This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Since you are already familiar with the historical context, you may be interested in reviewing this article, I think it will be the last one from that time-period and region for now (although I am still reviewing various Poland-related B-class articles, seeing which merit GA-class review). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
-- Al Ameer son ( talk) 01:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello MathewTownsend/Archive 5!, we are looking for editors to join WikiProject Indian cinema task force, a joint task force run between WikiProject Films and WikiProject India to ensure that Indian cinema-related articles on Wikipedia are written in an encyclopedic style, in a neutral manner using verifiable and reliable sources. We thought you might be interested, hoping that you will join us. Thanks!! |
. — Vensatry (Ping me) 11:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I think addressed all your issues for Hurricane Doreen (1977). Y E Pacific Hurricane 17:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
They are ready for another look over. Thanks for reviewing them! -- Starstriker7( Talk) 17:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I have prepped the article for GA based on your concerns. Let me know if anything else comes up, and I'd like to thank you for reviewing the article. -- Starstriker7( Talk) 06:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Mr. Townsend for your input and reviewing over at fu (poetry). What do you think the article needs next to shoot for a Featured nomination? White Whirlwind 咨 20:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mathew, I'm afraid it's going to be a couple of days before I can give you a substantive response to your GA review of Pont du Gard, but I'll pick it up shortly. Thanks very much for your assistance and patience! Prioryman ( talk) 22:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey all!
So, big news this week - on Tuesday, we ramped up to 5 percent of articles :). There's been a lot more feedback (pardon the pun) as I'm sure you've noticed, and to try and help we've scheduled a large number of office hours sessions, including one this evening at 22:00 UTC in the #wikimedia-office connect channel, and another at 01:00 UTC for the aussies amongst us :). I hope to see some of you there - if any of you can't make it but have any questions, I'm always happy to help.
Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 20:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan]
09:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I have dealt with my share of controversy on Wikipedia. For example should the women in lead of our article on pregnancy have clothing on or not, ADHD for which I was blocked briefly, and of course the Rorschach test which hit the front page of the NYTs [1] and for which I needed a lawyer for 8 months [2]. Sometimes I have given up and walked away. It takes time to bring more eyes to a topic. I however think we are all here to write the best encyclopedia we can. And we are making some progress at DID. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 00:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, opinion pieces are allowed. They must be clearly attributed as the opinion of the author in order to make a novel statement, but that is a permissible inclusion based on a secondary source (for instance, note how Piper & Merskey are used, as well as Ross' rebuttal). In fact, given the lack of empirical evidence, much of the literature on DID is in fact opinion, and the page has considerably more attribution than most pages, particularly compared to articles on chemistry, physics or other hard sciences. You generally have to take a step back and ask "is this opinion worth including or is it undue weight", but simply being an opinion is not a reason to remove a source - that's my experience and understanding anyway.
In addition, such sources can be used for basic statements of fact, and can be valuable for such statements, though usually we are better off citing the source the opinion piece cites (or you can use an "...as cited in..." link).
I'm not absolutely convinced Gharaibeh must be included, even when I added it I thought it was a borderline source. But that's a conversation to have, particularly since we've now got several statements without citations. May I suggest either replacing the source for the paragraph starting with "Psychiatrist Numan Gharaibeh suggests...", or removing the paragraph? Either option is acceptable to me, but that unsourced paragraph isn't good practice. Ditto for the sentence "The DSM-V-TR criteria has also been criticized..." also sourced to Gharaibeh. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 00:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Drmies ( talk) 02:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Architecture is a very tightly written article which makes no attempt to deal with the details of the History of architecture. It merely indicates the purposes of architecture, the changing attitudes towards the discipline of architecture and the role of the architect. If you look at the pictures in the article you will see that each historic section has only one pic. They are all very high quality. With the exception of the vernacular picture, (in itself a remarkable piece of vernacular architecture), all the others are very famous. Moreover, because of limited space, (and for the overall appearance of the article, which deals with aesthetics), every photo is horizontal format, and they were selected from thousands of possibilities in order to complement each other in terms of scale, angle etc.
Your pic was not necessary, was of low quality and didn't enhance the article.
While I realise you've been editing for a few months, I leave this. :
When adding images
Amandajm ( talk) 04:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey all. Some quick but important updates on what we've been up to and what's coming up next :).
The curation toolbar, our Wikimedia-supported twinkle replacement. We're going to be deploying it, along with a pile of bugfixes, to wikipedia on 9 August. After a few days to check it doesn't make anything explode or die, we'll be sticking up a big notice and sending out an additional newsletter inviting people to test it out and give us feedback :). This will be followed by two office hours sessions - one on Tuesday the 14th of August at 19:00 UTC for all us Europeans, and one on Wednesday the 15th at 23:00 UTC for the East Coasters out there :). As always, these will be held in #wikimedia-office; drop me a note if you want to know how to easily get on IRC, or if you aren't able to attend but would like the logs.
I hope to see a lot of you there; it's going to be a big day for everyone involved, I think :). I'll have more notes after the deployment! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 20:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, MatthewTownsend. I have granted you rollback and reviewer permissions, as you are a trusted knowledgeable editor who is ready for these extra permissions. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. -- Dianna ( talk) 23:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Welcome to the fifth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah ( talk) 08:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
It's already integrated, ref 27. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 15:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I noticed your addition of McNally to DID; even though that is a web-based version of the book, it's still considered a book and I would suggest including it in a "Further reading" section per the guide to layout (specifically WP:FURTHER). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 23:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Your talk page is on my watchlist - and I just had a bit of a slip that ended up me clicking 'rollback' where I shouldn't - I immediately self-reverted, but I want to apologies for the strangeness that I just put on your page history... :( Fayedizard ( talk) 19:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey all :)
A couple of new things.
First, you'll note that all the project titles have now changed to the Page Curation prefix, rather than having the New Pages Feed prefix. This is because the overarching project name has changed to Page Curation; the feed is still known as New Pages Feed, and the Curation Toolbar is still the Curation Toolbar. Hopefully this will be the last namechange ;p.
On the subject of the Curation Toolbar (nice segue, Oliver!) - it's now deployed on Wikipedia. Just open up any article in the New Pages Feed and it should appear on the right. It's still a beta version - bugs are expected - and we've got a lot more work to do. But if you see something going wrong, or a feature missing, drop me a note or post on the project talkpage and I'll be happy to help :). We'll be holding two office hours sessions to discuss the tool and improvements to it; the first is at 19:00 UTC on 14 August, and the second at 23:00 on the 15th. Both will be in #wikimedia-office as always. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 15:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello MathewTownsend, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Charles Dennis Easley to a proposed deletion tag. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow to protect the encyclopedia, and do not fit the page in question. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 15:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi mathew, i chose to be your instructor at the academy. We'll start when you are ready. Let me know. Regards. — ΛΧΣ 21™ 21:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 14:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I wanted to give you the - YOU made tylas happy award, but I could not find one, so you get two instead!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
Awarded to MathewTownsend for his untiring responsiveness in the torrent of chatter that has characterized the Talk:Dissociative_identity_disorder page the last couple of days, as well as his multiple valuable contributions to the article itself. ~ty ( talk) 02:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC) |
Civility Award | ||
Awarded to MathewTownsend for his unfailing politeness while working on the Wikipedia DID article in the face of some of the toughest obstacles probably found on Wikipedia! ~ty ( talk) 02:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC) |
If you are going to keep trying to improve the DID page, you may be interested in this activity. In an effort to be fair I'm trying to identify the edits that are worth keeping, and in the process logging what is wrong with many of the others. The best activity on the page is simply noting new sources and good blocks of text to incorporate in the new version I think. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 01:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not familiar enough with wikipedia procedures to revert the page i.e. what the ramifications might be - that I get blocked or something? As a former believer of the Colin Ross school, then a quick convert to an iatrogenesis model when it came to testifying in court, probably we won't disagree on that point. Unfortunately, I haven't kept up on the recent research enough to easily make statements in that article, or with the history of advocacy groups for DID. (In fact, I'm not sure what they're advocating, unless its something like the Attachment therapy and Attachment disorder people and their advocacy groups.) For me, it's easier to try to rewrite the article, than to work in a sandbox, although I could try it, I guess. MathewTownsend ( talk) 15:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much Sir! You are doing what has been impossible in the past! :) ~ty ( talk) 21:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Good Morning Mathew! I know you are busy, but can I bother you for some help on editing? Doc has me doing something that is new to me and I an struggling. I have 2 issues. 1 - I can't get the sentences to fit together as you will see in my sandbox and 2- Once a reference is written as [1] how do I add the actual quote from a reference to it. Doc left some examples using a full reference to follow, but not one like that. Sandbox
well, there's all sorts of explanations and style:
The easiest (for me) is to give each reference a name the first time you use it. e.g. <ref name="foo">{{cite ....etc., give the full reference. The next time you use it, you can use the shortcut <ref name="foo" /> with a slash and it will call up the same reference. Make sense? MathewTownsend ( talk) 16:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey! I read your comments on the peer review page. I have to apologize. I thought you have been playing games with me - going back and forth from one position to another. I think our only disagreement is if sociocongnivie is a minority POV or not. Shaking hands - hope you don't hold any grudge. Perhaps I was lost in my own assumed battle, since a real one has gone on the page for so long - anyway - it's nice to have it narrowed down to what we actually do disagree on - let me know if I have this wrong though - please! Also so you understand, the general information I put on the talk page is not for you - it's for anyone out there who might be listening and who might come and help edit. I in no way think you do not know what you are talking about, but I do think that the sociocognive POV needs to be reduced to one paragraph. It confuses people how it's done now, intertwining the 2 views. Again - sorry! I know you have been getting angry with me and I am not trying to make you angry. ~ty ( talk) 17:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Since you are already familiar with the historical context, you may be interested in reviewing this article, I think it will be the last one from that time-period and region for now (although I am still reviewing various Poland-related B-class articles, seeing which merit GA-class review). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
-- Al Ameer son ( talk) 01:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello MathewTownsend/Archive 5!, we are looking for editors to join WikiProject Indian cinema task force, a joint task force run between WikiProject Films and WikiProject India to ensure that Indian cinema-related articles on Wikipedia are written in an encyclopedic style, in a neutral manner using verifiable and reliable sources. We thought you might be interested, hoping that you will join us. Thanks!! |
. — Vensatry (Ping me) 11:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I think addressed all your issues for Hurricane Doreen (1977). Y E Pacific Hurricane 17:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
They are ready for another look over. Thanks for reviewing them! -- Starstriker7( Talk) 17:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I have prepped the article for GA based on your concerns. Let me know if anything else comes up, and I'd like to thank you for reviewing the article. -- Starstriker7( Talk) 06:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Mr. Townsend for your input and reviewing over at fu (poetry). What do you think the article needs next to shoot for a Featured nomination? White Whirlwind 咨 20:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mathew, I'm afraid it's going to be a couple of days before I can give you a substantive response to your GA review of Pont du Gard, but I'll pick it up shortly. Thanks very much for your assistance and patience! Prioryman ( talk) 22:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey all!
So, big news this week - on Tuesday, we ramped up to 5 percent of articles :). There's been a lot more feedback (pardon the pun) as I'm sure you've noticed, and to try and help we've scheduled a large number of office hours sessions, including one this evening at 22:00 UTC in the #wikimedia-office connect channel, and another at 01:00 UTC for the aussies amongst us :). I hope to see some of you there - if any of you can't make it but have any questions, I'm always happy to help.
Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 20:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan]
09:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I have dealt with my share of controversy on Wikipedia. For example should the women in lead of our article on pregnancy have clothing on or not, ADHD for which I was blocked briefly, and of course the Rorschach test which hit the front page of the NYTs [1] and for which I needed a lawyer for 8 months [2]. Sometimes I have given up and walked away. It takes time to bring more eyes to a topic. I however think we are all here to write the best encyclopedia we can. And we are making some progress at DID. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 00:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, opinion pieces are allowed. They must be clearly attributed as the opinion of the author in order to make a novel statement, but that is a permissible inclusion based on a secondary source (for instance, note how Piper & Merskey are used, as well as Ross' rebuttal). In fact, given the lack of empirical evidence, much of the literature on DID is in fact opinion, and the page has considerably more attribution than most pages, particularly compared to articles on chemistry, physics or other hard sciences. You generally have to take a step back and ask "is this opinion worth including or is it undue weight", but simply being an opinion is not a reason to remove a source - that's my experience and understanding anyway.
In addition, such sources can be used for basic statements of fact, and can be valuable for such statements, though usually we are better off citing the source the opinion piece cites (or you can use an "...as cited in..." link).
I'm not absolutely convinced Gharaibeh must be included, even when I added it I thought it was a borderline source. But that's a conversation to have, particularly since we've now got several statements without citations. May I suggest either replacing the source for the paragraph starting with "Psychiatrist Numan Gharaibeh suggests...", or removing the paragraph? Either option is acceptable to me, but that unsourced paragraph isn't good practice. Ditto for the sentence "The DSM-V-TR criteria has also been criticized..." also sourced to Gharaibeh. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 00:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Drmies ( talk) 02:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Architecture is a very tightly written article which makes no attempt to deal with the details of the History of architecture. It merely indicates the purposes of architecture, the changing attitudes towards the discipline of architecture and the role of the architect. If you look at the pictures in the article you will see that each historic section has only one pic. They are all very high quality. With the exception of the vernacular picture, (in itself a remarkable piece of vernacular architecture), all the others are very famous. Moreover, because of limited space, (and for the overall appearance of the article, which deals with aesthetics), every photo is horizontal format, and they were selected from thousands of possibilities in order to complement each other in terms of scale, angle etc.
Your pic was not necessary, was of low quality and didn't enhance the article.
While I realise you've been editing for a few months, I leave this. :
When adding images
Amandajm ( talk) 04:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey all. Some quick but important updates on what we've been up to and what's coming up next :).
The curation toolbar, our Wikimedia-supported twinkle replacement. We're going to be deploying it, along with a pile of bugfixes, to wikipedia on 9 August. After a few days to check it doesn't make anything explode or die, we'll be sticking up a big notice and sending out an additional newsletter inviting people to test it out and give us feedback :). This will be followed by two office hours sessions - one on Tuesday the 14th of August at 19:00 UTC for all us Europeans, and one on Wednesday the 15th at 23:00 UTC for the East Coasters out there :). As always, these will be held in #wikimedia-office; drop me a note if you want to know how to easily get on IRC, or if you aren't able to attend but would like the logs.
I hope to see a lot of you there; it's going to be a big day for everyone involved, I think :). I'll have more notes after the deployment! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 20:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, MatthewTownsend. I have granted you rollback and reviewer permissions, as you are a trusted knowledgeable editor who is ready for these extra permissions. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. -- Dianna ( talk) 23:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Welcome to the fifth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah ( talk) 08:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
It's already integrated, ref 27. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 15:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I noticed your addition of McNally to DID; even though that is a web-based version of the book, it's still considered a book and I would suggest including it in a "Further reading" section per the guide to layout (specifically WP:FURTHER). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 23:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Your talk page is on my watchlist - and I just had a bit of a slip that ended up me clicking 'rollback' where I shouldn't - I immediately self-reverted, but I want to apologies for the strangeness that I just put on your page history... :( Fayedizard ( talk) 19:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey all :)
A couple of new things.
First, you'll note that all the project titles have now changed to the Page Curation prefix, rather than having the New Pages Feed prefix. This is because the overarching project name has changed to Page Curation; the feed is still known as New Pages Feed, and the Curation Toolbar is still the Curation Toolbar. Hopefully this will be the last namechange ;p.
On the subject of the Curation Toolbar (nice segue, Oliver!) - it's now deployed on Wikipedia. Just open up any article in the New Pages Feed and it should appear on the right. It's still a beta version - bugs are expected - and we've got a lot more work to do. But if you see something going wrong, or a feature missing, drop me a note or post on the project talkpage and I'll be happy to help :). We'll be holding two office hours sessions to discuss the tool and improvements to it; the first is at 19:00 UTC on 14 August, and the second at 23:00 on the 15th. Both will be in #wikimedia-office as always. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 15:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello MathewTownsend, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Charles Dennis Easley to a proposed deletion tag. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow to protect the encyclopedia, and do not fit the page in question. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 15:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi mathew, i chose to be your instructor at the academy. We'll start when you are ready. Let me know. Regards. — ΛΧΣ 21™ 21:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 14:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I wanted to give you the - YOU made tylas happy award, but I could not find one, so you get two instead!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
Awarded to MathewTownsend for his untiring responsiveness in the torrent of chatter that has characterized the Talk:Dissociative_identity_disorder page the last couple of days, as well as his multiple valuable contributions to the article itself. ~ty ( talk) 02:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC) |
Civility Award | ||
Awarded to MathewTownsend for his unfailing politeness while working on the Wikipedia DID article in the face of some of the toughest obstacles probably found on Wikipedia! ~ty ( talk) 02:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC) |
If you are going to keep trying to improve the DID page, you may be interested in this activity. In an effort to be fair I'm trying to identify the edits that are worth keeping, and in the process logging what is wrong with many of the others. The best activity on the page is simply noting new sources and good blocks of text to incorporate in the new version I think. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 01:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not familiar enough with wikipedia procedures to revert the page i.e. what the ramifications might be - that I get blocked or something? As a former believer of the Colin Ross school, then a quick convert to an iatrogenesis model when it came to testifying in court, probably we won't disagree on that point. Unfortunately, I haven't kept up on the recent research enough to easily make statements in that article, or with the history of advocacy groups for DID. (In fact, I'm not sure what they're advocating, unless its something like the Attachment therapy and Attachment disorder people and their advocacy groups.) For me, it's easier to try to rewrite the article, than to work in a sandbox, although I could try it, I guess. MathewTownsend ( talk) 15:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much Sir! You are doing what has been impossible in the past! :) ~ty ( talk) 21:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Good Morning Mathew! I know you are busy, but can I bother you for some help on editing? Doc has me doing something that is new to me and I an struggling. I have 2 issues. 1 - I can't get the sentences to fit together as you will see in my sandbox and 2- Once a reference is written as [1] how do I add the actual quote from a reference to it. Doc left some examples using a full reference to follow, but not one like that. Sandbox
well, there's all sorts of explanations and style:
The easiest (for me) is to give each reference a name the first time you use it. e.g. <ref name="foo">{{cite ....etc., give the full reference. The next time you use it, you can use the shortcut <ref name="foo" /> with a slash and it will call up the same reference. Make sense? MathewTownsend ( talk) 16:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey! I read your comments on the peer review page. I have to apologize. I thought you have been playing games with me - going back and forth from one position to another. I think our only disagreement is if sociocongnivie is a minority POV or not. Shaking hands - hope you don't hold any grudge. Perhaps I was lost in my own assumed battle, since a real one has gone on the page for so long - anyway - it's nice to have it narrowed down to what we actually do disagree on - let me know if I have this wrong though - please! Also so you understand, the general information I put on the talk page is not for you - it's for anyone out there who might be listening and who might come and help edit. I in no way think you do not know what you are talking about, but I do think that the sociocognive POV needs to be reduced to one paragraph. It confuses people how it's done now, intertwining the 2 views. Again - sorry! I know you have been getting angry with me and I am not trying to make you angry. ~ty ( talk) 17:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)