User talk:Kbraxton

Welcome!
'''I just wanted to say, "Hi." I hope your Friday is nice!''' OdessaG (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Kbraxton, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Great that you are all set up to start the project, Kbraxton! ProfJRL (talk) 01:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Source usage
Hi, I'm Kbraxton and I was reviewing the references and the first one that you refer to is not accessible. Also I think your last sentence should be clarified. This article also looks promising and relates to the topic https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2895266/.Kbraxton (talk) 04:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016
Hello, I'm Steve Quinn. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Water maze have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kbraxton! It looks like the comments you added to the Water maze page you meant to add to the talk page for Water Maze. You can go back and add them there. ProfJRL (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Water maze
Hi, I have reverted your edits to this article. It looks like you think that "water maze" is synonymous with "water navigation task". It is not. Water mazes have been around for ages and were used long before Richard Morris came up with his test. There are many different ones (just look at the references in the current article. And, of course, a maze is an object, a device, not a "method"... BTW, there are also quite a few modified versions of Morris' test around. Hope this explains the reversion. --Randykitty (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Please stop. I see that you just created a new article, Water Maze. The capitalization is incorrect and it duplicates the existing article water maze. Again, it is incorrect, as the "basic water maze" is not an "opaque pool of water". I'll move the article back to your user space. --Randykitty (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello!? Anybody listening to what I am saying? I start feeling like I'm talking to a wall. --Randykitty (talk) 11:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I strongly recommend that before continuing, you read up about how to format a Wikipedia article, how to source it, and especially familiarize yourself with the literature on mazes. I know that is a vast area, but you simply cannot come here and start modifying an article that admittedly was small, but correct, and re-write it to some narrow point of view that only treats some aspects of the subject and prsents this as if its the only aspect of the subject. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi Randykitty,

Thank you. I did think they were the same thing. I went back and just added some details to the exsiting articlle if you haven't seen them already. Anyother advice.Kbraxton (talk) 11:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you please explain some thing that I have added that are incorrect?Kbraxton (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Look at the edit summaries. Mostly, what is wrong is that you state that a certain maze is used for some purpose, which is too narrow. Mazes can be used for many different things. Have a look at the literature on Lashley mazes, for example. It's not all spatial and it's not all working memory. Especially in the older literature there are a lot of different mazes that are being used, with many different protocols. Some are used to investigate exploratory behavior ("spontaneous alternation", for example), some are used to investigate spatial learning (not all T or Y mazes have opaque walls), some are used to look at left-right discrimination, others use inserts with different textures or black/white patterns to investigate other aspects of cue learning, etc, etc. Many of these mazes and protocols have been adapted for use with water to motivate animals (often because for one reason or another food-deprivation was undesirable). There's at least one book that is entirely devoted to mazes (see http://www.springer.com/us/book/9781493921584). You also need to work on how you formulate things, science is exact. For example, you cannot say that some brain region is "involved" with a maze. It may be important for the ability to solve a specific problem in that maze, but that is something different. Saying that "rats are place (sic) in the opaque walls of the device" is not only bad English, it's pretty silly. There was the claim that mazes are "used in neuroscience", which suggests that that is the only thing they are used in (these were the very first words of the article). Again, that is incorrect. Mazes are also used extensively in experimental psychology, to investigate learning per se (i.e., not necessarily the neural underpinnings of learning, but the nature of learning itself: what types of learning are there, how do they distinguish themselves from each other, etc etc). The subject you have chosen is huge and your edits up till now do not instill much confidence that you actually know what you are talking about... --Randykitty (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. i would like to comment however that in the overview of the techs. I put the different thing that can be changed in the protocols to test for things such as cue learning. So do you think it would be helpful to add more of the different types of mazes or add a protocol section? Also when you were saying I was citing incorrectly how so? I put in the doi number for the system to generate for me a. Not sure of an alternative to do that. Finally, i will admit I am no expert on the topic, as I am doing this for a class project, however I do think that I added in enough information for people to get a grasp on the topic and if they would like additional information I put links for that. I do understand that I need to proofread my thing as well. Again, thanks for the help and feedbackKbraxton (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)