User talk:Jcbutler/Archive 2

Regarding Right Wing Authoritiarianism

You get a star for the hard work you've done the last few months in that section. I appreciate how you have taken 'ownership' of the integrity of the research and its description.Briholt (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks too, for your many defenses and explanations on the discussion page. --Jcbutler (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed

you're editing again. Back for good? — Zaui (talk) 05:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, for now at least. ;) It's a good diversion when I don't have the time or energy to work on bigger projects... --Jcbutler (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Personality Types

A while ago I put a comment at the top of Talk:Personality type, to the effect that Wikipedia has a lot of not-coordinated and not-so-good articles relating to personality type, and that the situation needs to be fixed. You may be the one who could bring some order to the situation. I'm good at cleaning up articles, and I regard myself as a well-read advanced amateur on the topic of types, but this is a task for a professional. Lou Sander (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Emotion

Hi Jcbutler please see the emotion template talk page (as well as main article) regarding basic emotions.Thomascochrane (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Attachment therapy

That new ref you put in - do you have a copy and would you mind telling me how the article actually defined attachment therapy please? Fainites ^barley 18:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have that on me at the moment, but I'll get back to you! --Jcbutler (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :> Fainites ^barley 22:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find a PDF version of the article, but I did go back and add a few more details about the objections that were made. Hope this helps. --Jcbutler (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll see if I can get a copy from elsewhere. Although its a Good Thing that holding and restraint are featured as harmful, there are other aspects of AT which are also at best unvalidated and at worst potentially harmful that often get missed. Fainites ^barley 16:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this an area of yours? I was looking for peer review of this one. Casliber started but has got a bit snowed under. If peer reviews are your thing, would you care to have a look? Under the link at the top of the talk page here.[1] Fainites ^barley 19:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really my area, and not a good time for a peer review, I'm afraid. Sorry! --Jcbutler (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. Fainites ^barley 08:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Social psychology (psychology)

I made two of the important MoS fixes - bolding and images. However, these pages on social psychology could easily be combined, as there is a lot of overlap and they would not be above 75k total. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean Social psychology (psychology) and Social psychology (sociology)? Those were separated by consensus after several bitter and heated debates. The problem with them being together is that their different approaches and methodologies lead to editing conflicts. I would not necessarily oppose a single, well written article, but it would have to be centered primarily on psychology. After all, most social psychology is actually in the discipline of psychology. But then I'm a psychologst, so I'm biased. --Jcbutler (talk) 04:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You can have two different sections in the same page. However, the one dangles without much work, and the two could be combined into a more effective page. It just seems kinda silly to separate the two, when the topic is a bridge between two fields. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Stress

Thanks for that. Fine: Good to have the opportunity to discuss, because in recent months changes to the lede seem to have been ping-ponging about without much, seems to me, apparent concern as to whether the proffered definitions, terminology or syntax serve to assist ordinary folk who, I imagine, WikiP being WikiP, constitute the bulk of the article's customers. What do you suggest? Wingspeed (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Should have made myself clearer: Which more current definition, exactly, and how worded? Wingspeed (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the definition needs to emphasize the central role of threats. Here's one from Myers' psychology textbook: stress is the "process by which we appraise and cope with environmental threats and challenges." That's not bad, but I'll look around a bit and see if I can find a really good consensus definition that represents both the medical and mental health points of view. --Jcbutler (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed: does need to emphasize the central role of threats. Is this not the case at present? Myers (Is his a definition or just a species of textbook comment?) appears to have insufficiently thought through either the specifics, or what we call stress as a subjective experience. Even supposing stress were a process (which, apart from anything else, serves to transform a sensation, or concatenation of sensations, into a mere concept), is there any possibility of our ever being able to experience it as an actual process? Observe yes, experience no. Re Selye: improvement is always possible & of course desirable, but novelty is in itself not bound to deliver. Wingspeed (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That was a definition not a random comment. And my impression of the current definition is that it emphasizes "change" and then mentions "threats" as a source of change. I think the previous definition was simpler and more accurate. Stress is not "a failure to adapt to change," and people who are successfully adapting often experience stress anyway. --Jcbutler (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Brown rat -> Laboratory rat

I was re-reading over comments on the Talk:Brown Rat and stumbled on your comments on the merge performed about a year ago. I actually agree with you, and had always felt that a Lab rat article would be perfect (there are some details on Fancy rat that should be moved there as well) - there just wasn't a lot of information/I didn't have the time/get around to write the article. I have a strong feeling that if you were still interested in this, you could go ahead and be bold, without fear of people yelling at you. I had proposed the original merger b/c info seemed redundant, but it seems more people have been trying to contribute lab rat-related info. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it's done, if a bit rough around the edges. Thanks for the encouragement! --Jcbutler (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

i love the new article Kudos! -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. It wasn't that hard-- mostly cut and paste from existing articles. And I then just happened to find that picture of the rat in the water maze, which really helps to fill out the look of the article. --Jcbutler (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Gustav Fechner, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dicklyon (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, Dick, the new date was wrong and not referenced either, by the way. I just put it back the way it was. But just for you, I have now added a reference. --Jcbutler (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Not just for me, but thanks! Dicklyon (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Cognitive dissonance

The article lists Stress (biological) as something that cognitive dissonance can cause. I don't understand your comment given in the reversion. The phrase "In psychology" is useful for anchoring the subject for readers new to it and is a common style used in many article. As it currently stands the initial paragraph provides an abrupt introduction and fails to cover a condition that cognitive dissonance can cause. Derek farn (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Cognitive dissonance can be experienced as a variety of negative emotinal states such as stress, anxiety, guilt, embarrassment, etc. Rather than listing them all in the definition, and given that stress is defined on Wikipedia as a failure of adaptation, which has nothing to do with CD and could cause confusion, I felt it was appropriate to exclude it.

By your reasoning, every psychology topic should start out with "in psychology." Perhaps... but I think the phrase is only necessary when the same term is used in different ways by different disciplines and thus requires clarification.

By the way, the CD article is in bad shape overall and I'm planning some major revisions in the near future. Best regards, --Jcbutler (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

laboratory rat

I understand your viewpoint about this being mainly a scientific article, obviously it's dealing with one of the most influential model organisms that science has. However lab rats have been the central characters in notable works and this information would be irrelevant anywhere else. I am not proposing we end up with an ugly useless laundry list like at Rat which i'm planning on cleaning up, likely this would be about one paragraph of prose discussing the rats from The Secret of NIMH and possible Beany from The Abyss. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds ok. --Jcbutler (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the encouragement... i'm trying to improve my four fave core articles, getting them up to GA or, hopefully, FA, status. Fancy rat, Lab rat, Brown rat, and Rat - any help would be great! -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 07:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

yeah my current problem had been finding a reliable source (NPOV) that compares the zoonotic risk of rats with other, more common pets. Obviously the rat club sites would back me up, but i need something a little more neutral like a vetmanual, scientific book/paper, or the CDC. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 07:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm... I'll let you know if I can find anything on that. --Jcbutler (talk) 14:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Red links

“removed red link” - Wasn't the idea of red links to show which articles are still missing? --32X (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess it is a matter of opinion. According to the wikipedia: red link article, red links are "sometimes" useful if a page will be created soon, or if the article should be created because it is notable and verifiable. Personally, I don't like the look of red links so I deleted it. Were you planning on making that page in the near future? If you feel strongly about it, go ahead and put it back. --Jcbutler (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Mistake in banner editing?

I don't think this was deliberate, but I wanted to bring it to your attention just in case you were using a script that needed fixing. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't think her sexual orientation had anything to do with her murder, or that she was really a significant part of the LGBT Project, so I removed it. I'm glad you corrected it and I apologize for my mistake. --Jcbutler (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

A question on brainstorming from Paris from somebody who has meet Alex Osborn

Hello, JCButler. My name is Swiners, Jean-Louis Swiners, French from Paris, Ph. D. Felicitations for your great work of supervision of « Brainstorming ». Wow ! I have meet Osborn in New York with Halsmann in 1959. At this time, Halsmann already said brainstorming was funny but uneffective to get an idea for a LIFE cover.

So, my question : brainstorming is coming from brain, of course, and from to storm, to attack. Why don't you insist on this etymology which give meaning to the expression ? I meet a american consultant in Paris. He explains me that brainstorm means brainraining and that he was the rainmaker (for me the chaman). Thanks for your attention. My direct e-mail is : jlswiners@wanadoo.fr

Go on Google and search for < Swiners brainstorming >--Jean-Louis Swiners (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if "attack" is the correct interpretation. The other meaning of storm involves rain, lightning and thunder, and Osborn may have wanted to convey this sense of many things coming at once, rather than the military reference. I think the consultant's idea of rain is probably pretty close to the mark. --Jcbutler (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:revert

Sorry about reverting the added material. I didn't notice it because of the re-shuffling.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Social?

Does Social psychology include Codependency? I don't know much about that stuff, and just do what the templates tell me (but I'm not schizophrenic). Lazylaces (Talk to me) 21:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, not really. That's more of a counseling or self-help topic. Social psychologists study interpersonal relationships, but we don't get into therapy and treatment issues very often. I'm glad you're not schizophrenic though. ;) --Jcbutler (talk) 02:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Conservatism

I noticed that you were a contributor to the Right-wing Authoritarianism article, and wonder if you could assist in Conservatism#Psychology. That section has drawn much heated debate, but I wonder whether the section is accurately written. None of the editors have expertise in the subject. Any assistance you might provide would be welcomed. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixing archive box

There was something wrong with archive box

preventing the page to display. Fixed it temporary. --Nabeth (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, not totally sure what was wrong, but now it seems to work. --Nabeth (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The Aquarium Fishes WikiProject Newsletter Issue XI - May 2009

News We have a (semi) working newsletter again! Please welcome our new member: asbruckman (talk) April 2009 (UTC), and Mynameinc (talk) May 2009 (UTC) Articles recently created: Arius berneyi, and Hippocampus kuda Did you know... (Featured on the Main page): ...that the Violet goby, which looks like a tiny dragon, is actually almost blind and harmless? (May 3rd, 2009) See or edit the current tasklist here Discussions & Collaborations Hippocampus kuda has been significanty expanded, however more input would be great.

Other Activity in Wikiproject Aquarium fish has slowed to a crawl, it seems. We still have a few dedicated editors plus a few new faces (myself included). Any participation is appreciated, however we really can't tackle big projects with this level of activity. Give us a shout if you want to become active again!

Minnesota Meetup

---

2009

Proposed date: Saturday, October 10.
Details under discussion.

Please share this with anyone who may be interested.

---

Delivered by Jonathunder (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)