User talk:SoChatter

Welcome
Hello, SoChatter and welcome to Wikipedia! It appears you are participating in a class project. If you haven't done so already, we encourage you to go through our training for students. Your instructor or professor may wish to set up a course page, if your class doesn't already have one.

If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Please also read this helpful advice for students.

Before you create an article, make sure you understand what kind of articles are accepted here. Remember: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and while many topics are encyclopedic, some things are not.

It is highly recommended that you place this text:  on the talk page of any articles you are working on as part of your Wikipedia-related course assignment. This will let other editors know this article is a subject of an educational assignment and should be treated accordingly.

We hope you like it here and encourage you to stay even after your assignment is finished! Chris Troutman ( talk ) 06:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Cognitive miser
Hello SoChatter and thanks for your improvements to this article. It's a really interesting article that intersects a lot of important psychology topics and it'll be great if we can get it up to a high quality standard.

I just wanted to suggest that there's a certain type of writing that we use in personal essays but which we have to avoid when writing a neutral, factual publication like Wikipedia. I'm talking about "The implications for this theory are profound and raise important questions...", "...laid important groundwork for the overarching idea..." or "...represents an important step in the evolution of social cognition theory...". What we're supposed to do on Wikipedia is to show that a concept or theory is important by describing its real-world application, its link to other ideas, its breadth of relevance and so on. Stating outright that something is profound or important is interpreting the facts for the reader, and Wikipedia itself isn't supposed to do that. Of course we can say those things when it's meant to be a personal opinion, like when I said about that it's an interesting article. We just want the readers to decide for themselves that this is important and profound. So far the article has more of a journalistic style than a scientific style.

Another tip: when you put in references to a book, put the page number. This makes it so much easier for people who want to check the research for themselves. Best wishes, MartinPoulter (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Cognitive miser does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history.

The edit summary appears in:
 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list and
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Chris Troutman ( talk ) 06:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)