Welcome!
Hello, Logic prevails, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!
I think it is unconductive of a good working environement to issue threats that might harm other editors professional lives. As frustrating as it may be for you, that MEMills apparently does not wish to provide the quote from Darwin, this is not a good way to handle that issue. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is not a threat. He presents himself as a university professor - that privilege comes with responsibilities, including an ethical duty to not misrepresent himself or the research. I am giving him fair warning to correct the issue. If he were a registered clinical psychologist, under CPA/APA ethical guidelines I would be obligated to report him to his regulatory board (if he were made aware of misrepresentations and did not make appropriate corrections). Regardless, it is an empty threat - I was speaking more in frustration. It just goes to show how futile this all is. In this day in age, where people go to places like wiki to get their information, the truth can be whatever you want it to be. Logic prevails ( talk) 21:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
It would be very unfortunate if you were to leave the debate. You have great knowledge about the topic and your input is very valuable. If I am the only editor working to improve the article's neutrality I will not be able to accomplish anything and it will become even more of an advertisement. I urge you to stay involved. Also when you find bad stuff in the article you can go ahead and change it provided that you have a source to back up the change. Using the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle is a good way of accomplising things by only discussing those changes that are controversial.Take a break and a cup of tea and however much time you need to get your mind off the foolishness with which we've been faced, and then please come back to work on the article. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- It seems to me that this page will not get anywhere until Memills is temporarily banned and Leadwind starts sourcing his edits. Memills cannot have his cake and eat it too. He seems to want to define EP in the way that suits him - vague and elusive, which is not how it is practiced, though it keeps it free from criticism. It cannot be broadly defined as "evolutionary thinking applied to psychology." That is NOT how it is practiced. Show me someone who would call themselves an 'evolutionary psychologist' who does NOT assume that the mind has inherited, through genetic endowment, these specified (versus general) socio-cognitive mental mechanisms. The field DOES have some unifying principles... You tried to pin these down - MeMills won't let you, though I hardly see how he is the spokesman for the entire field. We have tried to improve the criticism section to be less biased - they will not let that happen either. Just constant accusations of others 'misunderstanding' the field. Apparently, the only way to understand it is to agree with it.
- Thanks for the message. I am watching the page, but engaging takes so much energy right now. Give me a bit more time and I might re-engage to help you fight this ridiculousness.
hi Logic prevails. I'm trying to contribute a small, verifiable and important edit to the evolutionary psychology article, but it keeps being shot down by Leadwind. I have outlined my justification on the EP talk page, and a discussion is starting there. I would really appreciate it of you could add your opinion to the discussion there. Many thanks Maximilianholland ( talk) 17:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'll do what I can.
Logic prevails (
talk) 19:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. Wide consensus is surely the way forward. Appreciated. Maximilianholland ( talk) 02:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Evolutionary psychology. Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Sandstein 06:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Please could you redo your last post so that it doesn't break up the original message of Memills? Just quote the phrases you're replying to in a separate message of your own. Otherwise you are refactoring Memills' edits, which is not a good idea. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 10:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi logic, thanks for your message. Unfortunately i can't see myself entering the fray there again - especially not now that Miradre whom I know from another context has been forced by his topic ban for disruption to choose a new angle on his favorite topic. I have provided our friend Leadwind with some of the critical sources, as I thought it could do no harm and that there might even be a small chance of it doing some good, since in some ways he seems like a sort of open minded person who has just been exposed to the wrong literature. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 21:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, Miradre has been a surprise addition - his/her reputation certainly precedes them. I agree with your take on Leadwind - very passionate fellow who seems to have 'caught the faith' of EP, but who also seems capable of reasoning outside of it. Best of luck in your academic work and in your editing. Logic prevails ( talk) 21:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Logic prevails, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!
I think it is unconductive of a good working environement to issue threats that might harm other editors professional lives. As frustrating as it may be for you, that MEMills apparently does not wish to provide the quote from Darwin, this is not a good way to handle that issue. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is not a threat. He presents himself as a university professor - that privilege comes with responsibilities, including an ethical duty to not misrepresent himself or the research. I am giving him fair warning to correct the issue. If he were a registered clinical psychologist, under CPA/APA ethical guidelines I would be obligated to report him to his regulatory board (if he were made aware of misrepresentations and did not make appropriate corrections). Regardless, it is an empty threat - I was speaking more in frustration. It just goes to show how futile this all is. In this day in age, where people go to places like wiki to get their information, the truth can be whatever you want it to be. Logic prevails ( talk) 21:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
It would be very unfortunate if you were to leave the debate. You have great knowledge about the topic and your input is very valuable. If I am the only editor working to improve the article's neutrality I will not be able to accomplish anything and it will become even more of an advertisement. I urge you to stay involved. Also when you find bad stuff in the article you can go ahead and change it provided that you have a source to back up the change. Using the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle is a good way of accomplising things by only discussing those changes that are controversial.Take a break and a cup of tea and however much time you need to get your mind off the foolishness with which we've been faced, and then please come back to work on the article. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- It seems to me that this page will not get anywhere until Memills is temporarily banned and Leadwind starts sourcing his edits. Memills cannot have his cake and eat it too. He seems to want to define EP in the way that suits him - vague and elusive, which is not how it is practiced, though it keeps it free from criticism. It cannot be broadly defined as "evolutionary thinking applied to psychology." That is NOT how it is practiced. Show me someone who would call themselves an 'evolutionary psychologist' who does NOT assume that the mind has inherited, through genetic endowment, these specified (versus general) socio-cognitive mental mechanisms. The field DOES have some unifying principles... You tried to pin these down - MeMills won't let you, though I hardly see how he is the spokesman for the entire field. We have tried to improve the criticism section to be less biased - they will not let that happen either. Just constant accusations of others 'misunderstanding' the field. Apparently, the only way to understand it is to agree with it.
- Thanks for the message. I am watching the page, but engaging takes so much energy right now. Give me a bit more time and I might re-engage to help you fight this ridiculousness.
hi Logic prevails. I'm trying to contribute a small, verifiable and important edit to the evolutionary psychology article, but it keeps being shot down by Leadwind. I have outlined my justification on the EP talk page, and a discussion is starting there. I would really appreciate it of you could add your opinion to the discussion there. Many thanks Maximilianholland ( talk) 17:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'll do what I can.
Logic prevails (
talk) 19:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. Wide consensus is surely the way forward. Appreciated. Maximilianholland ( talk) 02:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Evolutionary psychology. Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Sandstein 06:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Please could you redo your last post so that it doesn't break up the original message of Memills? Just quote the phrases you're replying to in a separate message of your own. Otherwise you are refactoring Memills' edits, which is not a good idea. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 10:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi logic, thanks for your message. Unfortunately i can't see myself entering the fray there again - especially not now that Miradre whom I know from another context has been forced by his topic ban for disruption to choose a new angle on his favorite topic. I have provided our friend Leadwind with some of the critical sources, as I thought it could do no harm and that there might even be a small chance of it doing some good, since in some ways he seems like a sort of open minded person who has just been exposed to the wrong literature. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 21:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, Miradre has been a surprise addition - his/her reputation certainly precedes them. I agree with your take on Leadwind - very passionate fellow who seems to have 'caught the faith' of EP, but who also seems capable of reasoning outside of it. Best of luck in your academic work and in your editing. Logic prevails ( talk) 21:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)