User talk:Ledouxje

Amygdala rewrite
Hey there. I noticed you're interested in editing the amygdala article (or to be more specific, rewriting it). It's a bit refreshing to see someone interested in articles concerning the human brain. I tend to think articles relating to specific brain parts are a bit too scarce in content here. I'd definitely be interested to see what your version looks like. I'm not quite sure if you're new to wikipedia (and don't want to presuppose this), but if you happen to be unsure about what your version will look like once you try an edit, you can always test it at User:Ledouxje/Sandbox or perhaps User:Ledouxje/amygdala. As far as citing sources, you may find the following tag useful for journal articles:

Definitely don't hesitate in being bold enough to rewrite it. I wrote a section for it but essentially don't own the article or the section, and would be more than happy to see an improved version go up, sans the work I did. If there's anything else you're concerned about or want to know, feel free to hit my talk page or others' talk pages. Take care and happy editing. --Ubiq (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

more on rewrite of amygdala
Ubiq Thanks for the encouragement to be bold. I am very new to wikipedia editing.

I'm not sure how to go about responding to you so I started a new section. Is this the right way or not?

The article is mostly written, except that putting 70 or so citations in that format is a very unappealing idea. I see some articles just put numbers in the text and have a list at the end. Is that acceptable?

Ledouxje (talk) 11:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Joseph LeDoux


 * I wouldn't say there's a right or wrong way to respond, so much as norms for communication here. The : before a paragraph serves as an indention of sorts. Usually, people put a : before their response to someone, and the next person puts :: in their response and so on. Makes for easier reading I presume. Usually what I do when I write on someone's talk page is make sure to "watch" their page (this is found on the tabs up top for each page) so I can see through my watchlist if/when they respond.


 * Creating citations can indeed be a very tedious process, and although it'd be technically acceptable to do them in the way you described, it'd probably be in the best interest of the article to use cite tags. I don't mind doing it myself once we figure out what material to include (and once I get the time).


 * I looked over your version. I'm quite impressed with how in-depth it is. I learned quite a bit and the prose flows well. I think supplementing it with some aspects of the current article would help, particularly for the intro and psychopathology sections. Unfortunately, since the articles on brain structures tend to be lacking here, there isn't yet (to my knowledge) a sufficient model to base the article off of in terms of organizing the sections. I have some ideas though and it may not even need to be restructured from what you have in your version. Overall, this looks very promising and I don't see why this article, given a bit of work, couldn't become featured.


 * Unfortunately, I won't be able to do any work on it in the next week or two because I have some papers to finish up and finals to study for, but once I get some free time I'd definitely like to get to work on it. Any comments/suggestions/questions are always welcomed of course. Regards. --Ubiq (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty busy too right now. But I agree the text is in reasonable shape and I could get the citations done in a week or so when I get time, maybe late May or early June.  I could send them to you then if you are really willing to format them. There are quite a lot since I tried to be thorough. Good luck with the papers and finals.  I guess you are a student.


 * Thanks. Walked a few weeks ago. Pretty busy looking for a job right now. You can send me the cites if you want. I have a system for formatting them quickly. Shouldn't take terribly long. --Ubiq (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)