User talk:Owleye769

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Owleye769, 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 my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2012 (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

Temporary blackout on Wednesday
Hi there. This note is just to let you know that on Wednesday, Wikipedia will be blacked out for at least a portion of the day in protest of the SOPA and PIPA bills in the United States. The location (global or US only) and the duration (no more than 24 hours) haven't been concretely decided on yet as far as I know, so it may not affect you at all. But if you're busy on Thursday and Friday morning and have any pages to read/articles to choose/edits to make before your class, you may want to get to them before Wednesday if you can! Here's an article from Reuters Canada on the matter; and the Wikipedia community's discussion is here if you're curious about why the blackout is happening. Cheers, Melicans (talk, contributions) 01:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

New to wiki!
Hi. How are you finding the wiki project so far? Dirkster07 (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Class project
It looks like you have a number of good options here, and I'd be supportive of any of them. You probably know more about most of these areas than I do, so can probably better evaluate where there is the greatest need and which is likely to provide the right 'size' project. Of the options, I am less clear about where you would go with social cognitive theory, but it is also one that I think could clearly fit personalty psychology well. Please let me know if you'd like to chat more about choosing, but it looks like you are on the right track. --Jayzzee (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your plans for the epigenetic theory page sound god to me. You may end up with less than 12 pages text, but I think the scope of your project is appropriate to the course. --Jayzzee (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Owleye,  I think you have a nice start on the epigenetic page, and I'd encourage you to pursue a 'did you know' submission. Do you have any ideas about the 'hook' for that? (Developing one specific example of a behavioural effect might be helpful in crafting the hook too.) Also, for it to work, you will probably have to have your page as separate from Epigenetics as it is already pretty long. Because that page largely ignores behaviour, I think this is reasonable, but could imagine them being merged at some point too... A few suggestions on what you have: I think the 'in line' citations with authors' names is atypical for wikipedia. You may want our ambassador to weigh in on this too, but I suspect it would be better to just have 'numbers' and full refs at the bottom of the page. This sentence seems a bit odd to me; consider rephrasing, "Specifically, epigenetics provides a framework for understanding how the interaction between genes and the social environment are influenced by experiences." (I think maybe you want to say the expression of genes rather than interaction btwn genes and social environment?) It would be great to make some hyperlinks to other wikipages in the article, and this might improve chances for DYK too. RE length, I think developing the next sections will add a lot. You have a good start here, and probably enough for DYK. --Jayzzee (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Owleye, I plan to add to the Agreeableness article quite a bit over the coming days, but I won't be significantly altering anything that I added yesterday (i.e., on the history and facets). The rest of the article needs quite a bit of work (I started on the intro a while back, but didn't make much progress), so...please don't focus on that. As far as the other articles go, my plan is to create a stub-length article on the Lexical Hypothesis just to get people talking about that. I'll add it to the table if I do so, and I might delete constitutional psychology (as there's entirely too much to do for the Agreeableness page!). How are your Wikipedia/editor frustrations going? Let me know when you're ready for editing! Matthew.murdoch (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Owleye, Just got your message. Let me know when you are ready for me to edit your page. Cheers Dirkster07 (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

CU Class Project bullet points
I got your message at User talk:Maclean25. Generally, try to use prose first. There are some cases in which lists may be more appropriate, as listed here Manual of Style/Embedded lists. maclean (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

New Article
Just thought I'd throw in my two cents about your proposal to create a new article. Looking at the two articles you've posted on your user page, it seems like it'd be a stretch to fit "Epigenetics and Personality" into either. I'm not sure if this is what you plan to call the new article (just a guess, really), but I fully support creating a new space to accommodate the work and research you've put into the Epigenetics and Behaviour page. Matthew.murdoch (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Infamy and Edits
It turns out that there's a reason for the attacks on your page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology. Scroll down to the bottom...not only has your article been flagged for 'original research' and 'original syntheses,' but the Health and Psychology Wikipedians have been asked to closely scrutinize your work. You've become infamous!

On my article: the 'independent' thing refers to working independently, but not in an academic vacuum. I'd like to make that clearer, but I'm trying to focus on adding bulk to the article. I figure it's better to give editors a lot to work with...it's very difficult to write a Wikipedia article (or section) from scratch, as we all now know...Matthew.murdoch (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Owleye you are really getting the full wikipedia experience! Hats off to you for your consistently polite yet comprehensive responses to certain editors.Fuzzybunnyhare (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Edits
Overall I found your page on epigenetics to be well formatted and well written. I found the manner in which you describe the topic very clear and concise - it will be quite easy for the general public to understand. I mostly made grammatical changes to your page (coma's etc), and also linked your page to other pages. Job well done! Dirkster07 (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'm currently working on the Lexical Hypothesis page and hope to bring it up to date by Friday. Feel free to check out what's there already. I'll also be editing what's on the Agreeableness page so that it reads like something cohesive...And, because I can't resist the gaps in Wikipedia, I might add a Facet (psychology) page. It seems strange to me that every article on a trait has to define 'facet.' But...no guarantees on that one.

Sorry for the delay...I got a bit carried away while editing Oakbriar's Affective events theory page. I seem to be spending more time on others' pages than mine...I'll check out what you've written tonight! Matthew.murdoch (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Update: I'm ~1/2 way through your article. Most of my edits have been minor: I've added links to other Wikipedia articles, broken up/shortened some loooong sentences, corrected a few lil' typographical/grammatical errors, and tried to get rid of some unnecessary repetition. Quite a bit of info is repeated in different sections, but...I'm leaving it as is. Not sure if you want each section to be able to stand alone, but I understand why you might want this repetition...

On the evolution section: I mostly made changes to how you say things (e.g., natural selection doesn't make species better adapted to environments, but increases the likelihood that individuals within those species are more likely to survive/thrive/reproduce). And...few evolutionary psychologists'd say that we're well-adapted to today's environment, so I linked your use of "environment" to the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness section of the EP article. You might want to include some counterexamples in that sentence (just say "Although there is some disagreement" with citations), as humans have a lot of useless/maladaptive physiological/mental/emotional...mechanisms, and plenty of evolutionary psychologists have recognized this (this is kind of the thread that holds Gary Marcus' "Kluge" together).

I also added a reference! The Evo-Devo approach to evolutionary biology pretty much perfectly captures epigenetics, so I threw in one of my favourite books on the subject in your discussion of Lamarckism - "The Plausibility of Life." It's a good, readable introduction/overview to the Evo-Devo approach, and I'm more than happy to lend you my copy (if you're interested)!

Now, on to the second half... Matthew.murdoch (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Last Update: All done! I've made a number of changes, again mostly involving minor errors, breaking up run-on sentences, trimming some repetition, and adding links to other Wiki sites. I've put wherever this seemed necessary. One recommendation: a "See Also" section before the references...it helps to redirect interested readers to related Wiki sites that might help them to understand your topic (or related topics...). Thanks for an informative read! Matthew.murdoch (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me know
Hi. If you remember, could you please let me know when you're finished with Epigenetics in psychology? I'm looking forward to reading it. I just followed the external link, by the way; a great little intro video. (In fact that site looks like a treasure trove.) Regards, --Anthony (talk) 02:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I see the external link has been removed. If there is any reasonable doubt or controversy about any of the assertions made in it, then removal is quite appropriate. Such external links are very rarely allowed in Wikipedia articles, particularly biomedical articles. After a very long discussion, and based on the fact that nothing in it was remotely controversial, a link to a video about depression was allowed to stand in Major depressive disorder and Disthymia. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey Owleye!
Looks like we are both doing some edits right now! Thanks for looking again. I'm going to add a little bit more in a bit- it would be awesome if you could take a look. Thanks!Fuzzybunnyhare (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback (especially the page number thing...I'll have to use that)! I'll be plugging away until the last possible minute, as this is something that'll never be completed. Fun and humbling! Matthew.murdoch (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Education Program Student Survey
Hi! Please take a few minutes to fill out this survey about the Wikipedia Education Program. This is our opportunity to improve the program and resources we provide students, so your feedback and input is integral to our future success. Thank you so much! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Behavioral epigenetics
Concerning your edit with the summary "Genetics is NOT a research methodology", I would appreciate an explanation. Genetics is certainly a field of research as well as a "research methodology". So I am really puzzled why you say genetics it is not a research methodology. Boghog (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Call for Carleton University's Campus Ambassador
Hello,

My name is Andrew. I'm the Regional Ambassador for the Canada Education Program. The goal of this program is to engage students and professors in using Wikipedia as a teaching tool. A professor from Carleton University, which you indicated your affiliation with the university through your userbox, is participating in the program for Fall 2012 semester. We're seeking campus ambassadors, which we currently don't have for Carleton University, who are available on-campus to help students. If you're interested (or have any other questions), please leave a message on my talk page. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Behavioral epigenetics
Concerning the behavioral epigenetics article which you have renamed to epigenetics in psychology‎, I gave a justification for the former name here which you have not responded to. Disputes are resolved by discussion on talk pages. Please discuss there before reverting. Thank you. Boghog (talk) 05:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)