ParticipantObserver

A kitten for you!

Thanks for your edit!

PraiseMath 19:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for your edit!

PraiseMath 19:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for your edit!

PraiseMath 19:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism on Experimental Psychology

Hi... Hizar hayat noor (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I've entered some wrong info here at history of experimental psychology... Just to realize some of our classmates for that Wikipedia is not an authentic source... Hizar hayat noor (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Hizar hayat noor: I apologize if I inconvenienced you. Personally I think that altering Wikipedia to trick your classmates is not the best way to build high-quality content on Wikipedia. You can probably find a more constructive way to demonstrate to classmates that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia has an article on the issue at WP:WINARS which might help. Good luck! ParticipantObserver (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Help with neuroscience-related RfC

I am having a technical discussion/disagreement with @Neurorel:. I went to file an RfC, but the advice there was to try to consult, for technical stuff, a related portal. I am not asking you personally to adjudicate the disagreement at Talk:V._S._Ramachandran#Painless_phantom_limbs_and_painless_stimuli_are_entirely_different_things, but if you can suggest a portal or page where some competent people hang out, familiar with scientific research and WP:PRIMARY, this might save more gallons of pixel ink being wasted on that talk page. Thanks if you can help! HouseOfChange (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• @HouseOfChange: Not sure, but personally I would try one of the more popular pages on mental disorders (for example, Autism spectrum). I've noticed that a number of people who are competent with applying WP:PRIMARY rules (and other similar requirements) to scientific topics will frequent those pages to make sure that controversial pseudoscience ideas don't take over the articles. They would also be likely to have familiarity with neuroscience topics in general. Good luck! ParticipantObserver (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Conservation Psychology

Hi ParticipantObserver, I sense you are in the field(?) of conservation psychology, and would like to know if this is true, and how I can learn more about your work if so. - gramineae — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gramineae (talk • contribs) 04:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Gramineae: Hi, Gramineae. I am not in the field of conservation psychology (or any related environmental disciplines). I wasn't even really aware of those areas of research until I clicked into the articles. I find the area interesting, though, and found that the articles have often needed a lot of work. idk, it seemed like a good area to edit in! Sorry to disappoint. ParticipantObserver (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thanks for the "Needs Updating" tag in the Metamorphosis#Recent_research. I dislike intensely sections named "Recent...". I also dislike that word in sentences in the body of any article. I have been editing Wikipedia since 2006, and Wikipedia was started in January 15, 2001; 19 years ago. This means, if "recently discovered" was used in an article when Wikipedia started the result it spoke of would now be 21 years old, or if I had used it the result would be 15 years old. In many articles that is truly no longer the "recent" result. Nick Beeson (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not wish to receive ACE mass messages

{{NoACEMM}} ParticipantObserver (talk) 12:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
232		Starvation response (talk)	Add sources
116		Concept learning (talk)	Add sources
35		Tourism in Namibia (talk)	Add sources
252		Weight cutting (talk)	Add sources
571		Error (talk)	Add sources
184		Namibia national cricket team (talk)	Add sources
37		Anti–Middle Eastern sentiment (talk)	Cleanup
328		Body positivity (talk)	Cleanup
498		Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (talk)	Cleanup
626		Abdominal obesity (talk)	Expand
402		Weight management (talk)	Expand
129		Management of obesity (talk)	Expand
377		Body shape (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
53		Normal weight obesity (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
282		Attribution (psychology) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
181		Territorial conquests of the Empire of Japan (talk)	Merge
356		Topical medication (talk)	Merge
65		New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (talk)	Merge
172		Hosea Kutako International Airport (talk)	Wikify
8		Obesity in Indonesia (talk)	Wikify
66		Social penetration theory (talk)	Wikify
7		Obesity social stigma in television (talk)	Orphan
140		Sleep and weight (talk)	Orphan
74		TOFI (talk)	Orphan
33		Namibia Premier League (talk)	Stub
9		Khomasdal (talk)	Stub
9		Klein Windhoek (talk)	Stub
7		Windhoek Central Business District (talk)	Stub
5		Pioneers Park (talk)	Stub
6		Brakwater (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 10:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, ParticipantObserver!

Happy New Year!

ParticipantObserver,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 03:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Happy New Year to you as well! ParticipantObserver (talk) 09:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 03:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Classification of obesity into Obesity. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Psychological testing

User:ParticipantOberserver, I understand your concern about consensus but you miss one point. Consensus with user:Graywalls is problematic because he/she already admitted in the psychology talk page that he does not know much about io psychology. If he/she did know about the field, he/she would have recognized that Paul Spector is a world renown expert and that the websites that I referenced are informative and accessible. User:JohnnyBflat noted here in response to my discussion with Graywalls: talk:WikiProject Psychology. When I pointed out that Spector is an expert in the field in which Graywalls has little knowledge, Graywalls changed his/her tune and went after Spector as a COI. I address one issue and then Graywalls won't quit and creates another issue. Graywalls can't win on the issue of expertise, so he/she brings up an unrelated issue. Iss246 (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, you're welcome to start an RFC to argue in favor of the contents in question and if consensus finds in favor of inclusion, we can have a neutral uninvolved editor restore the contents in question. The concern here is that I haven't heard things in favor of recognizing Spector as really being "world renowned" as in Spector is to psychology as Stephen Hawking is to cosmology level and insistence on including paulspector.com is a conflict-of-interest. Graywalls (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Neurological disorder page.

[1]https://www.merckmanuals.com/home/brain,-spinal-cord,-and-nerve-disorders

The Merck manual is incomplete but what you don't understand about neurological disorders is that they are due to genetic mutations and those of us with neurological disorders don't share the same exact genetic mutations or same set of mutations. So, symptoms overlap and are more or less severe depending on the specific genetic mutations.

You're doing a disservice to others and keeping people in the dark by deleting neurological disorders off the list because the Merck list is incomplete. I have notified the staff of the Merck manual regarding adding GLUT1 deficiency syndrome which can be misdiagnosed for Parkinson's disease because they both share similar body movement disorder symptoms. Symbiosis87 (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

If you would like to change the source to another reliable source that categorizes things in a way that more clearly provides information to people, that is totally fine. It is not, however, fine to say "The Merck Manual lists brain, spinal cord and nerve disorders in the following overlapping categories:" and then to list a bunch of categories that the manual does not use. WP:NOR ParticipantObserver (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Healthy diet edits

On my talk page, you said: Can you please let me know what your objection is to the recent edits on Healthy Diet? Your edit summary stated solely 'Nonconstructive', which is not an adequate explanation for an edit, and which effectively accuses me of disruptive editing despite none of my edits meeting that definition. I'm trying to adjust the text to correct for whatever you are objecting to, but you haven't stated what that is precisely, making improvements to the article difficult. Thanks.

I had removed the sentence and source about bariatric surgery as off-topic, and twice you defended it as "clearly relevant" (obviously, it is not for an article on diet, as I stated in my edit summary). The idea of "presumed consensus" because an off-topic statement remained in the article for a long period is not how a dynamic encyclopedia works - the statement had just been overlooked.

The edits you have made now help make the obesity section clearer, so thanks to you. Zefr (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Great, thank you for the explanation. I was confused b/c the second time my point was that the relative ineffectiveness of dieting as an intervention for obesity is clearly relevant to a section on that topic (not that surgery is relevant per se). But I understand now that the surgery citation was the issue, and I'm glad that we could arrive with a better result. Thanks again for talking it through with me. Have a great day! ParticipantObserver (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

2023-10-28T00:09:43 diff hist −451‎ Drug test

Dear editor: it seems , that you rushed with a judgement in regard to my edit:

→‎Detection periods: the detection time for all drugs/metabolites in hair is ca. 3 months. which is determined by the length (1.5 inch) of the hair sample. What I deleted were all lies. Tag: Reverted

You wrote: 2023-10-28T12:36:28‎ ParticipantObserver talk contribs‎ 65,973 bytes +451‎ Undid revision 1182231684 by Walter Tau (talk) Unsourced claims and removing sourced claims WP:NOR If you actually read, what was there before my edit (and now after yours), you will realize, that the references (that I deleted) do not support the text in wiki. Furthermore, the drug detection time in hair is determined mostly by the length of the hair sample and not by the chemical nature of the drug itself. This is explained in details throughout the article. Walter Tau (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

You removed material without clear explanation (saying that something is all lies is ambiguous. Apparently you meant that it failed verification, not that you simply disagreed with the material, though there was no way for me to know that from your edit description) and you added unsourced material. WP:NOR But I'm glad you've sorted the problems with your edit out since then. Thanks for making the needed improvements. I'm not sure why you're commenting here now, though. Is there some change you'd like me to make to the page? ParticipantObserver (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

A question about the subsection removing from the "Perception" article, 2023-12-02

Dear Editor, Thank you for removing my edit to improve the "Perception" article. I tried to improve the "Perception" article by complementing it with the additional subsection "Shared intentionality theory" in the “Theories” section. This section presents different theories on the topic, developed by different scholars, such as, –“Perception as direct perception” introduced by James J. Gibson; –“Perception-in-action” by Ernst von Glasersfeld; –“Feature integration theory” by Anne Treisman; –“Interactive activation and competition networks” (about artificial neural networks???) associated with two authors James L. McClelland and David E. Rumelhart; –“The recognition-by-components theory” proposed by Irving Biederman in 1987 to explain object recognition. I have tried to present a different perspective on the development of perception through the concept of Shared intentionality (see Wiki article), introduced by Michael Tomasello and developed by Igor Val Danilov and Sandra Mikhailova. I thought (probably wrongly) that this different approach, accurately explained from different perspectives (e.g., psychology, neurophysiology, and neurobiology), could enrich the knowledge about the notion of perception contained in the current Wikipedia article. Please let me know what I have done wrong since you removed this subsection with the comment: Undue emphasis on the ideas of a single scholar. Probably introducing this different point of view requires more references. What can you recommend for me? Best regards, Ana Ana Padovana (talk) 05:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Shared intentionality theory appears to be the theory of Val Danilov, not a major concept generally accepted in the scientific community. Honestly, I'm surprised that it has its own Wikipedia page--a page which misleadingly suggests that the work of scholars other than Val Danilov is actually work on 'shared intentionality theory' per se instead of work that happens to be related conceptually. At any rate, the 'Perception' article is intended to be an overview of the field, and should not focus on fringe theories.

And no, the section you added did not present different theories on the topic. Nothing in that text discusses (or even mentions) direct perception or feature integration theory or recognition by components, so I'm not really sure what you mean here. ParticipantObserver (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I just realized that you meant that other parts of the article talk about those major topics. Okay. Yes, of course the article should include work by Gibson, Triesman, etc. Those are major scholars in the field and their ideas are very, very widely accepted (or historically have been very widely accepted) and are suitable for discussion in a general article on the topic. Val Danilov is not and his ideas are not. ParticipantObserver (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Dear Editor, Thank you for the prompt response. Yes, Michael Tomasello received the prestigious David Rumelhart Prize 2022 in the Cognitive Science Society as an award for his insights into cognition evolution and, specifically, the knowledge development about a contribution of Shared intentionality to cognition and social reality formation. This great scientist introduced this psychological construct more than 20 years ago. Thank you for the advice. I am proceeding with the subsection "Shared intentionality theory" modification considering more references to major scholars and avoiding the name which you dislike. I will upload the new version soon. Best regards, Ana. Ana Padovana (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

Hello ParticipantObserver: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 10:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)