User talk:SJS1971

Biological Psychology

Hi. Your impressive knowledge and experience is all greek to me. However... I have found a big error on this(these) page(s). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_psychology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_neuroscience Both of these pages are titled "Biological Psychology" in the window. Also, the tabs for BN send the user to the discussion, article, etc. for BP. There is not a separate discussion for BN. So, which page did you really edit? Perhaps this is why the article you edited highlighted Neuroscience excessively? I found the latter article from a link in the former. Is there a discernable difference between these fields? Please accept my apologies for unloading this on you. I thought you might know what to do. This is my first time contributing (and hopefully last) and I don't know what else to do. Best of Luck, Amelia

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.69.96.115 (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Awesome! Great catch, Amelia. That's a bad redirect in my opinion. Behavioral neuroscience is a separate field. So that means I should write a separate article for it... though I don't have the energy tonight! For now I just removed the link to BN on the BP page. Thanks, and keep contributing! SJS1971 04:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point. Nevertheless, I dispute the separation. The term IS synonymous with biological psychology, psychobiology, etc. This is supported by multiple standard textbooks such as biopsychology by Pinel, biological psychology by Rozensweig et al., and physiology of behavior by Carlson. Moreover, the American Psychological Association journal "Behavioral Neuroscience" is devoted to publishing articles that discuss "the broad field of the biological bases of behavior." Even behavioral neuroscience or biological psychology doctoral programs are used synonymously within Psychology departments (e.g., http://wings.buffalo.edu/psychology/doctoral/neuroscience.html and http://www.has.vcu.edu/psy/biopsy/index.html). Behavioral neuroscience is NOT directed to the understanding the organization of the nervous system. That is neurobiology. Thus, I am reverting it back to a redirect to prevent unnecessary confusion among naive readers. mezzaninelounge 22:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dissociation

Hi there, sure I'd be happy to help out. For now, rather than make a whole new page for double dissociation, I've just made that a redirect to dissociation_(neuropsychology) and then we only have to work on that one article. This would avoid duplication hopefully. --PaulWicks 09:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good, and thank you.SJS1971 18:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk pages

Please do not erase comments on user talk pages. They are not for you to erase. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for more information. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 16:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion. I generally do not erase material from talk pages. In this case, however, a large amount of text unrelated to the main article was added to the associated talk page. This strikes me as an inappropriate use of a talk page. In addition, the text added was "boilerplate" text - text that has undoubtedly been added to many user talk pages - and as a result represents an unnecessary duplication of information. Both of these strike me as antithetical to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Since the text that was added, deleted, and re-added has nothing to do with ongoing discussions on this page, my suggestion is that it not be uselessly readded. I'm not sure why you feel it is so important that this information remain. SJS1971 16:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcoming new users is NOT "antithetical to Wikipedia policy and guidelines," in fact, it is encouraged. It does not matter whether it came from a "boilerplate" or not. Editing user comments is completely inappropriate anywhere on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable, especially Do not edit others' comments. Do not do it again. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 17:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that editing user comments is inappropriate. I am also aware that using a user talk page to harrass or flame another Wikipedian is likewise inappropriate. Although I wouldn't consider myself a "new user", I did appreciate the welcome. At some point your efforts to welcome and inform this particular user tilted to this kind of strange back and forth thing that is going on now on the SJS1971 user talk page. I have simply and politely been trying to indicate that while the welcome was appreciated, overall I found the long snippets of text posted both to top and bottom of the talk page to be distracting. Why post your welcome message at the top of the user page? Your welcome message chronologically was posted after serveral other comments. Your posting it at the top was an attempt to format the user talk page. I do not think this is appropriate or helpful, and given that I am relying on this particular talk page more than anyone to make the most useful contributions I can, I made the decision to remove it. Please consider your point made. SJS1971 17:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not harassing or trying to inflame you, and I don't see how welcoming you or asking you to use summaries would even hint at doing that. You removed not only the welcome but a suggestion about using summaries, and you needed to know that that was inappropriate. I think you're blowing my welcome and comment about summaries out of proportion. A welcome at the top of the page is not inappropriate. Asking you to use the summary box is also not inappropriate. What is completely inappropriate is removing other users' comments. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 17:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point about removing the summaries comment. I'm not sure why I removed that in the first place - it wasn't an accident, but whatever the rationale was I can't reconstruct it. Surely you know that my harassment comment was not directed at the initial welcome message, but the constant back and forth that followed. SJS1971 17:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Welcoming committee. Although I can find no policy that states welcomes should or should not be at the top, I do it because I think new users should have had a welcome first before any other comments, so they can read about Wikipedia as soon as possible. I only break the timeline of the talk page to do that, so it is not a serious violation of anything. One day, when your talk page gets too long, you can archive it. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 17:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation and the helpful links! SJS1971 17:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summaries

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 14:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I virtually always do (see Special:Contributions/SJS1971). I do occasionally miss. I will try and be more dogmatic about it and appreciate the suggestion.

This section was rescued from a previous inapporpriate deletion by me. SJS1971 17:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

double dissociation

saw that you had a toe in the double dissociation pool. just tested the water myself, and added the classic broca wericke dd. thought i'd let you know. perhaps the article needs sub headings now? regards--Dylan2106 15:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]