User talk:Efb18

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, 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: 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 Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! John Vandenberg (chat) 03:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 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

Edit summary
Hi, always include an edit summary, even if it's just to say "those references are crap". Typically, citations shouldn't be removed unless they fail verification (WP:V). But I see you've contributed to that article and you've been reformatting the references... so I assume you forgot to say that all those references that were deleted as "clutter", and thus must be restored, should actually have been deleted because they were, in fact, all "crap". Thanks—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 01:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and apologies. Interesting and important as the Kahneman & Tverski work is, it's not particularly relevant to the subject of cognitive dissonance. Additionally, I couldn't verify the existence of a Scientific American article by Festinger. But if you're convinced those references should be restored, please do so. Thanks- Efb18 (talk) 01:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope, good enough for me. Thanks—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 02:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Monkeys and dissonance
Hi there, I pointed out in the cognitive dissonance article that the study which the article refers as proof of choice-rationalization in monkeys is actually flawed, falling in to the monty hall problem. (see: ) Psychologists, such as Daniel Gilbert and Laurie R. Santos seem to agree that it is flawed, so why keep the reference in the article? Cheers. --84.251.222.22 (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You have the wrong study in mind. The newspaper article talks about the Egan et al., 2007 article in Psychological Science. I've referenced to the Egan et al., 2010 article in Journal of Experimental Social Psychology; that study was designed specifically to address the Chen criticisms. (And, a 2008 newspaper report can't discuss an article published in 2010.) See the reference provided. Cheers. Efb18 (talk) 06:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)