Talk:Engram

message: To fostor NPOV, this discussion space should not have been moved or redirected under neuropsychology. Transporting discussions of engram to Talk:Engram (neuropsychology) is an act which, in my opinion, violates NPOV and consigns discussion under the light of neuropsychology and inherently proscribes discussion of the Dianetics Engram. According to Wikipedia's articles, Hubbard's Dianetics explores the engram with almost entirely different bounds. --JimmyT 02:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you might not be aware of how the situation came to be.  Up until a short time ago, there was only one "Engram" article, called just Engram.  Most of the article was of course about the mainstream concept of the engram, but as discussion of the much different Dianetics concept attached to the same term got to be a larger part of that article, an editor had the idea to have separate articles for the mainstream concept and for the Dianetics concept, and have Engram be a disambiguation page that pointed to both of the other two.  To accomplish this, the existing engram article (which was, again, mostly devoted to the mainstream usage) was moved to Engram (neuropsychology), and its talk page was moved to Talk:Engram (neuropsychology).  Now, when you move a page, the old title becomes a redirect to the new location; this happened for both Engram and Talk:Engram.  Engram of course was turned from the redirect created by the page move into a disambiguation page.  However, since disambiguation pages usually don't need talk pages, Talk:Engram wasn't changed.  Hope this clarifies things.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, yes it does. --JimmyT 03:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I might add, looking at the history of the engram article, at no time did it present the commonly known definition of the word.  The word has been used for more than 50 years, its in probably any dictionary.  The article was a special interest article and did not and was not intended to appeal to the broad public.  By including the commonly understood use of the word (as Jimmy has done) it creates the appropriate demarkation point, allows Wikipedia to appropriately fork and present specialized pages with the reader's understanding of how a fork is appropriate. Well done, Jimmy. Terryeo 17:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Terryeo, please don't use the word "fork", since you are either unwilling or unable to use it in the sense that the word is understood on Wikipedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh really Feldspar, I'll use the word "fork" anytime I choose to. Terryeo 04:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are being requested, as an editor, for the good of Wikipedia, to either use "fork" and "forking" about the arrangement of Wikipedia articles only in the sense that that word is in use on Wikipedia.  If you are unwilling to use the word correctly, or do not have enough understanding of the correct usage of the word to use it correctly, you are requested to not use it at all.  If you are interested in harmonious editing then you will understand the importance of not giving words your own private definitions. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeking an argument, the blind man found one.  Seeking enlightenment the deaf man heard something.  Seeking a fork, the buddhist found a spoon.  Seeking a spoon, the christian heard one hand clapping.  What does this mean? lolololTerryeo 22:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That given the choice between a mature response and an immature response that's easier, you'll take the easier response -- even when it makes you appear to be gibbering? -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy arguements, Feldspar, I'll use "fork" when I wish and speak the word to whom I wish when I wish to.  Do you get it? Terryeo 03:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I do indeed get it.  Whereas a mature editor would say "All right, since there seems to be something I'm not 'getting' about the Wikipedian meaning of the word 'fork', I'll express my meaning in different words, rather than cause unneeded confusion," you are saying "I don't care how much confusion I cause; the actual impact of my actions upon others and upon the process of productive editing I claim I value is meaningless next to my unquestionable right to do anything I wish."  Got it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk:Engram (Neuropsychology) 

message: JimmyT, thanks for this good edit here.  A good disambiguation page helps a reader who comes looking for a particular article figure out which of the articles linked from that page he's looking for; your description of Engram (neuropsychology) will help a great deal in making that clear for the reader.  Good job! -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Copied from neuropsychology"