this, this resource came up: Harry Potter Bibliography. It seems mostly humanities sorts of stuff. This text jumped out at me: The Ivory Tower and Harry Potter. Have fun and drop me a line if you add a section. A whole article might be merited about HP research (or is there one?) -- and then perhaps a summary of such an article could be put into the main fan article (as the fan article is already long). --Reswik 02:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for those links. I do own a book of Harry Potter essays, but none dealing with the impact on people, just elements of the plot analyzed. I'm a bit busy now with the end of the school year, but perhaps by June I'll get a chance to sit down with some of those resources. I've been planning to nominate this article for FLC for ages, but I still need to reference the end of the Roleplaying games section, so I guess adding a section on sociology would be beneficial, perhaps crucial. I'll let you know if anything comes of it. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 02:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I looked more closely at the table of contents of that Ivory tower text. A lot of it is literary stuff. The last chapter though is on fan communities. You only need one good article or chapter like that then you can follow branching trails of references... -- Reswik 03:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue II - May 2007[edit]

The May 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 06:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue III - September 2007[edit]

The September 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 00:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Social[edit]

Would you review this thread about the Social article. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 16:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on top level categories.[edit]

Hi Doug, I hope you're keeping well! I hope you bought a copy of Version 0.5 when it came out!

I thought you might be pleased to know that the ten-category system you developed (and we voted on) has become quite well established - it was adopted at WP:GA and is probably going to be adopted for peer reviews also. We're voting on some lower level stuff now - where to put some of the subtopics. Perhaps you could take a look at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Hierarchy and the changes proposed on the talk page?

All the best, Walkerma 02:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Council roll call[edit]

Hi there. You are receiveing this message because your name appears on the WikiProject Council participants list. The WikiProject Council is currently having a roll-call; if you are still interested in participating in the inter-project discussion forum that WT:COUNCIL has become, or you are interested in continuing to develop and maintain the WikiProject Guide or Directory, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Participants and remove the asterisk (*) from your name on the list of participants. If you are no longer interested in the Council, you need take no action: your name will be removed from the participants list on April 30 2008.

Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 22:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue IV - May 2008[edit]

A new May 2008 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is hot off the virtual presses. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to reach you[edit]

Hi, I've e-mailed you and tried to reach you on another project as well. Please e-mail me or reply on my talk page regarding SUL. I've got the global ID User:Doug and there are at least two projects where you have that ID and have a few edits so I'd like to discuss this. In particular, on Wikibooks you have the account b:User:Doug but the account b:User:Reswik is available and on Wikiversity you have both the accounts v:User:Doug and v:User:Reswik. You might consider unifying the account User:Reswik, but you'd probably want to change your username on accounts where you are User:Doug first. Cheers, and I look forward to hearing from you!--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue V - January 2009[edit]

It's here at long last! The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is ready, with exciting news about Darwin Day 2009. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse --ragesoss (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ping[edit]

Reswik. Did you leave the Internet? Did you finish your degree? What are your thoughts on how Wikiversity has progressed? Just curious. --• Q ^#o • 17:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Sociology Newsletter: II (April 2010)[edit]

Sociology Project • News • April 2010
The Sociology WikiProject is conducting a roll call (or min-census, if you prefer). More then five years down the road, we have over 50 members, but we don't know how many of them are still active in the sociology area. If you are or want to become once again an active contributor to the sociology content on Wikipedia, please move your name from the inactive to the active list on our roll call. In other news, we have reactivated the newsletter :) At least, for this announcement. We also have a new, automated to do listing, an active tag and assess project (which has identified about 1,800 sociology articles on Wikipedia, and assessed about 1,3000 of them), and three new userboxes for your self-identification pleasure :) On a final note, I highly recommend watchlisting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology page, so you can be aware of the ongoing discussions.
You have received this newsletter because you are listed as a participant at WikiProject Sociology. • signed _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus\| talk} 18:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sociology Project • News • April 2010

The Sociology WikiProject is conducting a roll call (or min-census, if you prefer). More then five years down the road, we have over 50 members, but we don't know how many of them are still active in the sociology area. If you are or want to become once again an active contributor to the sociology content on Wikipedia, please move your name from the inactive to the active list on our roll call.

In other news, we have reactivated the newsletter :) At least, for this announcement. We also have a new, automated to do listing, an active tag and assess project (which has identified about 1,800 sociology articles on Wikipedia, and assessed about 1,3000 of them), and three new userboxes for your self-identification pleasure :) On a final note, I highly recommend watchlisting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology page, so you can be aware of the ongoing discussions.

You have received this newsletter because you are listed as a participant at WikiProject Sociology. • signed _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Sociology Newsletter: III (December 2010)[edit]

Sociology Project • News • December 2010
Spreading the meme since August 2006
The Sociology WikiProject third newsletter is out! According to our April mini-census, we have 15 active members, 6 semi-active ones and 45 inactive. Out of those, 4 active, 3 semi-active and 1 inactive members have added themselves to corresponding categories since the mini-census. The next one is planned, roughly, for sometime next year. The membership list has been kept since 2004. On that note, nobody has ever studied WikiProjects from the sociological perspective... if you are interesting in researching Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Research and wiki-research-l listerv. Moving from research to teaching, did you know that many teachers and instructors are teaching classes with Wikipedia? This idea is getting support from the Wikimedia Foundation, and some really useful tools have been created recently. I have experience with that, having taught several undergad classes, so feel free to ask me questions on that! And as long as I am talking about professional issues, if any of you is going to any sociological conferences, do post that to our project - perhaps other members are going there too? In other news: the a automated to do listing reported in the April issue went down shortly afterwards, but seems to be on the path to reactivation. We still have an active tag and assess project, and comparing the numbers to the April report, we have identified about 350 more sociology-related articles (from 1,800 to 2,150) and assessed about 100 (from 1,300 to 1,400). We now have a listing of most popular sociology-related pages. It is updated on the 1st of every month, starting with August, and reports which of our sociology-tagged articles are most frequently read. Of course, GIGO holds true, so after looking at it right now and trying to determine what is our most popular article, my first action was to shake my head and remove Criminal Minds (which, perhaps not too surprisingly, outranks all sociology articles in period tested). Second item I noticed it this month's Industrial Revolution, beating Criminal Minds, that moved from close to 30th position in August/September, to 9th in October and 2nd in November. If you'd like to discuss this or any other trends, please visit WT:SOCIOLOGY! Finally, with the reactivation of Article Alerts, we are getting our own here. Bookmark that page so you can keep track of sociology related deletion debates, move debates, good and feature article discussions, and more. Our first task force (Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology/Social movements task force) was created (1 June 2010). If you have basic or better graphic skills, our projects needs a dedicated barnstar (award) (currently the closest we can get is the Society Barnstar. As always, I highly recommend watchlisting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology page, so you can be aware of the ongoing discussions.
Authored by _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus\| talk} 04:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC) [reply] You have received this newsletter because you are listed as a recipient of WikiProject Sociology Newsletter (Opt-out).

Sociology Project • News • December 2010

Spreading the meme since August 2006

The Sociology WikiProject third newsletter is out!

According to our April mini-census, we have 15 active members, 6 semi-active ones and 45 inactive. Out of those, 4 active, 3 semi-active and 1 inactive members have added themselves to corresponding categories since the mini-census. The next one is planned, roughly, for sometime next year. The membership list has been kept since 2004.

On that note, nobody has ever studied WikiProjects from the sociological perspective... if you are interesting in researching Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Research and wiki-research-l listerv.

Moving from research to teaching, did you know that many teachers and instructors are teaching classes with Wikipedia? This idea is getting support from the Wikimedia Foundation, and some really useful tools have been created recently. I have experience with that, having taught several undergad classes, so feel free to ask me questions on that!

And as long as I am talking about professional issues, if any of you is going to any sociological conferences, do post that to our project - perhaps other members are going there too?

In other news: the a automated to do listing reported in the April issue went down shortly afterwards, but seems to be on the path to reactivation. We still have an active tag and assess project, and comparing the numbers to the April report, we have identified about 350 more sociology-related articles (from 1,800 to 2,150) and assessed about 100 (from 1,300 to 1,400).

We now have a listing of most popular sociology-related pages. It is updated on the 1st of every month, starting with August, and reports which of our sociology-tagged articles are most frequently read. Of course, GIGO holds true, so after looking at it right now and trying to determine what is our most popular article, my first action was to shake my head and remove Criminal Minds (which, perhaps not too surprisingly, outranks all sociology articles in period tested). Second item I noticed it this month's Industrial Revolution, beating Criminal Minds, that moved from close to 30th position in August/September, to 9th in October and 2nd in November. If you'd like to discuss this or any other trends, please visit WT:SOCIOLOGY!

Finally, with the reactivation of Article Alerts, we are getting our own here. Bookmark that page so you can keep track of sociology related deletion debates, move debates, good and feature article discussions, and more.

Our first task force (Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology/Social movements task force) was created (1 June 2010).

If you have basic or better graphic skills, our projects needs a dedicated barnstar (award) (currently the closest we can get is the Society Barnstar.

As always, I highly recommend watchlisting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology page, so you can be aware of the ongoing discussions.

Authored by _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

You have received this newsletter because you are listed as a recipient of WikiProject Sociology Newsletter (Opt-out).

Comments/suggestions on the Structuration theory page appreciated![edit]

Hello! My name is MJ. I'm a new editor on Wikipedia. I have recently completed some large-scale edits to the Structuration theory page. I saw that you've been active on its Talk page in the past, and I wanted to invite you to return and add your comments and suggestions about the page concerning its readability, clarity, usefulness, and/or comprehensiveness-- or anything you'd like to add to the discussion/dialogue around the page! As I said, I'm a new editor on Wikipedia. The structuration theory page has been rated "Highly important" to the Sociology WikiProject, and I'm concerned with making sure that the page is both accurate and informative for readers who want to know more about this important sociological theory. More than anything, I'd like to inspire a discussion about the changes that have been made, improvements, or support. Any suggestions you have are gladly received! And I can't emphasize enough that it would be so helpful to me as a new editor to see others' comments. I hope to see you on the Talk page soon! Mjscheer (talk) 10:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]