User talk:StoneProphet11

StoneProphet11, you are invited to the Teahouse

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

Cognition

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

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

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

• On the Adolescent sexuality in the United States page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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)

Disambiguation link notification for September 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Narcissism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page No Good Deed. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Your comments on WP:5P would be much appreciated

Hi Stone Prophet,
There is a proposal at 5 pillars that I would appreciate your comments on. It's at: Real world style consensus. Since you are a psychologist (I judged this by your edits, now I have read your bio-page), I have decided to ask you about this. It has to do with the very start of a certain attempt to make Wikipedia a better place. Maybe you wil find someone to love who is still alive after all!

Thanks, Scott P. (talk) This posting first edited at 02:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC), last edited at 02:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hah, yes I am a psychologist. Ok, let me take a look and mull it over...actually, ok, took a look. Ok, I'm not remotely an expert on Wikipedia policy, let me say. I think the difference in usage, which is probably not entirely clear in general usage either by the way...is the sense of "consensus" as a vast majority (90%+) of individuals coming to the same decision independently (e.g. how we might talk about a scientific "consensus"), as opposed to consensus as compromise. I gather Wikipedia tends to use the term in the latter manner in which people with different opinions agree on some kind of middle ground that all can live with even if they find it imperfect? StoneProphet11 (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Swarm ♠ 15:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)