User talk:Aristotle2022

July 2022
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page David Marks (psychologist) has been reverted. Your edit here to David Marks (psychologist) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://davidfmarkscom.wordpress.com/2022/01/20/the-origins-of-subjective-anomalous-experience/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 07:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Copying licensed material requires attribution
Hi. I see in a recent addition to Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Diannaa, Thank you for your comment. I fully acknowledge the importance of attributing text to the original author(s) if/when it is copied in WP. However, in this instance, if you examine the text more closely, you will see that the additional text consists of a paraphrase of the original prose, not a copy.
 * Tabi et al. (2020) wrote: "We used a variant of the “What was where?” visual object-location binding task to assess the quality of remembered information over short delays. In healthy people, no evidence of a relationship between the vividness of visual imagery and any visual STM performance parameter was found. However, there was a significant positive correlation between visual imagery and the volumes of the hippocampus and primary visual cortex."
 * I paraphrased this text as follows: "Tabi et al. (2022) used a variant of the “What was where?” visual object-location binding task to assess the participants’ memories over 1- or 4-second delays. In healthy volunteers, there was no evidence of an association between the vividness of visual imagery and short term memory. However, significant positive correlations occurred between visual imagery and the volumes of the hippocampus and primary visual cortex".
 * I agree that the additional text is close to the original, in the interests of precision, but it is not the same but a paraphrase.
 * Had I quoted the original text then I agree that it would have been necessary to use quotation marks and attribute it to the authors. However there is certainly no harm in making sure the attribution is complete and unambiguous.
 * Under the added illustration, it was necessary to copy the original figure legend for reasons of precision. Perhaps it would have been better to have included the legend with the illustration when placing the figure on Wikipedia Commons because it is slightly problematic to add it if the figure is actually used.
 * To be sure that Tabi et al. (2022) are properly acknowledged in line with your concerns, I have inserted the reference that you added to Tabi et al. at the end of the description of the illustration.  Aristotle2022 (talk) 09:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)