User talk:StoneProphet11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

StoneProphet11, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi StoneProphet11! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


Welcome, StoneProphet11! I've been looking for an editor knowledgeable in psychology for a while now to answer questions I have when I go over articles having to do with psychology. You might be able to answer a question posed in an edit summary by an editor who tried to create a link to a WP article for "sensory input" in the article on Cognition. His edit summary says "What's sensory input?" The link turned out to be red because there is no article specifically on that. The link can be left there as an indication that at least one editor thinks there ought to be one, and as an impetus for someone to write an article, or a link to a specific part of another article could be created, or the link could be removed (simply by removing the pair of square brackets) if you think the phrase should be clear enough for the average reader. (There is one more problem with the phrase: it says "the sensory input", not just "sensory input", but since this is at the beginning of the article, nothing about sensory input has been mentioned yet. So at the very least, the word "the" should be removed.) The presence of that error right at the beginning of the article suggests to me that the article has not been gone over carefully in a while. If you feel like it, you can review it for accuracy. Only add new material if you have reliable sources to cite with it (see WP:RS). If you have questions, you can start a new section on the article's talk page. I'll probably go over the article at some point, too, but with a different focus. CorinneSD (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, just saw this, I'll try to take a peek soon. Cognition isn't my main area, but I'll see what I can see, as they say. StoneProphet11 (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually that initial line refers to perception, a type of cognition, not cognition as a whole, so I thought it best to remove and go with the next line which sounded a bit more on target. StoneProphet11 (talk) 05:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
You're the expert in psychology. That's why you're needed! Since you're new to WP, you might like to read WP:LEAD, which tells what the lead (sometimes spelled lede) section of an article should contain. CorinneSD (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
In fairness, being a psychologist doesn't make me an expert in all areas of psychology.  :) StoneProphet11 (talk) 03:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Linguistic relativity and the color naming debate[edit]

I've been reading the article Linguistic relativity and the color naming debate and just making minor copy-edits to improve clarity and conciseness along the way, and I have come across something that I just don't understand. I've posted a question on the article's talk page at Talk:Linguistic relativity and the color naming debate#Additional universalist arguments. I wonder if you could answer my question and, if you think it would help the average reader, perhaps add just a bit more so that it is really clear. Usually, I can understand things like this, but I just can't figure it out. (I didn't read the article on habituation all the way through. Maybe I need to do that.) CorinneSD (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Eesh that was an article both short and dense, but it basically says they demonstrate that infants have color vision much like adults at a younger age than previously expected. StoneProphet11 (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 30 June[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)