Fuzzybunnyhare

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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

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)

Temporary blackout on Wednesday

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)

Hey!

How are you finding the wiki editing so far?

RaeD09 (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)RaeD09

It is excellent so far. I'm still not sure what articles I would like to edit. You? Fuzzybunnyhare (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Class Project

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)

I think I'd like to tackle the HEXACO model. I'm a little apprehensive since it was written mostly by Ashton (the author from Brock). Hopefully I do not step on any toes when editing. I really think the article needs more balance.

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)

Great to have you aboard! We'll talk more in class, though it will have to be after reading week. I'll be gone to a wedding tomorrow --User:fuzzybunnyhare (talk)

fuzzy bunny

where do you get all those clif bars? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilgoretrout10 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The grocery store. Actually I bought a case of them from the superstore for ten bucks! Ten I tell you! user: fuzzybunnyhare

Editor

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)

Done and Done! Thanks!--user:fuzzybunnhare

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)

Edits from RaeD09

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)

No problem. I've proofread about half the article and I'll go over it some more in the next day or two. I'll post any comments I have in the talk page (your talk page). It'll be easier to keep track I think. Am I writing this in the right spot? I feel like my grandmother trying to use a computer...Anyway, glad I could help!Fuzzybunnyhare (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Edits From Owleye

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)

Update. I see you have logged on and are doing some editing. I was just finishing reviewing/editing your article again. Thanks for the informative read. Made mostly minor changes, tighten up a few sentences, added some hyperlinks for the three factors that are comparible to other models.Have a few small questions:

• The sections antecedent to the Theoretical Implications address similarities and differences to the Big Five. This Theoretical Implications section, then, switches and compares the HEXACO model to the FFM – might want a bit of explanation here. I added the full non-abbreviated form of FFM and hyperlinked, but did not add anything additional here, as I did not know if your intentions were to use the Big Five and FFM interchangeably.
• The article notes that "They further argue that claims of universality for the HEXACO model should be considered cautiously, since there are many languages and cultures where appropriate personality trait studies have not been conducted." Does this also hold true for the other personality models? If so, maybe this is a harsher comparison. I say this with out knowing what studies have and have not been done, though.
• Under the HEXACO Model section, the text says that "Personality is assessed using a self-report measure. The six factors are measured through a series of questions designed to rate an individual on levels of each factor." I also saw this as, "Personality is assessed using a self-report measure. Personality is measured through a series of questions designed to rate an individual on levels of the six factors." But, I am not sure if this was your intention.
• “Dark Triad” Quotes. May want to include the reference and page number immediately following the quotes.
• In the Theoretical section, was hard to tell if A = altruism or agreeableness.
• Also, some factors are abbreviated in some sections (e.g., "H"). May want to consider not abbreviating if you want each section to become a "stand alone section." Just a thought.
• May want to add citations to some passages of text that are not referenced, particularly latter sentences in paragraphs.

Owleye769 (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again for the great comments. I'm going to dive into the others shortly, but I wanted your input on one of your comments. I think you are right about the De Raad criticism (that the claims should be considered cautiously). It is a little harsh. The authors of that paper took specific issue with the HEXACO model though their criticism could easily be extended to most personality trait taxonomies. That being said, how should I rephrase it to emphasize that, while a valid criticism, it is not specific to the HEXACO model and can be a common criticism of most trait models?

I think that you phrased it nicely above. Might want to try something like: "However, similar criticism concerning other personality models also exists." And, then note an examples. For instance, I just looked into my Personality text (from 2008, so it is not completely recent) that notes that "disagreement about the content and replicability of the fifth factor (intellect-openness)" (p. 85) of the FFM also exists. In addition, the authors claim that more cross-cultural research about the FFM (in particular the last trait) is needed in African cultures and cultures minimally influence by Western culture. Reference = Personality Psychology: Domains of Knowledge about Human Nature - 3rd edition by Larsen, R.J. & Buss, D.M. (2008). Ironically, the text also quotes De Raad, 1998 in this debate. i.e., De Radd, B. (1998) Five big, big five issues: Rationale, content, structure, status, and crosscultural assessment. European Psychologist, 3, 113-124. Hope this helps. These are just some thoughts, so I don't know if they will be useful to you. Best,Owleye769 (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I love you! I believe I have that textbook at home. Thank you for the tip! I like the structure you recommend as well, it is a nice balance of mentioning the limitation but also placing an emphasis on the fact that it is not limited to HEXACO. Thanks again!Fuzzybunnyhare (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		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)

My editorial comments to RaeD09

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

Call for Carleton University's Campus Ambassador

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. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)