User talk:Orgone

Feel free to leave a message or ask a question:

Personal Identity

Firstly, I am completely with you on the merge issue. You need to go to the discussion about that at Talk:Self (philosophy) and make your view clear.

Secondly, while I accept that strategically adding a whole load of material to Personal identity is going to retard efforts to merge it with Self, the material you've added isn't encyclopedic. I accept that you want to use it as a starting point for a discussion, but in the meantime you're going to have a lot of people, including my own first year students, cruising through Wikipedia and hitting this article which is POV, improperly referenced, unsectioned and inwikified. I'd urge you to do some revisions, etc. Maybe stick it in a sub-page of your userpage and link to that from the Personal Ident talkpage for others to be able to come and look at and edit. mge kelly 14:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, you are right of course, its not the best way to get an article started. Im off to make the appropriate edits now, thanks for the welcome! Orgone 17:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your ev psyche suggestion

Hi. I left a response to the following suggestion that you made on the ev psyche discussion page:
- "I would also suggest getting rid of most of the material dealing specifically with evolutionary theory, we can have a link to that, this page should focus on Evolutionary Psychology." at [1]

EPM 15:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that third paragraph at evolutionary psychologyis a bit clumsy, though I think it has some important information...something to work on! I haven't had the time lately to add more to the article. If you're interested, check out these other articles I've made:
- List of publications on evolution and human behavior
- Human behavioral ecology
- Dual inheritance theory
- Evolutionary developmental psychology
  - Any comments or suggestions are certainly welcome. EPM 20:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ToK System

Here's something else you might find intersting: The Tree of Knowledge (ToK) System:

Here's the Official website.

Here's the ToK paper. Who knows, maybe this would make for a good Wikipedia article! EPM 23:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion at Ev Psyche

We've got a new discussion going on over at evolutionary psychology on whether or not we should have two evolutionary psychology articles, if you want to weigh in. EPM 14:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I just created an evolutionary educational psychology article, if you're interested. EPM 15:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self

Good work. Can you clean up this sentence in the introduction: "To wit: The Self is he/she from whom there is but one escape." It is not exactly encyclopedic. Rintrah 16:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary psychology forum

I thought that you might be interested to know that there is an evolutionary psychology forum over at the Psychology Wiki. It was set up a little more than a month ago but still hasn't been used yet. I'll inform other Wikipedians who I think may be interested, as well. EPM 21:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deletion warning: Jennifer Mundale

The page you have edited on Prof. Mundale has been listed for proposed deletion. I have removed the deletion tag, which stops the process for the moment.

She seems a worthy subject for an article, but if you would like the article to remain you must write it in the WP style, which includes:

looking like an encyclopedia article not a CV
saying in the first sentence something to demonstrate notability, like "A.b. is professor of X at, winner of the XYZ prize and 10 honorary doctorates" (whatever applies). Use the exact word: "notable" or "internationally-known" or "nationally-known"; do not use "famous" -- May sound silly, but that is what people look for here.
not going into disproportionate personal details
listing college degrees with university and year -- and putting the university names in double brackets
listing important awards
listing important memberships and offices held
listing books published as formal references style: Author, title, Publisher, year ISBN if possible.
listing some major published papers, say how many.

and, most important, giving some 3rd party sources. A website at a university etc. can be one, but it cannot be the only one. Book reviews are fine, or a newspaper stories. Print or web is OK, but not from a list or a blog. These is, very unfortunately, prejudice against people from the academic world.

If you do not do this immediately, the article will probably be deleted in a day or two--though not by me. If this happens, just recreate it, but take you time--maybe in a week after careful preparation I apologize for not having the time to help personally. DGG 21:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up on that, ive done my best to pad the article out. Could still do with substantial improvement probably, but should be saved! Orgone 23:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:PantherBooks.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:PantherBooks.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

EP

Firstly, EP is significantly different from sociobiology (see this and this by Leda Cosmides and John Tooby). Secondly, sociobiology is most certainly not discredited, in fact, it's the central approach of modern biology, see The Triumph of Sociobiology by John Alcock. So, no, it should neither be a cat nor a see also IMO. Mikker ^(...) 17:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other

Hey thanks for pulling me up on my changes. I decided to join Wiki and get a username. Here I am. No more monkey business, I promise! -Brad.

Wiki for Evolution and Human Behavior?

Hi Orgone. I was wondering...what do you think of the idea of creating a wiki for evolution and human behavior. I'm thinking along the lines of a wiki that would focus on things like evolutionary psychology, human behavioral ecology, dual inheritance theory, etc. Something that would detail all of the theories, hypotheses, models, researchers, programs of study, institutes, etc. in this area. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Have a good one! EPM 20:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orgone. Thanks for your response. I recently proposed the idea here. Thanks for telling me about EvoWiki. However, I was already aware of this wiki. Their focus there seems to be on arguing against creationism. I was thinking about something that focused exclusively on evolution and human behavior in great depth...more than what would be allowed on Wikipedia. Something that might attract a significant number of experts in this area from the beginning. I'm currently having an e-mail exchange with a professor who is interested in the idea. Feel free to leave more messages on my talk page, or the forum link I posted in this response. I'm very interested in your input. EPM 19:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

You Wildness AfD appears to be incorrectly formatted. Please follow the steps outlined at WP:AFD. Thanks, Deiz talk 06:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Orgone, the wildness page has been deleted, even with the improvements. Any way to get it back? Cheers --Lauriec 21:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks for your efforts in getting this topic another hearing.--Lauriec 22:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC) And for then adding significant improvements--Lauriec 03:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)I'm happy with the various directions the article has taken. The Wildness in human Psychology part could be expanded, but i think it is fine a the moment. I'll be interested to see if anyone else will attempt some changes.--Lauriec 01:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

Thanks for the heads up. I have no objections to the article being relisted. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 12:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One note, however: do not remove RfA tags before said RfA has been closed. Otherwise, keep up the good work. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD's

Don't let one incident get you down (I've flubbed things too, including the same AfD!). There is alot of crap on here that needs deleted, so keep your chin up. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 17:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]