User talk:Robert P. O'Shea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Robert P. O'Shea and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!

Contents

[edit] Well, well, well...

...fancy meeting you here! Hope you enjoy being a Wikipedian! And good to see your article in the ODT today, too.

James Dignan Grutness 05:25, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reply at last
Dear James,
Thank you for your kind words and good wishes. I fear that Wikipedia will be the end of my academic career. Note that it has taken me this long to reply! Robert P. O'Shea 08:57, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)

[edit] One you might be able to do...

Hi Robert - I think you might be one of the best-placed people in Wikipedia to expand this stub article: Christopher Tyler. Grutness|hello? 08:08, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No? well how about this one: McCullough_effect! At the moment it's a pitiful substub of about a dozen words. Grutness|hello? 12:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Dear James,
OK. I'm finally getting the hang of Wikipedia's talk. I did indeed tinker with the McCollough-effect entry. I hope you like it. Robert P. O'Shea 08:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks excellent. Good work! Grutness...wha? 04:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My user page

Thank you for correcting my grammar. I don't know how that one slipped by me. Cheers! – ClockworkSoul 05:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re: Loess - Loess curve - Loess soil

Hi, I have just reverted your cut-n-paste move of Loess to loess soil of Sept. 16. Please in the future do not do such a cut-n-paste move, rather use the move button at the page top. Moving a page correctly keeps the page history attached to the page - whereas a cut-n-paste move detaches the page history. This is an important concern for Wikipedia. Also when and if you make page moves, please check and make sure all pages linking to the previous page are correctly linke without any double-redirects to mess things up. Thanks, Vsmith 02:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Retina

Hi, Dr. O'Shea. I noticed that you started the article Giant retinal ganglion cells earlier in the year. For consistency with other items on Template:Retina, do you think it would be appropriate to move it to Giant ganglion cell? Also, do you think Parvocellular part/Magnocellular part/Koniocellular should redirect to either Parvocellular cell/Magnocellular cell/Koniocellular cell or Parvocellular ganglion cell/Magnocellular ganglion cell/Magnocellular ganglion cell? Thanks! AED 21:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:ZEKI photo.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:ZEKI photo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
--Romeo Bravo 21:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Practical Interconnections

I'm looking for some information about the image processing the retina does, and I think you might be able to help. The articles on Ganglion cell, Amacrine cell, Bipolar cell, etc. are in some cases extensive, but none of them really explain how these connect to each other to do things, or even really what those things are. In Receptive field, it claims the ganglion cells (which I belive are the only ones that send anything on to the brain) that are involved in image processing either have very simple center-surround fields, or even simpler center-only fields, but then what's the point of the horizontal cells? Do the bipolar cells do nothing but reverse the polarity of some inputs and leave others alone? Why not just have something in the ganglion cells take care of that? Any assistance is appreciated. In case it helps, I'm looking at this from the perspective of a computer programmer, so it's more the processing of information than the chemistry and physiology that I'm interested in. 70.242.4.145 Black Carrot 00:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psychology wiki

Hi Robert I see that you have been contributing to psychology articles on Wikipedia. Just to let you know that we are working on an academic psychology wiki for our professional community and their users. This can be found at: [1] We would really welcome your input and ask you to join us. We already have over 7000 pages up. Orientation, help and community portal pages are available off of this link. Please pass the good news onto anyone you feel would be interested. Just read your list of articles worked on your obviously our kind of man!!!. Lifeartist 15:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at the Psychology Wiki's new Community Portal :) Mostly Zen 03:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tetris effect

Hey, this article is fascinating. Thanks for writing it, mate. Snoutwood (talk) 02:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar for Tetris effect. That was my first star. And congratulations on becoming an administrator.
By the way, I still don't get how talk is supposed to work. I keep thinking it should be easy, like e-mail, but it seems very hard. I guess I don't have the correct mental model of it. Indeed, I'm not sure if I am doing it correctly even now. Robert P. O'Shea 05:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
You're doing it right! Different people do it differently, but for the most part if someone posts a message on your talk page, you respond by going and replying on their talk page. Some people post replies on their own talk pages so that the thread is easier for an individual to follow (as that way, all the posts are in one place rather than being divided onto two different talk pages). That's how that works. The way that threads work is thus: when you respond to a message, indent your message so that you're one level of indentation further in than the person you're replying to. If you're replying to a message that has already been replied to, the reply underneath that thread (time moves downwards). Here's an example:
Person A: Blah.
Person B: Reply.
Person A: Reply to Person B.
Person C: Reply to Person A.
Person D: Reply to Person C.
Person C: Reply to Person B.
Person E: Reply to Person B.
Person B: Reply to Person E.
That's how threading works. Earlier comments are at the top, later comments are at the bottom. Does that help? Snoutwood (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
>Does that help?
Yes it does. Thanks. I hope you won't think I am pestering you if I ask another question: If I reply on my own talk page (and I agree that doing so makes it easier to see a thread), how do you know when I've replied to you? Robert P. O'Shea 00:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, answering questions is what I'm here for :). Well, I won't, unless 1) I'm watching your page, not always a good bet to make, or 2), you let me know you've replied by either leaving a note saying so or copying your reply onto my talk page (which is what you did in your last post). The second or third options are the better ideas, IMHO. Some people either don't want to take the time to let you know or figure that if you care about the thread you'll be watching their page (kinda snobby if you ask me, I don't like to clog up my watchlist with userpages, but I have to because of that), so it's always a good idea to watch other user's talk pages until you know how they go about replying. I'd highly recommend the second method (i.e., posting a note on their talk page), as it only takes a minute and makes everything easier for everybody.
By the way, on Wikipedia at least, it's not "standard" (whatever that means) to use arrows (>) to show threading, like you would in e-mails. Actually, quoting someone at all isn't common: it's assumed that the person you're responding to knows what they've said, and if they've forgotten, they'll just follow the thread back up and find what you're referring to. Quoting uses up indentation space, and rarely is necessary. If you have to quote someone, post what they've said in italics and indent you response under that. For example, let's say I wanted to quote Person A in our above example, but threading wouldn't be appropriate for whatever the reason. I'd respond as such:
Blah. Person A (timestamp)
Reponse. ~~~~
Make sense? This issue doesn't come up to much, as threading works fairly well as long as people post chronologically and indent properly. Remember that general comments that aren't specific to an individual often work best un-indented so that there's no confusion about whether or not you're responding to a specific person. You'll get the hang of when to indent and how, it just takes a bit of getting used to.
Oh, and a last comment (it took me awhile to figure this out): in a really long thread, when there's too many indents and you run out of room, you start over again with a little note. Here's how that's generally handled:
Blah.
Response.
Response.
Response.
Response.
Response.
Response.
Response.
Response.
Response.
Response.
Response.
Response.
Response.
(Moving over to the left) Response.
Response.
Response.
The "moving over to the left" post should be treated just like it was indented again under the previous post for all chronological purposes. Does that help? Hopefully that rather long post wasn't too confusing. Let me know, and remember that I'm always here if you need me later. Cheers, Snoutwood (talk) 06:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Visual neuroscience and infant vision

As per the discussion on Talk:Infant vision, it appears another vision researcher new to Wikipedia has added Infant vision and Visual neuroscience. I wanted to bring them to your attention in the event you might have some contributions to add. Cheers! -AED 00:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


Visual neuroscience

[edit] Pee Shivers

The internet poll you quoted now reflects that only 3% of females experience this -- so the spermazoa reference of "majority of females" is inaccurate. Not sure an internet poll is a reliable means to query, or one worth quoting.... Regardless, I've found very few women who know what 'pee shivers' are and even fewer who've experienced them...not that my experiences are any more valid or worthy of a reference...:) thx.

>The internet poll you quoted now reflects that only 3% of females experience this
This is to misunderstand the poll. The 3% shown in the poll represent 3% of the total number of reponders to the poll. In fact, the total percentage of reponders identifying their sex as female is 5% (or, currently, more than 1200 females). 3% of 5% is a majority, currently about 59% when you do the calculations.
>Not sure an internet poll is a reliable means to query, or one worth quoting
It's all I am aware of in this under-researched topic.

Robert P. O'Shea 08:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Tetris effect

An article that you have been involved in editing, Tetris effect, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetris effect. Thank you. Endless Dan 16:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, although it was all over by the time I saw your message. You might like to see my reply at [[2]]. 04:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Afterimage

Oh, hi, I just noticed your comment on my talk page; sorry, I haven't been using Wikipedia much since I began my graduate studies in neuroscience. Because of that same reason, I unfortunately don't have much to improve the article either ;) --Heida Maria 04:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Tetris effect

Hi Robert,

yes, that looks a lot better. As you'll be aware the AfD was a while ago, but if it were to be re-held my recommendation would definitely be a strong keep now. Grutness...wha? 00:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Correct

Yes you are right - I went back to see the other edits you have done on Mismatch negativity, and I was hasty on the revert. My apologies. docboat (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Convergence micropsia

I remove your addition of a link from the autostereogram article to Convergence micropsia. For reasons, please see Talk:Autostereogram#Convergence_micropsia. Fred Hsu (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I proposed further changes to your changes on the talk page. Fred Hsu (talk) 05:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)