Talk:Infant vision
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess. | |
| Stub | This page has been rated as stub-Class on the quality assessment scale | |
| ??? | This page has not yet received a rating on the importance assessment scale. | |
[edit] Comments
Somebody named "yanksox" is vandalizing this page by redirecting it to a totally inappropriate entry.
There doesn't seem to be any way to stop this annoying action.
Love.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Love26 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC).
- You are promoting, the page belongs with infant which touches base on the senses. Yanksox 16:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The entry may 'touch base' on the senses but it is both inaccurate and misleading in the case of the field of infant vision. The consideration that the underlying science of the matter expounded in "infant vision" should be in "pediatric ophthalmology" is totally misguided since the practice of pediatric ophthalmology is rooted in the science of infant vision, not the other way 'round. At any rate the decisions about which hierarchy previals in wikipedia should be left in the hands of those whose careers are entwined in such matters. The idea that having links to the science of something is some sort of spam/phish undertaking is ludicrous. Love.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Love26 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC).
- Love26, according to the information you provided on your Talk page, you appear to be a researcher at Smith-Kettlewell[1]. Please do expand upon your area of expertise, but per Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia is not to be used for self-promotion or advertising. -AED 21:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- -- I do not really have "expertise" in much although I've been connected with the Institute for over 40 years. The process of bringing the scientists here into wikipedianess is my current goal/passion and of course we can use all the help we can get. It's not about promoting/advertising Smith-Kettlewell but about enhancing the content of wikipedia, particularly in areas of science whose frontiers we are presumably attacking. The instant article and the one at visual neuroscience are being grown in place. My own article RIAS (Remote Infrared Accessible Signage could stand wikification. I'm not sure how to title it because "RIAS", although it is an acronym used as a word hereabouts isn't that ubiquitous yet. Any help with that one would be nice. love26
-
-
- As long as you are clear on the difference between enhancing Wikipedia content and promoting/advertising Smith-Kettlewell, then you shouldn't have any problems here. Per Wikipedia:Guide to layout, it would be nice if this article began with a definition: "Infant vision is...". Would you be able to provide that, please? (By the way, please sign your posts with four tildes as noted at the top of this page.) -AED 05:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Yanksox's merge header
As written, the article appears to be nothing more than spam for Smith-Kettlewell. A redirect or merge is may be warranted given the amount and type of information that is currently provided. I suggest Visual perception. Article looks much better now. -AED 21:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)last edited 05:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC) (UTC)
Oppose:
- -- The article is much better. Yanksox 19:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Against:
- I think the current version tries to meet some of the criticism, so I change my opinion, keep the article. --Steven Fruitsmaak 15:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Promotion of knowledge isn't necessarily mere "promotion"!
As this entry grows from its present near-placeholder status, it should have gathered edits/add-ons from people in the field. love26.
- I'm glad to see that you are no longer merely promoting knowledge of your place of employment in this article. -AED 05:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
