User talk:Florkle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Florkle, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  delldot | talk 05:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Skinner box

How do you feel about the idea of moving the article Skinner box over to operant conditioning chamber? I too feel that the term Skinner box is often used with pejorative connotations, as an ad hominem attack used by Skinner's critics. I'll post on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology. Silly rabbit 15:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. --Florkle 02:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi, I'm deleting the Operant Chamber page you started. Your idea of moving the page sounds reasonable, but it shouldn't be done by creating a new page, but only by using the "move" button. Also it should be to Operant chamber or Operant conditioning chamber (mark the lowercase words!) -- Let me know if you need help with the technicalities. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually it was me (the rabbit) who suggested the move. I guess it was Florkle who created the Operant chamber page. (Just so you know I/we aren't Wikipedia:Sock_puppets.) Silly rabbit 11:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
yar, I created the page! Yeah, sure, delete the page. I'd favor more operant chamber than "operant conditioning chamber" but it's not a biggy either way. So it's cool. No, I am not sockpuppet of Silly rabbit either. --florkle 06:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

I've been asked to enter mediation re: ABA. Wanna join? Feel free to decline, but you're peripherally involved 'cause of the aversives section.

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Applied behavior analysis

WLU 21:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

certainly, although I am not at all sure of what it might entail. --florkle 07:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Two points - 1) I moved your comment below my signature so other reader's know where mine ends, and yours begins (even beyond the : to indent). Feel free to move it back as there is more latitude on personal talk pages, but in mainspace talk pages, you really should post below for other readers reading a completed discussion. Makes it much easier to understand things after the fact. 2) Mediation is when there are two or more sides to a disagreement over a page, and a neutral party attempts to come in and get them to agree. There's no penalties or punishment or negative consequences, just someone trying to get people to come to an agreement. If they take the case, they're going to talk to me, talk to the other guy, and try to come up with a solution that pleases both, or displeases both equally. Not a big deal, but handy in the case of deadlocks. Also a significant backlog so it could take a while. WLU 11:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am cool with different formatting. How do I play a role if I am not one of the disputants? --florkle 20:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I was of the impression that pretty much anyone can join, and no-one can be prevented from either participating or withdrawing, though I can't find anything in the various policies. You can try adding your name and posting a comment on the talk page to say you are interested. At worst, they'll say you can't join. I'm pretty sure you can add comments no matter what. I'm more familiar with arbitration than mediation. WLU 21:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not entirely familiar with the dispute(s) but I commented on the autism/PTSD one. I am not sure where to sign since there is not place for "interested 'other'" parties. --florkle 22:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, easiest would be adding your name to the involved parties since you can pull out without any consequences. Otherwise, you could just watch and enter an opinion if you feel the need. You're already somewhat involved with the posting on the talk page. If you aren't driven to be involved, I wouldn't worry about it. Plus, regards your info on the mediation talk page, I don't think the mediators judge on content disputes, but I've been wrong before. Again, I wouldn't worry about it too much. WLU 23:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I now get it. The "and one other user" was me! I didn't quite get the link until I realized you were referring to my edits about aversives. I threw my name up and added a little blurb about that.--florkle 23:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, correct. Again, the mediation committee is in my understanding, unlikely to comment on 'content', which is to say they won't say if information is correct or not. They're going to help us come to an agreement about what should and should not be on the page. Two final points:

1) Talk pages should be arranged in reverse-chronological order, which is to say older comments and sections are at the top, and new comments and sections are added to the bottom of talk pages. More at WP:TALK.

2) You may want to, or possibly are supposed to demonstrate your agreement through adding 'agree' to the Parties' agreement to mediate section. WLU 00:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: image rights

You'd be good looking into the GFDL or one of the Creative Commons licenses. It's not something I know a huge deal about, so you'd be better off asking someone around Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Hope this helps. ^demon[omg plz] 01:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Applied behavior analysis

Hello Florkle,

Firstly, my apologies for the delay in progress on this case, as explained at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Applied behavior analysis.

I am writing to you because, as a party to this case, your input is required before mediation can begin, to do with an offer by an experienced non-Committee member to mediate. Please see the Parties' agreement to MarkGallagher's offer section and provide your input, so that this case can progress. Voting will remain open for seven days, and further elaboration is provided at that link.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 07:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation for Applied behavior analysis

G'day Florkle,

thanks for your patience. I'm ready to go ahead if you are, and would appreciate your input at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Applied behavior analysis#Initial_statement. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a note to let you know, I have read your comments here. I've got the page watchlisted, but we're just waiting for Ensrifraff to state his own views first. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] If a UserBox sounds neat!

I wanted to give you the option of putting this on your userpage!

This user is a member of the DBA AOR Committee!
Learn more at AORC