User talk:Gwestheimer

Visual Illusions
I have made some small changes on this page to reflect a more nuanced view of what are called physiological and cognitive illusions. In particular in my view it should be clear that illusions, as dealt with on such a page, are in the observer; that an illusion is in the brain is only a metaphor and is best avoided.

It is all very well to keep on chatting about Hering illusion, and vanishing points, and walking through a door, and future appearance of door jambs (looks to me like it needs relativistic velocities), but the Hering illusion is retained for rather unrealistic "doors" if indeed doors were around at the time the illusion was laid down.Gwestheimer 00:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Stereogram
The definition that was on the page doesn't capture the essence.

A stereogram  is pair of two-dimensional panels depicting the view of a scene or an object from the vantage points of the right and left eyes. When the panels are seen superimposed in a stereoscope the observer gains a depth experience from the right/left location differences encoded in the panels. Because the view is that of a representation rather than a real scene or object, the word illusion is sometimes associated with a stereogram.````

Hyperacuity
As per your enquiry, I have taken the steps needed to move the album page to a disambiguating one that is now entitled "Hyperacuity (album)". This should allow you to create a new Wikipedia article entitled "Hyperacuity (perceptual paradox)". Click on that link, and it'll give you the blank template needed to start the page. Hope that helps. If you need any more help on the matter, feel free to ask! Mac Dreamstate (talk) 12:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there, nice to see that you're still continuing the work on this article. Although I can't offer any help on the subject matter itself, since I have no knowledge about it, I have arranged the article on Hyperacuity (album) to contain a hatnote that links to Hyperacuity (scientific term). I think it's the best action that can be done, considering there are only two articles bearing the name "Hyperacuity" (if there were three or more, a disambiguation page would have to be created).


 * Also, one thing I noticed about your newly created article is that you've based it entirely on a single source, presumably written by yourself. I'm not overly familiar with how Wiki goes about this, but I would suggest reading WP:Self-published sources for more information on how to use sources—particularly self-published ones—within an article. As it stands, using just the one source is not enough to satisfy the criteria listed on WP:Verifiability. If you post a message on the talk page of WikiProject Science, I'm sure the editors there will be happy to help you further.


 * All the best! Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey there. I notice the lead section looks a lot better in terms of explaining what the subject matter is about, but the bulk of the article still reads in very technical terms with few Wiki-links to related articles in context. Have you considered getting third party opinions or assistance from, say, experienced editors at WikiProject Science? I don't know if they'd be able to help specifically with this article, but I'm sure they could point you in the right direction. I think the WP:Technical tag should remain in place for now, but that's just my opinion as a reader who isn't educated in this field of science. In all honesty, I'm able to understand the article on quantum mechanics better than hyperacuity, but I have no doubt that with a bit of improvement (not necessarily 'dumbing down'), this article can be better presented to the layman. Let me know if you have any other ideas. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Gwestheimer (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * ← Fellow, Royal Society (F.R.S.)

Gwestheimer 00:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback: New message
I liked your flag. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Apperceptive agnosia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Munk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Oblique Effect and Usernames
"If you are, as you claim, an atheist, your handle and the concepts behind it are not in line. Consider using the 'renaming' facility available in Windows towards a more cheerful, positive and forward-looking version. Now I am writing about your editing of the 'Oblique Effect' entry which I had originally posted.  Do you really think this added to its readability or comprehensibility?  Does an observation 'come about' or 'is made?'  As a psychology student, did you think Mach 'completed' the experiment (think psychophysical methods!) or merely 'performed' or perhaps 'reported' it?  Good wishes."

First, your assumption that my religious beliefs and my username chosen when I was 12 are somehow related is unfounded and false, and your comment makes you come off as extremely pretentious. This is made even worse when you suggest that I use a "renaming facility available in Windows", implying that I use a feature of my operating system to somehow affect the handle I use on Wikipedia, which is obviously impossible. Your suggestion that I change my name to something "more cheerful, positive and forward-looking" is simply irrelevant and a matter entirely of opinion, and my opinion is that I don't care about how you feel about my username. As for the very minor changes I made to the "Oblique Effect" page, yes, they do improve both readability and grammar without changing the actual message of the text. Your original sentence was both grammatically incorrect and awkward to read, and your issue with my choice of words ("came about", in particular) is unnecessary. This is an encyclopedia, not a scientific journal, and we are not constrained by the same rigorous grammatical rules, which is useful in order to allow the dispersion of information (such as this) to those unfamiliar with the area. Please take more time to think about what you are writing and you will avoid awkward interactions such as this in the future. ThsTorturedSoul (talk) 04:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)