I would hope the dopamine salience bit of writing could stay. It is a canny piece of reasoning, and as a person experienced in just those kinds of stressors? the dopamine salience and so on was a nice little conjecture I'd agree with, taking tyrosine, drugs etc, as a subjective reportage...
...I guess you guys don't allow subjective reportage much, ay.
- I think your conjecture has substance, but this ain't the place for it. dlainhart ( talk) 01:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Please don't add {{ stub}} to articles which already have a specific stub tag, like They - it just wastes other people's time. Thanks. PamD ( talk) 08:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
No offense, but your recent edits to Cinderella effect were not very helpful. You really need to use the talk page to explain the use of your tags and more importantly the use of the synthesis tag. If there are no comments within several days, I'll revert your recent edits. You just can't expect other editors to understand your reasoning without an explanation on the talk page. Otherwise, this is simply "drive-by tagging" and doesn't help improve the article. You are much better off trying to improve the article rather than leaving tags and notices that only you understand. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 08:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Whoops, short attention span there. To me, at least, it appears that there's something definitely odd about the section in question. Like many "evolutionary psychology" explanations, there appears to be a good amount of bullshit stitched into the actual Daly/Wilson material, accompanied by dubious hedging and weasel words. There's definitely substance in there, but I've reverted my edit until I can find some time to put more effort into examining it. dlainhart ( talk) 14:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I would also vote to delete this article, it is ridiculous, shall we?-- Tallard ( talk) 02:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've added delete template-- Tallard ( talk) 09:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I would hope the dopamine salience bit of writing could stay. It is a canny piece of reasoning, and as a person experienced in just those kinds of stressors? the dopamine salience and so on was a nice little conjecture I'd agree with, taking tyrosine, drugs etc, as a subjective reportage...
...I guess you guys don't allow subjective reportage much, ay.
- I think your conjecture has substance, but this ain't the place for it. dlainhart ( talk) 01:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Please don't add {{ stub}} to articles which already have a specific stub tag, like They - it just wastes other people's time. Thanks. PamD ( talk) 08:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
No offense, but your recent edits to Cinderella effect were not very helpful. You really need to use the talk page to explain the use of your tags and more importantly the use of the synthesis tag. If there are no comments within several days, I'll revert your recent edits. You just can't expect other editors to understand your reasoning without an explanation on the talk page. Otherwise, this is simply "drive-by tagging" and doesn't help improve the article. You are much better off trying to improve the article rather than leaving tags and notices that only you understand. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 08:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Whoops, short attention span there. To me, at least, it appears that there's something definitely odd about the section in question. Like many "evolutionary psychology" explanations, there appears to be a good amount of bullshit stitched into the actual Daly/Wilson material, accompanied by dubious hedging and weasel words. There's definitely substance in there, but I've reverted my edit until I can find some time to put more effort into examining it. dlainhart ( talk) 14:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I would also vote to delete this article, it is ridiculous, shall we?-- Tallard ( talk) 02:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've added delete template-- Tallard ( talk) 09:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)