User talk:Patrickwilken

Welcome to the Wikipedia[edit]

Here are some links I find useful

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Cheers, Sam [Spade] 16:37, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Visual short term memory[edit]

Hi! Very nice article on this. The only thing I'd suggest is that you might want to add a short paragraph before the introduction describing what visual short term memory actually is, for those not familiar with the concept. (I'd do it myself, but being 'not famliar' with it myself, that not be a good idea.) — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 05:00, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

-- Done. Thanks for the feedback PW.

Hints for VSTM[edit]

I've listed up a few things you could do on the VSTM talk page. I judge the content to be quite correct, but it is a tad cryptic for the outsider; you should at least stamp a lot of links to (not yet existant) articles explaining the fine details. -- towo 00:06, 2004 Jun 19 (UTC)

Your edits on the PLoS Biology page[edit]

I see the point of your edits. However, note that addition of references to some studies published in PLoS Biology was simply meant to provide a better idea of this journal's scope. These are actually references to Wikipedia articles, not external links. I would rather prefer to see more materials added rather than your deletions. Aren't deletions of this type classified as "vandalism"? Let's see if anybody supports yours or mine point of view... --Primate1 18:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removing vanity edits is not vandalism. I would be happy to get a third party opinion here. Should we contact the Wikipedia admins and discuss this further? patrickw 15:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your new editions (better, deletions) on the PLoS Biology page, your point of view has some validity. However, in my opinion, referencing Wikipedia pages that use information from a journal in question is not a bad idea, especially in the case of a free-access journal. It is not uninteresting to learn how a particular journal impacts Wikipedia.

I still think this is simple vanity edits, and are unnecessary. I don't want ill will to arise here however. So if you like perhaps we should get a third party to weigh in on this discussion. patrickw 16:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside the vanity arguments, it seems like a good idea to cross-link wikipedia pages as much as possible. I guess, you would not object to mentioning the DNA-structure article on the page about Nature. Such a link would simply give people an option to quickly look up other wikipedia materials that are related to a given journal, and everybody can add whatever he/she thinks is interesting and relevant. I am leaving this issue up to you and other volunteer editors to decide. --EncephalonSeven 20:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

chalmers[edit]

hello. see the discussion page for David Chalmers, there is another David Chalmers who is an oil guy, it is not nonsense, should it maybe be cited differently? Spencerk 01:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for pointing this out. I thought this was an obvious piece of vandalism on the page. I am not an expert on wikipedia, but I there are two standard solutions (correct me if I am wrong) if the other Chalmers is substantial enough create another page for them to avoid confusion, or if they aren't so important (there must several David Chalmers in the world) simply don't list them. Anyway my apologies for removing useful information from the page, please feel free to revert if you think that's the best approach patrickw 15:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, i'll make a David Chalmers (oil) page. Also, you seem nice. good day Spencerk 06:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

blindsight[edit]

Your edit summary said "blindsight by definition is residual vision without awareness in people with damage to V1 so it cannot exist in 'normal' people". But that is not at all what the definition is the first paragraph says:

Blindsight is residual visual sensitivity independent of any subjective experience of visual qualia. Its function in people with normal eyesight is difficult to detect directly; consequently it was discovered in people with damage to the visual cortex, via its effects in a subjectively blind part of the visual field.

Where did you get your definition that conflicts with this, and if you're right and it's wrong, then why didn't you change it? Michael Hardy 21:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of papers around that would support this definition; in fact I don't think there are any papers that wouldn't. I am a visual psychologist with an interest in consciousness and in fact taught a class on this recently. I didn't change the front paragraph simply because I didn't read it closely enough. There have been some cases of reported "artificial blindsight" in normal observers, but these have involved deactivating activity in the primary visual area (V1). I'll have a look at the entry and try to fix it up a bit. patrickw 14:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Geraintrees.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Geraintrees.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 09:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Patrickwilken.jpg[edit]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Patrickwilken.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 14:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of William James Prize[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on William James Prize requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.theassc.org/past_recipients. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]