This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
This is picking up from our interchange a couple of weeks ago. (My User_talk signature then was Braininfo.rprc.washington.edu) We have closed that account. I can now be reached through User_talk as Dmbowden.
In light of earlier suggestions I'd like to propose two things: 1- Change existing NeuroNames links in the right sidebars of pages to BrainInfo links. They'd link to the same 'central directory' for the structure in BrainInfo as now. But the template URL and the IDs for the structures would match the format of the new BrainInfo database. (Structures added to BI in the last couple of years don't have numeric IDs for the old URL format.) 2- create new pages for structures that are defined in BrainInfo but not in Wikipedia... such as the monoaminergic nuclei, cortical architectonic areas described by authors other than Brodmann (His areas are already covered on pages that appear to have been copied from BrainInfo), and a number of subcortical nuclei that have not been entered into Wikipedia yet.
I've made of a couple of Powerpoint slides as mockups of how Wikipedia pages would look if we implemented these concepts, but I don't see how to post them here. Can you suggest how to do that? or ould you provide an email address by which I could get them to you as an attachment? You could send the email address to: dmbowden@u.washington.edu --Dmbowden (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Today I read through the instructions for creating a stub and wrote one for 'dopaminergic group A10'... previewed and saved (Category: neuroanatomy; neuroanatomy-stub) in the mode whereby it should have appeared in Wikipedia . But it is not there. If you can find it I'd appreciate your reviewing it for appropriateness in the Society for Neuroscience project. If it's okay we'll go ahead and enter stubs for other structures of general interest that are in BrainInfo but not Wikipedia. If it's not there I'd appreciate your guess as to why not... maybe deleted in flight for some reason? Dmbowden (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I take it back... 20 minutes later it IS there. So, I'd appreciate your feedback. The title is 'Dopaminergic cell group A10'. Dmbowden (talk) 23:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Philosophy for an upcoming edition of The Signpost. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, you can find the interview questions here. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. If you have any questions, you can leave a note on my talk page. Have a great day. – SMasters (talk) and Mabeenot (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC) |
My response was not any kind of joke, though your removal of it definitely was a lame joke. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
We have been advised to classify our neuroanatomical entries in Wikipedia from BrainInfo under Medicine>Neurology. I was under the impression that the Society for Neuroscience had endorsed creation of a WikiProject for Neuroscience. That would be a better classification if it exists... but I can't find it in the table of WikiProjects. Is there such a thing? If not, is there a way we can indicate on the Discussion/Talk page of an article that our contribution is pertinent to the Society for Neuroscience sponsored project? Dmbowden (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear Looie 496
To get to the listof WikiProjects go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience and click 'Directory of WikiProjects'. I don't find any mention of WikiProject Neuroscience there.
Someone has entered ((WPMED|class=Stub|importance=|neurology=yes)) at the top of our articles and recommended that we follow the guidelines for the WikiProject Medicine. Is it okay if we delete those lines and substitute ((WPNEURO))? The WikiProject Medicine header has also '|class=Stub|importance=|neurology=yes' within the curly brackets. Is there anything comparable that the Neuroscience project would like to see there? If so, should we do that? or will a roving editor do it? Dmbowden (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Quantum Physists are smarter than you: were you nurtured from ur little teacher looie?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.193.101 (talk) 02:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Please read my reply to your comment at [1]. I have edited this article for seven years, trying to hold it consistent all that time, and this has not been easy considering that this is an article about so difficult topic. This would be my last comment there by now. Thanks a lot. Tkorrovi (talk) 09:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
First of all, thank you for the comments on talk page at the article on Asperger syndrome. The main reason for this message is that I saw your comments on the article on cognitive dissonance. I am pretty sure it was Leon Festinger who devised the term. I agree with you that the article is not up to FA status - it needs a lot more work before it can attain that goal. Thank you for the interest in the article,ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I've deleted the hat ([2]) on the Congressional pay question because I've tried to refocus the thread in an RD-acceptable manner. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Added references to my edit on the subject ‘Consciousness’, as you requested. Oliver9909 (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Toddst1 (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, could you provide a little more explanation/detail please? I am afraid I am still struggling to get to grips with this.
Also, on the subject of your previous talk page message (since I stumbled upon it), I sent it to WP:OS and it's now been suppressed such that even administrators can't see it any more. For future reference, requests for revision deletion (visible to sysops and above – policy here) are not done at ANI (rather, see this). Requests for oversight (visible to oversighters and above – policy here) are done by filling out the e-mail form at WP:RFO. It Is Me Here t / c 12:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey Looie, I looked at the IP you reported (you removed the report here before I could respond at AIV), but I am a bit puzzled: User:LightCurrent has no contributions, and no deleted contributions either, and nothing on the talk page. As for the IP, I agree that those edits are disruptive, but without a sufficient set of warnings admins are less likely to act on the report. I've placed a final warning on the talk page, but hopefully the joke isn't funny anymore to them. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that duplicate post you had to clean up...editing from mobile phones I've found never ceases to produce unexpected and unintended results. Thanks for taking care of it. --Ks1stm (talk) [alternative account of Ks0stm] 02:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
For the OCD article, I found it awkward that the section for psychological causes was left blank, as both psychological and biological factors play a role in OCD. Thus, I went back to the earlier edits when it was intact, thereafter I then decided to copy the contents I saw and made some changes to increase its neutrality with the intent of making the article more complete.
I hope that you would be able to make changes and rectify the grammer mistakes I have made as it is important to give our readers a more complete picture of OCD in terms of its causes, both psychological and biological. You can even add in new information or omit information that are factually wrong. Thank you =D --Tornadowhiz (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your response and for helping the conversation peek outside of the box (not like some people). It led me to a solid conclusion. Thanks again! Lighthead þ 04:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
[3] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe adding the "multiple issues" box at the top detracts from the article as it is. it only serves to highlight issues that exist within the article and is only temporary (remaining until suck time as the article is repaired). if you'd prefer, I can change it to the less descriptive (but less conspicuous) attention tag. Chrisbrl88 (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Your userfied article is ready. Spartaz Humbug! 19:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
thanks for the book suggestions!(in the reference desk?)--Irrational number (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, you reviewed the article Applied Consciousness Sciences and changed its status to "being considered for deletion". I fully understand why you choose to do so. ACS is a new development since 2001, hasn't been published about much, is being used as a basis for different programs by different organizations in The Netherlands, USA, Curacao and is supported by many more. This is the place where we had wished to direct people to stay tuned to developments concerning ACS. ACS aims at uniting different theories and practices that are verifiable. That's why I've updated the article with many more links and references that reflect how different academic developments, theories and practices are in line with the different aspects of ACS. I'd like to ask whether it's possible for you to review the article again and either change its status or delete the article all-together? This way it becomes clear if we can go on expanding on this work or if we need to change to another platform. Thanks for your help. --Carlomonsanto (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Applied Consciousness Sciences and material associated with ACS has been peer-reviewed by the Men-Tsee-Khang Institute, the institute of H.H. the Dalai Lama. A letter of support can be found in the article itself. --Carlomonsanto (talk) 09:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't know in this is where I'm supposed to leave a message for you BUT this is what I have posted about the edit to Naturopathy.
The reference is not wrong! Look at the article, it is in the same paragraph!
The new sentence replacing the edited sentence is in the same paragraph of the article that the old sentence is quoted from. The old sentence is out of place. The article says nothing about Cancer in the introductory paragraphs, which therefore makes the old edit look biased.
I am a Naturopathic Medical student. I'm not sure if you have a bias against the medicine, but I would be more than happy to answer any questions you may have about it.
Briefly, there are 16-17 states that license the profession with very strict guidelines. We study just as much science as MDs, in some cases more. On the average we have 75 hours more training overall than MDs, for example we have more training in Biochemistry. We do 100 hours average of pharm. MDs do 114 hours. My program is an intensive 4 year post bachelors program covering many of the same things learned in "traditional" medical school plus ancient therapies of medicine that we have not tossed out because we practice the art of medicine and use what has worked for ages in conjunction with the new. We also do research, and scientific research confirms that the medicine works. ACS is not necessarily the authority about a profession which it has nothing to do with and probably does not fund research for, and I suspect the article is old. Perhaps it doesn't need to be in the opening explanation of the article on Naturopathic Medicine, period. The quote in question might be better later in the article where it would at least make sense as part of another opinion about the medicine.
Like I said, if you have any questions I would be happy to answer them as I am very close to (read: IN) the profession and know what is going on in it.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitton14 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The concerned article has been rewritten. Kindly review it and suggest improvements.Svechu (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea why or how, but I am impressed that you abided by a recall decision. Well done. --Surturz (talk) 04:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated Caffeine for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, you reviewed the article "Applied Consciousness Sciences", which has been deleted and stated that it should be verifiable on the basis of reputable published sources -- see WP:RS. The sorts of sources that will work are academic papers, books published by publishers who have a good reputation for reviewing and fact-checking and mainstream newspapers and magazines. There is a reference guide that is a result of fundamental research and ore than a decade of development, this guide and the whole methodology and theory have been peer-reviewed by the Men-Tsee-Khang Institute, Dutch articles that have published about Applied Consciousness Sciences; and several academic institutes use ACS as a basis of their academic programs or are in a process of developing ACS programs for faculty and learners in The Netherlands. The peer-review by the Men-Tsee-Khang institute was one of the references. The academic developments were not mentioned because otherwise you'd say that it is self-promoting. I don't see why it should have been deleted. Can you tell me what other resources I should have added? Thank you! --Carlomonsanto (talk) 07:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi. It appears that WP:HD is currently backlogged. Please help. Emergency. Thanks. ~AH1 (discuss!) 23:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I honestly didn't expect that it would affect your message. It would be nice to put the addition in the original message. Is there any way you can think of that would do this without causing problems? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
After reviewing WP:TALK, especially WP:TPO and WP:REDACT, I had second thoughts and decided to restore what you deleted from my message, clearly noting that it was an addition and included a time/date stamp, per the last option of WP:REDACT. Also, please note WP:TPO and recognize that you do not have my permission to modify my message. Thank you for originally bringing your concerns to my attention. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 talk 01:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
(mainly wanted to point out that I changed some wikicode in your message; as I said, you can put it back to how you had it if you want.) LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 17:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Looie496. I've worked for some time on User:Philcha/Essays/Advice for new Wikipedia editors. I'm trying to approach the subject from the viewpoint of a new editor possibly seeing WP for the first time - in other words I think it must be one easy step at a time, starting from the new editor's starting position. I take WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR seriously, but am trying to make the whole process easier for the new editor. So I: use an informal style; emphasise techniques and tools that help new editors' work to be productive and pleasant; give the basis of the main policies and how to get advice about them; but not overload new editors with loads of details on policies, etc. I hope the essay will be worth publishing in main space, and even get a link for from the main "Welcome". Could you please comment at User talk:Philcha/Essays/Advice for new Wikipedia editors. --Philcha (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Looie, you mentioned on your FAC "the reader has no way of distinguishing a footnote reference from a source reference without looking at it." Take a look a Sarcosphaera to see how this can be done. Good luck with the FAC, I'll be adding my review in a few days. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I want a picture of a hydrofluoric acid burn for a VA. There are no free images, but I am pretty good at asking for permissions. Sent a note to a couple academic docs, but no reply. Ideas?71.246.147.40 (talk) 03:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about the bad refs for Spazzstick - should have checked what I got from the other Wikipedia article. I've replaced it with a better reference (checked today). (And no, I have no relationship with the product - I don't even use caffeine... just trying to give some links to an orphan page.) Allens (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been rather busy over the last few days. I expect to finish reading the article over the next couple of days. Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Looie496, I see you have been adding to the Science#Philosophy section, which I have been watching.
As you know, I have been following up on a suggestion you made previously, and I am hoping my additions to Talk:visual system#outline of the vertebrate visual system can become part of an independent outline soon, so I am asking whether the following scheme is acceptable:
I recognize that I am laying out an agenda of my own for the outline. Here is my motivation. In the 1980s I heard a talk by Francis Crick, who had decided to tackle human consciousness as a topic for research. But he recognized he would not live long enough to solve that inquiry, so he limited his study to awareness in the visual system, and mentioned V1 to us. Since then I have attempted to track the scientific progress toward that goal, and your suggestion about the outline might help us all. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for creation/The American Psychological Association's Stance on Repressed Memories. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 08:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I believe the "Coordinated Universal Time" article is ready for you to continue your GA review. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I'll go with what you prefer. For the record, I think the article is a huge achivement, but I only stared to read it today, am about 1/3s the way through but impressed so far. Best. Ceoil (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Yikes! Thanks for this. Can't imagine how I didn't notice my goof! Best, – OhioStandard (talk) 09:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Marasiḿat! Marasiḿatta sḩo larada, sḩo böttǜ laradainǜ, mak Halafḩasimatta mölökodǜ laradainǜ. Zölottafḩi maraida sḩo malüttmalütta haḿaźalú Tatamasama Poroźekka Ḩwýkkipidiyainü. Somoralara sḩo marupta, aksattamalara samado. Fḩaemaz taye mattamatta mofḩotte. Hafkafe hafkafeyadü mayadü. Holofḩźaye moromatar möraḿatöla mazeyar sobagalaka, yoğamdaligǜ yoğamazar hasbadafe sḩo-naik? Inýğiliźiz ka nafta maruksiḿat, em kala tatlaiku Maźittakǘz. Marasiḿat! Goluksopad (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Fair point, I just didn't get any of that from the picture or the caption. Might be worth digging through the Commons for a picture of a human actually interacting with a dog, if you want to add it back with a clearer caption. --McGeddon (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The article Consciousness you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Consciousness for things which need to be addressed. Monty845 23:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
You might check out these surface reconstructions on Marty Sereno's website: http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~sereno/
If you e-mail him, he may grant use for wikipedia, as he is very pro-sharing (see, e.g., the software for neuroimaing he develeped, FreeSurfer).
Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
I need 200 participants, for an online survey, by next week (I got in this mess because the IRB was overwhelmed and couldn't approve my proposal until last week, despite the fact that I had it in to them by JULY!) Anyway, I'm getting a bit desperate now, so I asked on my talk page if it was ok to post my call for participants on my user page. The person who responded said it was ok and suggested that I post on related project pages. So I wanted to check and see if there was a place where it was appropriate to post such things, since I'm sure other people on here have had similar requests.
(My project, while not inherently a neuroscience project, in it's methodology, relates to models that have been applied to neuroscience research and addresses them from a neuroscience perspective.)
Thank you! --Xttina.Garnet (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm rather desperate, so I'll try it anyway. Thank you! --Xttina.Garnet (talk) 23:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I saw on VPT that you wrote some of the code for GIMP. I hope you don't mind a newbie question from a new and not at all high-powered GIMP user. I am finding my way around it slowly and can already do more or less all of what I want. The only problem I have is with printing: I spent some time looking on the menus for "Print preview", and eventually found the "Image settings" tab of the "Print screen". The "Size" boxes there work fine, but although the "Position" boxes produce the right effect on the preview image, they have no effect on what is actually printed, which always comes out at top left. Is this a known problem, or is there some subtlety that I have not grasped? (GIMP 2.6.11, Windows 7 Home Premium SP1, HP Deskjet 930C) Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I feel your comment on Anatomists90's talk page shows signs of attempt of trying to gain ownership of articles, which is not permitted on wikipedia. Even if an article is a featured aricle, everyone has the right to contribute to the article. And unless there is a consensus that his images shouldn't be included in the articles you have no right of prohibit him to contribute there. →AzaToth 21:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey Looie. Brandon Harris, Howie Fung, Fabrice Florin and I will be holding a second Office Hours session on IRC in #wikimedia-office on Thursday, 3 November at 24:00 UTC. This unusually late time is aimed at permitting East Coast editors, who would normally be at work, to attend. We will be discussing the new Article Feedback Tool designs; if you have any questions about it, feel free to leave me a message on my talkpage. I hope to see you there; thank you for your participation in the discussion so far :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Please add or suggest some topics that I added to self-reference#cognition as you appear to be highly knowledgeable in the topic. Thanks. ~AH1 (discuss!) 18:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
as above. hehehe. If you and Fifelfoo can have a go at history, the stage is quiet now so I think this is coming together nicely. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Just trying to notify people:
PowerPoint: Wikipedia's poor treatment of its most important articles
Hope Garrondo is well and getting some fresh air and workouts!69.255.27.249 (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I saw a study of yours about FAs and vital articles, so I think you might be interested in this. Regards --Sp33dyphil © • © 04:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Looie496, I just learned something clear about the brain from an AI book! P.565 of Russell and Norvig (1995) Artificial Intelligence ISBN 0-13-103805-2: Broca's area is the third convolution, counted from the left front (i.e., the "dominant inferior frontal convolution" p.1055 of Fauci, et.al, eds. 1998 Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, 14th Edition, Companion Handbook ISBN 0-07-021530-8) of the cortex. Nolte (2002) The Human Brain ISBN 0-323-01320-1 , photos on p526 & p.546 confirm the location of the inferior frontal gyrus as the third convolution.
In other words, the current top image for Broca's area, is best replaced. I nominate its replacement with File:Gehirn, lateral - Hauptgyri beschriftet.svg , caption to say "Broca's area, labelled 'Gyrus Frontalis Inferior', above . ". This also confirms that the 2nd from the top image of the Inferior frontal gyrus article, File:Gray726.png is currently the more accurate image, when it comes to depicting a frontal cortex. Currently, the location of the label on the top image is OK, but the depiction of the underlying gyrus is not. I will convey this information to the talk page of Inferior frontal gyrus, using the medical citations only, urging the replacement of the top image with File:Gehirn, lateral - Hauptgyri beschriftet.svg . --Ancheta Wis (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I have copyedited Inferior frontal gyrus with the alternative top image, which includes the label Gyrus Frontalis Inferior. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 09:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Looie, You had volunteered to be a resource for our class editing project. Here's a question: what's the protocol for removing the stub category heading from a webpage? Is it something the linking organization (APS, SFN) does? This is for future reference; I don't think we're there yet. ProfRox (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi -- I thought I'd move the conversation here as it was drifting off topic for WT:FAC, though perhaps it can go back if we make any progress on the point. The phrase you used there rings true to me: that "the only way to write well on a broad topic is to start with a draft based on your knowledge, and then consult sources to fact-check and refine the draft: trying to write directly from sources is a recipe for incoherence". Is this what you did for brain, and did that lead to problems? I'd like to get some specific examples. I do think that it might be possible to divide the editing labour to resolve this, but I'd rather look at real issues that arose for you than waste your time by theorizing.
A separate comment: for the narrow topics which I typically work on, I have found that it works well to have a general outline of the article in mind -- a structure, at a minimum, and preferably a good sense of the narrative that will be followed -- and then work very directly from the sources to paint in the information step by step. I suspect the problem with trying to replicate this with a broad topic is that it would not be possible to work from the sources in this direct way for the broad overview commentary that would form the skeleton of the narrative. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey, all! A quick update on how version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool is developing. I'm sending this to both newsletter recipients and regular participants, because I appreciate we've been a bit quiet :).
So, we're just wrapping up the first round of user contributions. A big thank you to everyone who has contributed ideas (a full list of which can be found at the top of the page); thanks almost entirely to contributions by editors, the tool looks totally different to how it did two months ago when we were starting out. Big ideas that have made it in include a comment voting system, courtesy of User:Bensin, an idea for a more available way of deploying the feedback box, suggested by User:Utar, and the eventual integration of both oversight and the existing spam filtering tools into the new version, courtesy of..well, everyone, really :).
For now, the devs are building the first prototypes, and all the features specifications have been finalised. That doesn't mean you can't help out, however; we'll have a big pile of shiny prototypes to play around with quite soon. If you're interested in testing those, we'll be unveiling it all at this week's office hours session, which will be held on Friday 2 December at 19:00 UTC. If you can't make it, just sign up here. After that, we have a glorious round of testing to undertake; we'll be finding out what form works the best, what wording works the best, and pretty much everything else under the sun. As part of that, we need editors - people who know just what to look for - to review some sample reader comments, and make calls on which ones are useful, which ones are spam, so on and so forth. If that's something you'd be interested in doing, drop an email to okeyes@wikimedia.org.
Thanks to everyone for their contributions so far. We're making good headway, and moving forward pretty quickly :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I am currently working on the Vestibulospinal tract article for a neuroscience class at Boston College, User:NeuroJoe/BI481 Fall 2011. We were wondering if you had time and were willing, if you could take a look at the article and give us feedback. We look forward to hearing your comments. Thanks --Lorenzes (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Looie. Saw you dropped the capital F in Dendritic Filopodia. Wasn't sure how to do that. Thanks so Much! Clemsonwhale (talk) 25:54, 11 December 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.255.226 (talk)
I'm writing an op ed for the Signpost and would like to use this post of yours to illustrate a point I want to make about subject matter experts who may be asked for citations on material that is, to the SME, too obvious to need citing. Is that OK with you? I'd quote it as "For topics with a large literature, where most of the statements synthesize dozens if not hundreds of sources ... it is simply futile to demand that readers with no subject matter knowledge be able to verify articles on large topics -- only an expert reviewer can properly do it. I seek [...] an acknowledgement that referencing requirements should be tuned to the breadth of a topic -- the larger a topic, the lesser the need for detailed page-referencing of every line, and the greater the need for reviewers with enough expertise to have a good sense of whether an article is accurate and comprehensive without having to consult sources regarding every line." and I'd link to that diff. Let me know if that would be OK with you. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey Looie496/Archive 3; another Article Feedback Tool office hours session! This is going to be immediately after we start trialing the software publicly, so it's a pretty important one. If any of you want to attend, it will be held in #wikimedia-office on Friday 16th December at 19:00 UTC. As always, if you can't attend, drop me a line and I'm happy to link you to the logs when we're done. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Happy new year! | |
we wish you a merry christmas and a happy new year! Pass a Method talk 20:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC) |
My main question was about any proposition. The other two sub-questions (you had deleted) are about a consistent proposition and about an incosistent proposition. Note that those sub-questions had appeared (as they appear now) as sub-chapters of the main chapter dealing with my main question mentioned above. 77.127.87.159 (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys! Another month, another newsletter.
First off - the first bits of AFT5 are now deployed. As of early last week, the various different designs are deployed on 0.1 percent of articles, for a certain "bucket" of randomly-assigned readers. With the data flooding in from these, we were able to generate a big pool of comments for editors to categorise as "useful" or "not useful". This information will be used to work out which form is the "best" form, producing the most useful feedback and the least junk. Hopefully we'll have the data for you by the end of the week; I can't thank the editors who volunteered to hand-code enough; we wouldn't be where we are now without you.
All this useful information means we can move on to finalising the tool, and so we're holding an extra-important office hours session on Friday, 6th January at 19:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. If you can't make it, drop me a note and I'll be happy to provide logs so you can see what went on - if you can make it, but will turn up late, bear in mind that I'll be hanging around until 23:00 UTC to deal with latecomers :).
Things we'll be discussing include:
If you can't make it to the session, all this stuff will be displayed on the talkpage soon after, so no worries ;). Hope to see you all there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I am not a scientist but reading about this technology led me to try and find a layman summery on WP and when it didn't exist I did the best I could to create one. I think "through the use of" is pretty ambiguous like "incepted" in the article, possibly badly interpreted by me. The article does not state how exactly signals were sent through the visual cortex beside fMRI - most likely keeping keeping profitable tech under wraps? I'd could guess at patterns of flashes of light through a monitor or computer screen, or even just keeping eyes open while inside the the fMRI and the light flashes in there. Perhaps you could contact someone involved with your credentials and find out as I am very interested in this. Thankyou. Abacusbox (talk) 06:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, have you read Wikipedia:NPOVD#What_is_an_NPOV_dispute.3F? Please do not remove pov tags until the dispute (wich is still active on the talkpage and has been going on for almost half a year) has been resolved.ViezeRick (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey guys! A couple of highly important things to do over the next few weeks:
Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help in designing the new article feedback tools, so we can provide a better user experience and engage more readers to become editors over time!
Even though I am a newbie on Wikipedia, I have learned a lot from you already, and look forward to a great collaboration with you in 2012! Fabrice Florin (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC) |
Hey guys; apologies for the belated nature of this notification; as you can probably imagine, the whole blackout thing kinda messed with our timetables :P. Just a quick reminder that we've got an office hours session tomorrow at 19:00 in #wikimedia-office, where we'll be discussing the results of the hand-coding and previewing some new changes. Hope to see you there :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
There was a note saying this on my German Wikipedia talk page, which was deleted, possibly to hide this fact. Or because he simply didn't like the idea of Germans and Russians interbreeding.
Another notification, guys; Article Feedback Tool office hours on Friday at 19:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office :). If you can't attend, drop me a note and I'll send you the logs when we're done. We're also thinking of moving it to thursday at a later time: say, 22:00 UTC. Speak up if that'd appeal more :) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Eyo Mapuzhmayo, Mapuzhmayo, Eyo Mapuzhmayo, Mapuzhmayo, Nndonkaido che do tsettewayo, Eyo Mapuzhmayo, Mapuzhmayo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RubleTuesday (talk • contribs) 07:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Looie496. Would you care to delete it again, while the discussion takes place, as I don't wish to breach WP:3RR? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Someone has added a new section "Conjecture" to this article. I wonder if it should be deleted. Will you take a look. Thanks, Hordaland (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I honestly hit the button by mistake. Kiko4564 (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your help at the reference desk.
I am simply curious, what have you contributed to the world's pool of knowledge? LaRouxEMP (talk) 05:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
You make such baseless assumptions. Up until this point, I have taken care to be as respectful as possible. Do you wish to engage in verbal jousting, my good sir? LaRouxEMP (talk) 06:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Logician vs Neuroscientist LaRouxEMP (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thanks! AwahiliGuni (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC) |
AwahiliGuni (talk) 02:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Looie. I've started using Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Recent_changes to patrol recent changes to medicine pages. Is there an equivalent service for neuroscience pages? I've found http://toolserver.org/~tim1357/cgi-bin/wikiproject_watchlist.py?template=WikiProject+Neuroscience but it seems to be behind the action a bit (currently the most recent change listed is 19 March). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Our Westminster/Covent Garden anon ip editor should beware:
"The long-term effects are not known, but two years ago a former major in the Russian foreign intelligence agency, the GRU, died in Scotland after making claims about such a weapons programme to MI6. Sergei Serykh, 43, claimed he was a victim of weapons which he said were many times more powerful than in the Matrix films. Mr Serykh died after falling from a Glasgow tower block with his wife and stepson in March 2010. While his death was assumed to be suicide, his family fear there was foul play."
That sounds even worse than a wikipedia topic ban! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
If you would like to discuss your concerns come to the following page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brain%E2%80%93computer_interface#Daily_Mail_Article_-_Effects_of_low_frequency_radio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.46.108 (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I thought you might want to know about some upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, extending functionality with JavaScript, the future of ResourceLoader and Gadgets, the new Lua templating system, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.
Check out the the Berlin hackathon in June, the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC, and our other events.
You can register now for the Berlin event and if you need financial help or visa help, just mention that in the registration form.
Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 13:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Looie496. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
Hello Looie496. You are one of the admins who has blocked User:Rinpoche. See WP:ANI#Proposed community ban for Rinpoche in case you want to comment. EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. Apologies for the incorrect RV edit - in my rush before logging off I reverted back to the last "full figure" and didn;t even see yur edit. Again, apologies - hope you're not too offended. Regards Denisarona (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For your incredible efforts in keeping Wikipedias medical content of high quality. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC) |
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
For being a doctor. What an excellent idea. I would have never thought of that. Legolover26 (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC) |
The Original Barnstar | |
Thank you for your help. Geodesic was the best answer to my question. Pstreeter (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC) |
Have a great day today. I know I shall, it's been a gas :).
Nice town. 81.17.18.209 (talk) 04:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry but, the edits of the "new editor" seemed to me a trolling. A new user who has made no edits before, makes big changes in a long article in no time, and in the process deletes a large part of the original text. Accompanied by another anonymous "new user" who also has not made any edits before. This looks like trolling to me. The changes to the article must be thought through, not that whatever written by whomever who comes in must be accepted.
I'm working with it right now, why don't you trust me? I have edited this article for many years so i think i deserve a bit of trust. Why the "new user" who made edits didn't contact me or wrote on the talk page of the article, but complained instead to you, so that you would take action before i even had a time to do anything about it or find the way to add his edits? I don't see that the way this user behaves was reasonable. Again, i'm working now on solving the problem, please give me a time. Thank you.Tkorrovi (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi guys, this is possibly a little awkward as I could have never predicted the number of replies these edits would get. I can explain the new user issue - I signed out unknowingly because I was unfamiliar with wikipedia systems, and made a significant edit without being logged in, and then logged back in to check to see what had happened. This evidently caused a lot of frustration and confusion and I am looking forward to a partial differential series of injurious remarks that this is sure to cause.
I would like to reiterate the fact that I did not delete any of the original content - if rearranging it was confusing, I'm sorry. I'm a computer programmer. I like to do things the "wrong way" and this hurts feelings sometimes. This of course does not make me right or wrong, just different.
I contributed to this article because I have extensively studied the related AI disciplines and understand the programming environments entailed in the modeling of neural systems; I have an educated ability to research these issues and present my findings under this kind of 'peer review'.
I'm sure you're all quite brilliant and interesting people, and if you'd ever like to get in contact, I'm here to chat.
Best all.LoganRayBier(talk)
Thanks for taking the time to answer my question at the reference Desk. The input I got from those responses has been really valuable! All the best,
— Jess· Δ♥ 04:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Looie. I just wanted to give you a heads up that I deleted a comment of yours on the Miscellaneous desk just now. I know you had the very best of intentions, but I didn't feel it appropriate just there, so I removed it. Like I said on the Ref Desk talk page, it might seem a bit sensitive of me, but I get involved in Child Protection as part of my job, and part of our training is never to tell someone that they're making things up, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. They should be referred to the proper authorities who are set up to handle just such an issue. So, sorry, but I just couldn't leave it there. Like I say, no hard feelings though. All the best, Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Can you, please, create a redirect of the page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sunny Singh, IX 'D' of DAV Sasaram? This title is very long, people often commit mistake while typing such a long title. I, only, request you to create a redirect (short which can typed easily) of mentioned page. Thanks for help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnysinghthebaba (talk • contribs) 16:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I had to remove a comment that you had made when answering a question on Reference Desk/Miscellaneous. It is presumptuous to determine whether a question is a "disguised rant". Generally the proper etiquette is to assume good faith on the part of the person making the query, even for questions that may sound absurd on their face. As you saw, several answers were made to that particular question which served better than suggesting that the inquirer is "ranting".--WaltCip (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
From "Talk:Cannibis (drug)". Wernicke-Korsakoff. Not likely we can be of use to each other, but what are the odds? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.36.25.10 (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if you correspond here on Wikipedia-unrelated topics, but I couldn't have ignored that you described yourself as no stranger to theta waves, and I could definitely make use of your judgement and feedback as a professional in this field. Namely, the thing is that for well over a year I have maintained interest in claims that binaural beats are useful for synchronization of brain rhythms to a given frequency, and considered applying a daily audition of theta or alpha-theta binaural beats for at least half an hour as an attempt to achieve those theorized improvements in learning speed and reductions in durational necessity for sleep. However, quite obviously, I'm simply afraid that if I actually began using this regimen on a regular basis, I would wind up discovering that I had dedicated my finite time in vain, especially if I would have done so without awareness of the latest news on the matter. Most importantly, I'd like to hear if you would adopt this regimen yourself or recommend it to anyone. The extent to which binaural beats entrain or affect neural oscillation, as well as the extent to which it's recognized among neuroscientists, is unclear to me. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 08:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I redacted your repeated of part of μηδείς's recount of an episode of a TV series featuring the case of Margaret Crotty. As you mentioned, there is no evidence for the claim of what happened to Margaret Crotty appearing anywhere else which would seem surprising if it had appeared in any popular source, like a TV show. So in the absence of evidence the claims actually appeared in the TV show, I don't think these claims should appear anywhere on wikipedia for WP:BLP reasons. (As you mentioned, there is a risk of rumours starting from here.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 19:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
On 6 September 2012, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article ENCODE, which you recently nominated and substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page. |
T. Canens (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Looie,
I'm on Scholarpedia, if you and other scientists would like to write more scientific oriented articles, I am an assistant editor who can help out: [4], so when you start an article, leave me a message to recruit me on your projects. :D -- RexRowan Talk 16:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm having trouble trying to start a WP:ARBCOM regarding CBS Records. Can you help out? Thanks. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I see the talk at the noticeboard was closed - were would I got to find some admins with balls to get involved?Moxy (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to bring your attention to a new learning project in Wikiversity. As you have been involved with the discussion on the wikipedia Parkinson's disease page I felt you might be interested in looking at the project and perhaps even contributing material to it. Please see my Talk page, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Droflet#The_Science_Behind_Parkinson.27s_learning_project , the subpage, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Droflet/ProjectDescription or the project itself , http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Portal:The_Science_Behind_Parkinson%27s . It would be great if you could bring the project to the attention of others who might be interested in helping us develop it. Thanks.
Jtelford (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC) (My Wikiversity Username is Droflet)
Hey there. Thanks for taking on Talk:Bipolar disorder/GA1! I was just wondering where you think things stand. I hope the review is still in progress, since it's such an important article. I was thinking about posting at WT:MED about it being up for a GA again, but I thought I'd check in with you first. Best. You can reply here, I'll watch. Thanks again. Biosthmors (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
The Reference Desk Barnstar | ||
Thank you for your help with my C problems! 169.231.8.73 (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC) |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
Award for talking about things you dont have a clue about, In a WIKI page! Rmraihan (talk) 05:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC) |
That's an interesting idea...would you envision the committee of being made up entirely of administrators, or of a mixture between admins and non-admins? How often would elections to the committee be held? I think the idea is definitely worth looking into. Go Phightins! 21:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello again, I went on the talk insomnia page however my did not come out like the other reviewers on there, what is it that am doing wrong if i may ask? ilsetap08Ilsetap08 (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, in the past I appreciated your contributions to the Wikipedia Reference Check. Could you leave your impressions or thoughts here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#3d_tracking_tic-tacs
You can also reply here but I might forget to check this page. Thanks! --91.120.48.242 (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Looie, perhaps you can help this person [5] [6] refocus her efforts. It seems awful to stand by while her energy is so completely wasted, yet I don't know how to explain how wrong this all is without being completely discouraging, largely because I have little idea what should be in this article -- I just know that what she's doing isn't it. Can you give a try? EEng (talk) 04:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! Lova Falk talk 09:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I qonder if you actualy read the reference link I provided? Different culture define taste differently. Is black a color or lack of color. If tasteless a taste or lack of taste? Do not confuse personal opinion with fact. I provide link verification. Wikipedia is about verification, not personal opinions. Go and read back the reference. Btw flavour is perisa in Malay. Yosri (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that there have been responses to your review of this article, and the author of the article is awaiting your comments. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
It's red and obvious and I linked to its deletion discussion at: User:Biosthmors/Intro Neuro. So feel free. Biosthmors (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
here ParkSehJik (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Be aware that the same user added similar material to the forensic psychiatry article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Please stop removing POV tags. ParkSehJik (talk) 04:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Looie496. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanz talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
My introduction to you, and to Wikipedia editors, was your starting a discussion of me alleging "'tendentious editor with a strongly anti-psychiatry point of view causing trouble", an assertion that is false and not in compliance with AGF. Your comment made no sense, since all I did was parrot the prevailing view among psychiatrists as to the reasons for the delays in DSM V. The story about the anti-science, bad science, and unscientific elements of psychiatry made "Top 100 Science Stories of 2012" in Discover Magazine, but those of us working in the field have long been aware of the problems, and resulting abuses.
User:AnthonyCole wrote on my talk page, as an explanation of what appeared to be un-thuoghtout reverts of what appeared to me to be well sourced edits, which would in no way be controversial in the field itself. He wrote "We've had a long-term problem here with people harrying the psychiatry pages out of personal grievance or religious (Scientology) zeal. No one here appreciates new editors making many significant controversial changes to many articles in a short time, because it takes time to check and discuss controversial changes". I was unaware of this problem. In this context, a series of rapid edits by me, filled with content from difficult to assess academic sources that would be impossible to verify by reading, at the pace at which I was editing, would not be appropriate.
So you thought I was an antipsychiatry nutcase, and I thought you and others were picking a fight for no reason whatsoever, about edits that would not be controversial in any room filled with psychiatrists. Perhaps we should both act on WP:AGF, not just read and re-read it. ParkSehJik (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
My personal theory is that it is a group of students, who all read this Schacter book, and their assignment is to use this book for making additions to articles in Wikipedia.... Lova Falk talk 09:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I left without saying anything due to personal reasons and also a lot of burnt out sensation. Right now I am not really sure if I will stay for long or this will be only temporal until I fix a bit the multiple ssclerosis article. Nevertheless to hear from 3 people that still remember me has been a great experience of coming back. I am sure many things will have changed here in wikipedia and the med-project in all this time. I will try to catch up and ask for help if needed... --Garrondo (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
(Let me know if you don't get the ref -- think Hits of the 70s. Anyway...)
I'm not sure how much I'll be around tmw (Wed), so can you keep an eye on [9]? This guy's on quite a tear. In fact, you might do better to watch Special:Contributions/87.67.21.139 directly, since in the last 24 hours he's been going through my contributions and reverting randomly. I haven't had time to look at whatever he did to Lobotomy, Persistent vegetative state and Physical punishment so if you want to take a whack at that go ahead, unless of course you're afraid of getting banned [10].
EEng (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC) P.S. Great about Garrondo, huh? I had these terrible thoughts he'd been hit by a car or something. He seems kinda troubled though, so let's help him not overdo it at first.
P.P.S. He's back at Phineas Gage again. I'll take care of it for now, but it's UTC-2 here and I'll need to get to bed soon. EEng (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
No doubt I'll get tsk-tsked for this [11]. EEng (talk) 13:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
To clarify the usage of physical determinism, I have posted a request for comment. Perhaps you would like to comment? Brews ohare (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
So where do you think psychopathy, and other disorders that may lead to destructive behavior ("evil"), resides in the brain? Do you think it will be possible to scan individuals and conclude whether they are, or will be, psychopaths? Oh, and since your focus is on memory, do you have any tips for improving memory? I play on lumosity and my memory BPI there is 1150 (problem solving is 1414, speed 14139. Are you familiar with the site? Do you think that in the future, we will be able to join chips in our brain and enhance our memory? I read an article on BBC not long ago about this issue, and the subject was also covered by Dawkins in The Selfish Gene. As you can see, I have an interest in neurology, evolutionary- biology and psychology. I'm just a layman, though. Btw, if you're a scientist, I'm hoping you're cool and not one of those asshole admins. I'm a member at the Dawkins Foundation. --Cei Trei (talk) 06:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
All rightey-then. I trust you understood my motivations via the sometimes cryptic edit summaries. I began to feel as though I were riding a mastodon into Hell but just couldn't hop off until I'd reached the very end of the article. I always approach technical writings with lay readers in mind because this is, after all, Wikipedia rather than Forensics Quarterly or whatever. But I'm glad you liked my work. Cheers.I am LORD Garth !! (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I thought that you deserved something a bit extra for all of the amazing work you've done for the project.
I've nominated you for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation! |
Lova Falk talk 09:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Thirteenth century clothing. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
You diedn't sign your last comment at the ref desk, ...assuming you'd rather sign it yourself. μηδείς (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Looie496 I have another question about wikidoc. How could you know if any of there information is correct. I know on wikipedia sometimes people put down false information. and it sits there for years. Is wikidoc different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.18.223 (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
FYI [12] EEng (talk) 07:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I don't understand the basis for this revert. There have been a lot of junk edits recently apparently as part of some classroom project, but that edit actually strikes me as valid and well-sourced. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Do you have any idea how Phineas Gage got these, er, spikes [15]? When the first showed up a while ago I figured... Some news coverage? A much-read blog? But now there's another. I'd appreciate any ideas you might have. EEng (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Dude- do you know anything about cosmology? Are you for truth? Read the Krauss quote (~2006) in the article:
Lawrence Krauss is quoted as follows in the referenced Edge.org article:[18]
But when you look at [the cosmic microwave background] map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.
The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect, or maybe it's telling us there's something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there's something wrong with our theories on the larger scales. And of course as a theorist I'm certainly hoping it's the latter, because I want theory to be wrong, not right, because if it's wrong there's still work left for the rest of us.
WMAP and COBE presented this data, and everyone went, wow, this must be an anomaly, but hey, Planck (with its far superior sensor technology and improved scanning pattern) will clear this up. Well a couple of weeks ago, Planck reported back. It is not an anomaly. See the article. See the talk page. Do not support using Wikipedia to cover up truth and maintain budgets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyattmj (talk • contribs) 19:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I am sure you have it on your watchlist, but I just posted this in the striatum article:
I have found an important copyright problem in striatum. It has been there for almost two years. On March 2011 User talk:FrozenMan [4000k ] of text (the biggest addition up to date). In May 2012 some copyright problems were found as seen in his talk page. I do not know if they were solved. I have found further problems since lots of text have been copied from "The Role of the Dorsal Striatum in Reward and Decision-Making--Bernard W. Balleine, Mauricio R. Delgado, Okihide Hikosaka". This probably indicates the full contribution by the user is tainted. Since the copyright problems have been here for so long not sure on how to act.
--Garrondo (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
You wrote that is convergent because of a certain unspecified connection with the fact that infinite tetration is itself convergent in between and [16]. I was just wondering what that connection might be exactly. — 79.113.234.168 (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
OK. One more question: We know that : Can this value be expressed as an exact formula of transcendental constants ? (Like Pi or e, or specific values of the gamma or zeta functions, etc) — 79.113.234.168 (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_patents_reliable_sources.3F
"As a result, patents and patent applications are considered both self-published and primary sources for the Wikipedia's purposes. They are reliable for simple, descriptive statements about their existence (e.g., "A patent was issued on to Alice Expert on May 2010...") and attributed statements about their contents (e.g., "According to US patent #6,368,227, issued to five-year-old Steven Olson in 2002, he invented swinging sideways because swinging back and forth might get boring.")" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sedind (talk • contribs) 18:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
--Sedind (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
Will do my very best to reliably source any biblical plagues that may arise. :) Moses Thebed (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC) |
Please feel free always to move discussions out of my talk page and into article's talk pages! Kind regards, Lova Falk talk 05:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
thanks for answering my note at that page. feel free to add any further comment. would be interested to hear your feedback. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
hi. i have opened a request at the arbcomm page related to your recent note. it is located at this page: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification request: WP:ARBPIA.2FJerusalem. feel free to comment there if you wish. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
i personally thank you for your RD\Science answer ! Ben-Natan (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
hello, I am not new to Wikipedia as far as "using it for school projects" is concerned.. Having said that, I am trying to figure out a few things to make contributions in a user friendly way including the part about references as you mentioned. AS far as the title is concerned, though its original writings were from yogi Ramacharaka, the title itself is written by a famous "attorney, merchant, publisher, and author", William Walker Atkinson who also wrote many other books regarding psychology and sociology. Many of the concepts from these books were later proven as facts by modern psychologists. Now this is the key word...facts because whatever I have quoted from the book are mere facts not opinion. Also, some of the information borrowed from the book were quotes from another book also on psychology and the processes of the mind! Perhaps, you should read CHAPTER 13 of the book which is in the public domain...before you deleted my input. I only put information on Wikipedia that would prove useful for students and likewise...thank you for reading though...perhaps you would consider reading from the link I give in the references before making any future edits. Regards, Tekksavvy (talk) 07:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
lol, nope. hmmm. Arbcomm does not wish to intervene in the process, I suppose. I wonder if there is any threshold at which point they would actually say that the process has actually taken longer than it was supposed to take. hard to say if they would be willing to say so, at any point.
well, anyway, feel free to comment if you wish. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
How dare you! ...before I did? μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank for your comments on my application, but I wanted to ask you a question. I don't see any problem with my application, so could you please explain a little more? Mukhtar Mohamed 17:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)Hanad Mukhtar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanad Mukhtar (talk • contribs)
8. How would you make sure your students were not violating copyright laws?
9. If one of your students had an issue with copyright violation how would you resolve it?
10. In your _own_ words describe what copyright violation is.
However those are not very serious problems -- you can learn the correct methods in an hour. The serious problem is that you don't yet have enough experience editing articles. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Looie, I don't have time to do the actual 3RR report but I've issued a final warning for edit warring to Mandragua. Feel free to make use if it if the need should arise. Zad68
20:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Zad68
20:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Hey man, I totally agree with your decision to undo my edits. This is one of my first attempts at making a wikipedia edit, so I still have a lot to learn. I totally agree that ray kurzweil's statements were highly speculative; however, as director of engineering at google, he has an extraordinary ability to alter the fate of technological progress, and his track-record for projecting the future has been extremely remarkable. Therefore, I believe his perspective of the neocortex is very worthy of being shared to the users of wikipedia; if not at the top of this neocortex page, do you think it deserves to be shared within its own section at the bottom, wherein I describe his theory of the neocortex as being considered very debatable/speculative? Also, I'm curious to know what source errors I made. Please let me know. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwratner1 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
DiptanshuTalk 06:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I would also like to add that most people from medical school find the tracts of the spinal cord quite confusing and for a lay person there should be nothing to say. Since there are a huge number of tracts, some sensory while others motor, since the somatic, sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems have their own characteristics, Wikiproject Neuroscience or the individual spinal tracts indeed need attention. Seeking your assistance in this regard. DiptanshuTalk 06:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I went through the articles Spinal cord and Hereditary spastic paraplegia and felt that the articles need improvement. I have briefly discussed some issues on the respective talk pages for the articles. Since you are a neuroscientist, probably you would be in a better position to improve upon the articles. DiptanshuTalk 06:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
the soil under the treeline around the trunk is indeed moist but i live in an area of california that is arid this time of the year, should i form mud or just have it be a little moist?Harmonywriter (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members).
So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC) |
Having make ten or more edits to the article on Phineas Gage, or commented on its Talk in the last two years, perhaps you will be interested in the Good Article Review currently underway. I am particularly interested in gathering broader opinion on the following comment by the reviewer: "Many sentences are much too long for easy reading and to my mind overuse complicated constructions ... I will very strongly recommend a copy edit with ease of reading in mind, breaking up complex sentences and disentwining some of the flowery language." EEng (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, article Neural accommodation or neronal accommodation should be changed to nerve accommodation and keeping the others terms as aliases. I am not sure if I could or allowed to do it in the system. --Robag.Odnaj (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wernicke–Korsakoff syndrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cortex (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Do you have any Idea about this edit[17]? Regards,KhabarNegar Talk 04:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Looie496 - Just for your information, regarding the dopamine/hypertension review: Happening to read the thread on Doc James's page I just used my familiarity with PubMed to identify what seems to me to be a reasonably reliable medical source (others by the same author, Jose, include PMID:10386248 (1999), PMID:17492945 (2007); and by a different group PMID:11270582 (2001)). Nothing else. I don't know anything about the question and certainly don't intend to get involved. Regards, 81.157.7.7 (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Your nomination was a duplicate, I closed it, see the original here to express your opinion. μηδείς (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Looie,
I've come to say I believe I made a mistake in initiating the recall process against you. I think we all jumped the gun, and I wanted to offer my apologies. Dusti*poke* 05:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
On 1 July 2013, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Evolution of the horse, which you substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. |
--SpencerT♦C 00:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
For your outstanding work with Dopamine, amongst many other things. Lova Falk talk 09:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC) |
Hi Looie, I see you made a recent adjustment to the vestibulospinal tract article's quality rating. I was wondering if you could give some feedback on the article. I have some time on my hands now and can probably edit the article. Thanks. Lorenzes (talk) 06:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2013 July 6#Convergence and Closed Form Expression. — 79.113.213.214 (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
EagerToddler39 (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
EagerToddler39 (talk) 03:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tryptofish#Society_for_Brain_Mapping_and_Therapeutics Rick (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Looie. Most reputable players won't be attached to some titular style "awards factory", expensive for-profit conference producer, or bogus "Whos Who in ..." directory type of operation, so looks like this one is clear. Rick (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
BABAK KATEB Per Linkedin http://www.linkedin.com/pub/babak-kateb/6/58A/A21
Not sure this "charity" would be on the top of the list at Pew Memorial Trust to write out a hefty check to? Rick (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Many times "supplements" are really just paid advertising inserts, disguised to look like actual editorial. However I do see he's listed as an author on some papers which are subsequently cited. (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Babak+Kateb&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C33&as_sdtp=). Rick (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Tryptofish - thanks for the advice. In truth I don't feel that strongly about it. The lack of a 2012 tax return, the fact that the tax return entity name does not match the d/b/a name(s)/ website names, and the micro level of funding give me some personal pause if its indeed a "going concern" but I'm O.K. with just letting this one go. Rick (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey I just got your comment. I think I know what I am talking about.--User:guptakhy
The Million Award | ||
For your contributions to bring Consciousness (estimated annual readership: 1,131,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC) |
The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:
This editor won the Million Award for bringing Consciousness to Good Article status. |
If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Still really choppy with lots of unconnected paragraphs and a few citations still needed. Try copy editing it some to combine the paragraphs better. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi.That edit must have been a mistake because when I was reverting vandalism I got a edit conflict and I must have reverted the article to the vandalised version. Thank you for not jumping to the immediate conclusion that I'm a vandal. I wold never dream of vandalizing Wikipedia.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I had no idea. I had been very busy, but I had just started editing a couple of articles again and to finish the day, I read the village pump, the signpost. Oh interesting, “Psychology on Wikipedia”… and I was totally unsuspecting of what I was about to read.
Thank you so much for your kind words! I am still quite shocked and very happy. Thank you! Lova Falk talk 17:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Thanks for being a positive influence on the ref desks, I appreciate your contributions over the past few years, and your general abstention from the quibbling that traps so many of us! SemanticMantis (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC) |
On 27 September 2013, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Typhoon Usagi (2013), which you recently nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. |
--SpencerT♦C 16:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Could you please check my recent edit there? Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
It's on page Jimbo Wales. that's not right. I had a hard time writing it and now I have to start over. You could hide other paragraphs bigger than mine. The catalan seize of Wikipedia (like, in example, the systematic BAN of Spanish Flag due to hatred secessionism) Please don't write things OVER my messages, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.9.217.223 (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear!
Recently I apply for Campus Ambassador Program. Please suggest and discusshere on my proposal. For being support and promote wikipedia and wiki culture at my country and my university, you're comments will be helpful.
Thank You--Aashaa (talk) 04:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Is the edit I provided on the evolution of life page worthy of keeping if I can find a better source, I apologize I am new, but would like to contribute to this article. RandomEditPro (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Directed energy weapons, and the Talk page". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 23:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
In light of your comment, is there no formal prohibition on admins blocking people whom they themselves have just criticized? I.e., if AB wanted B blocked, should he not, by policy, have had someone else do it? Or is this left up to good manners? It's like a court judge in the US writing someone a nasty letter on his own time, then jailing the person he attacked on contempt for writing "return to sender" on the envelope. Without a voluntary reversal, some sort of formal action does seem appropriate here. μηδείς (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The arbitration request that you have been involved in has been declined. The comments that the arbitrators have made may be useful for proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 00:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for helping this new author get her page, in the end, into the right place. I got alarmed because, working at the same time as you, I was deleting a long chain of non-existent-user pages, redlink redirects etc, but ended up without ever having seen any actual text. So I was highly relieved when Neuromechanics turned blue.
Along the way, you moved it to User:Neuromechanics and out again. That is a real user account, though one that has not edited since Dec 2012, and your moves took his user talk page along. I have returned it to the proper place.
The "move" function is a source of more confusion than most; I don't know what could be done to make it clearer. Perhaps an "are you sure?" message when someone selects "Wikipedia" or "User" from the drop-down list, those being the most common errors. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I need the equation of the heat transfer coefficient of an external flow over a horizontal plate. The plate is at the bottom, and the fluid flows over the plate. I am not sure whether the equation in the article "Heat transfer coefficient" is correct. It assumes hot plate/cold plate being up/down. But I don't know what this means if there's only one plate, as the plate and fluid are attached at the bottom. SongJie@NTU (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi I noticed that you have contributed to this article before, Functional integration, one of this years student contributors is working on the article, and I was wondering if you would have a look at the changes that have been made. dolfrog (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Your participation is invited (but please don't poop out before getting to WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Scheming.2C_selfpromoting_editor_begs_leave_to_point_out_a_few_things). EEng (talk) 05:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Looie,
I am the person who supplied a cybernetics response to the Reference Desk question on what short term memory involves. You hatted it with the banner "A bunch of misinformation that appears to come from banned editor Wickwack."
Although I am NOT Wickwack, which the talk page makes clear is some person who is long detested by at least some Wikipedians, I am not particularly concerned with being hatted, as the OP can still read it and make of it what they will. They can research the topics I mentioned if they want. As far as Wickwack being detested and banned, that's his problem. It's only my problem in as much as sometimes certain folk (not normally yourself) hat or delete my posts using Wickwack as an excuse, and deletion doesn't occur very often.
However, why did you claim my response is misinformation? It's standard stuff taught in university cybernetics courses for decades. When I did cynernetics (nearly 40 years ago), we had access to just such a neural net simulation computer program. It had a simulated EEG output that reacted quite realistically to stimulus. I ported it to run on a PC, but PC's back then were CPM based, far too slow and with insufficient RAM. I see that you claim to be a neuroscientist on your User page. As such, you would be aware that the basic neural net firing sequence of rest-pattern/dense-apparently-random-pattern-upon-stimulus/rest-pattern has been known since W Grey Walter constructed and exploited an effective multichannel EEG in the 1930's, inspired by Berger. I have his book The Living Brain (1953) in my collection, which makes the sequence clear.
RJB 1.122.90.176 (talk) 02:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Echoing Looie's exasperation, but drawing analogy from a different discipline: it's like answering a question about the origin of life by saying, "When I was in grad school we replicated the Miller–Urey experiment -- as valid today as it was then!" While the simulations you describe way-back-when were no doubt thought-provoking and even useful (to a point) as models, as an EE (i.e. not a specialist in the field under discussion) you shouldn't be surprised to find that you haven't kept up with the various developments which combine to invalidate those simulations, perhaps for subtle reasons. EEng (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I replied you comments in the talk page, but it was removed by vandalism, you can see my reply in a history revision 124.168.35.0 (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Neuroscience for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Recently I've worked on Simple English versions of Hippocampus and Basal ganglia. Sometime, in your spare moments (!!) you might like to cruise over them. I'd be concerned if either said anything which was flat wrong, or omitted something which was essential. Our readership is supposed to be people whose English skills are limited, so maybe an intelligent 10-year old or an adult for whom English is a second language. I based our Hippocampus on your version (that's just in case you didn't recognise it...). Regards, Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for proposing the idea of review criteria for WikiProject Medicine articles. This is overdue for creation and once established I think it will clear confusion and save time for everyone thereafter. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC) |
I'm glad you've gone through the effort to develop a standard response for this utter silliness. Certainly saved me a lot of trouble on this occasion, and I'm not entirely sure I could have maintained an entirely tactful tone once I got on a roll on the subject. Especially with a certain Ref Desk contributor who just loves to speculate without reservation. How does this one persist? I'm not so sure that I agree that the answer is that the people who buy into it are affirmed dualists, at least not the spiritualist sense; it seems more that they don't even question (or recognize the need for an explanation regarding) where cognitive function comes from, if not the cerebrum. Anyway, this is not the forum for discussion, clearly, but I couldn't help sharing my bemusement on a topic you've clearly had to address a few times. Snow (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.
((subst:WP Physiology–invite))
~~~~((subst:WP Physiology–welcome))
~~~~Hoping for your cooperation! DiptanshuTalk 12:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
To Looie496, thank you for assessing that "paper". Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
Did you start some of the WP:FTN / SPI stuff related to this last year? Cheers, Stalwart111 04:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Bill. I'm not sure If I'm correctly going about responding to your questions that you raise on the talk page for <Cognitive Dissonance>. I thought that your comment requesting more about the history of the term and I suppose, the concept, was astute as in my experience these things do not arise from nothing. As a teacher I have had occasion to study the Socratic method. Here I came across the Greek concept of Aporia. Most of what I assert comes from <The Meno> and Socrates famous defense at his trial.
The concept of Aporia as discussed in various of Plato's Socratic Dialogues is similar to Cognitive Dissonance. It is a cognitive impasse; being confounded that what one assumed one knows turns out to be patently a false belief. This can result in denial of the evidence of and of the falsity of the belief, often in an Affective (emotional) manner, . A typical response being anger and hostility directed at the source of the dissonance; a person, group or institution, etc. Socrates' ultimate fate being an object lesson in the severity of possible reactions. As you may know it was Socrates' life mission to find anyone who was wiser then he was, since he discovered, to his horror (he asserted constantly that he he knew nothing), that the Delphic Oracle had said that he was the wisest of men. The result was that he questioned various people who asserted their own wisdom and invariably ending up demonstrating their actual lack of wisdom, much to their chagrin. As these were often public figures, embarrassed publicly, their revenge was also rather publicly severe. Socrates also asserted that this state of Aporia is a sensitive stage educationally since to resolve it it is necessary to encourage in the learner a curiosity in the resolution of the Aporia: i.e. establishing the truth.withaak 09:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Withaak (talk • contribs)
Hi. I haven't read much about consciousness but I've been wondering about something and hope you might know the answer: In philosophy and neuroscience, what language is used to refer to the state I'm in when I'm driving successfully along a familiar route, but so wrapped up in a conversation or in my thoughts that I'm effectively unconscious of my surroundings? I'm clearly, on some level, "alert" to the environment but most of me (I think actually sometimes all of me) is absent. A kind of blindsight. Is that state addressed by either of those disciplines? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Having spent half the sumers of my youth not leaving footsprints in the bed of the North Branch of the Big Timber Creek I was wondering when someone would point out this bullshit. μηδείς (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Why does this not belong on the reference desk? It's not a request for funding, it's a request for information on how they might obtain funding. That is a factual question. --Viennese Waltz 13:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I rather expect that today's Nobel is going to give the theta oscillation more prominence. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Following up on your helpful comment at Talk:John O'Keefe, I made an edit that attempted to make it clearer that it isn't simply spike timing. I also wanted to briefly follow up with you about what you said about your own theory about precession function, and I figured I should do that here. Per your paper to which you linked, am I correct that the theory to which you were referring is the idea about precession leading to LTP? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Look whose talk page pops up on my watchlist after such a long time. Looie, I think Tfish and I are kind of getting cabin fever over at Talk:Phineas Gage, and I wonder whether you wouldn't mind rejoining the conversation there after your long absence. Talk:Phineas_Gage#Comparison_of_proposals would be a good place to start. EEng (talk) 05:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I have nominated Cerebellum for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKiernan (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
[19] I realize this is a primary source however you indicated that there was " little evidence to support" Autism and a connection (direct) to the cerebellum, well how does this do? im not lobbying for its inclusion into the FA article, but that doesn't mean some evidence doesnt' exist--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Looie. Happy 2015!
I'm thinking of asking the en.Wikipedia community to welcome Peter back. I've gotten to know him fairly well over the last 12 months in discussions at Wikipediocracy as well as face to face at Wikimania and at a dinner a couple of months ago.
I'm aware of his sometimes sharp tongue, having been on the pointy end of it more than once, but I'm also very impressed by his intellect and, actually, his sincere commitment to the improvement of the encyclopedia. But I recall reading some harsh words from you in the past about him (can't recall where) and was wondering if you could share with me your thoughts on the prospect of his returning. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't increase my enthusiasm for my return either, and I never asked to return. As you see I haven't edited for years. But you should not be accusing me of an 'amount of lying' unless you give some evidence of this. I am a person too. Thank you. I would prefer you to delete this unless you give some evidence of 'amount of lying'. There was also that cruel and unkind remark about 'Saruman' which I haven't forgotten. I may be a demon to you, but I have feelings, no? Solti (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The Saruman remark was ""For those who weren't around, if you happen to be familiar with the Lord of the Rings, it may help you get the picture if I say that Peter Damian is our version of Saruman -- intelligent and erudite, but not to be listened to at peril of your soul. " Looie496 (T-C-F-R-B) (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC) ". That was deeply wounding and quite untrue. Solti (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Yep. Looie, I know this man, his name, and a bit about him. You're calling a person a liar in a public forum, which is OK. I've done it myself here. But with an insult like that, you really need to back it up or apologise and withdraw it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.—Given that the remedy has just been enacted, I am providing this notice to everybody who has participated in the discussion on Jimbo Wales' talk page for their information. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
You mention that humans do not exhibit the same reflexes as do cats when the spinal cord is transected. This is not true. My father, Jerry Lettvin (MD Neurosurgery), had an army colonel as a VA hospital patient who was fully functional with a transected cord, but required help to rise from his bed and do other things. I put details of this into user:Edison's talk page. The problem is that spinal shock sets in unless transection occurs with the spinal cord silent from profound anesthesia. Any competent neurosurgeon will confirm. Jlettvin (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Manuel da Silva Rosa. Dougweller (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Found in User:Lrdrake/sandbox; would it be something you had an opinion on? Best, -- Sam Sing! 13:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Looie496, thanks for the advice. Do you know how often sandboxes get automatically cleared by the system? Neuralia (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Looie496, Thank you for taking the time to review my proposed article on Bioelectronic Medicine. I will confess a great level of naïveté when it comes to creating content for wikipedia. That is particularly why I chose to submit the article rather than just posting it directly. I can see now, why you made the comment about the possibility of trying to promote the journal Bioelectronic Medicine, and am more than willing to remove that reference if it makes the article more credible. I am having challenges meeting your suggestions to correct any misused statements which are cited by legitimate sources. I feel as though my cited content is reflective of the message/intent of what the source is conveying - but clearly I've missed the mark. Could I trouble you for specific examples so that I can correct them? Otherwise, please advise the best way to correct the article as I want to make sure that it is stellar.
Thank you.
MedResearchSF (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)MedResearchSF
3-22-15 Hi again Looie,496. I'm trying to get this article cleaned up so that it can be posted. My challenge is that I don't know specifically what you want changed/updated. I've had several scientists review for accuracy and they have not suggested any changes (some are even authors of the referenced works.) Could you please let me know the best way to proceed?
Thanks, MedResearchSF (talk)MedResearchSF — Preceding undated comment added 16:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Looie496,
The Editing team is asking for your help with VisualEditor. I am contacting you because you posted to a feedback page for VisualEditor. Please tell them what they need to change to make VisualEditor work well for you. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too.
You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.
More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.
Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Looie496. I'm tremendously sorry, but I was asked to review the article DSM-5 codes for copyright concerns, and I believe that it is a problem given the precedence of protecting diagnostic codes. I've blanked the article for evaluation at the copyright problems board, specifically listing it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 April 24. I've explained the reasons why I agreed that it was a concern at Talk:DSM-5 codes. I hope it goes without saying that I do not believe there's any fault in this situation, which is one of the reasons why I'm not dropping the (generally mandatory) template.
If you think I'm mistaken, please explain why at the talk page. Whichever administrator processes this will consider the question there; I've directed to it in the template itself.
Again, tremendously sorry. I generally look away from list articles unless they show up at WP:CP all by themselves, but given that we've received official complaints from the APA before and I really think this one is a pretty clear problem, I felt like processing it was necessary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
<tldr removed>
We are preparing to take a closer look at Featured articles promoted in 2004–2010 that may need a review. We started with a script-compiled list of older FAs that have not had a recent formal review. The next step is to prune the list by removing articles that are still actively maintained, up-to-date, and believed to meet current standards. We know that many of you personally maintain articles that you nominated, so we'd appreciate your help in winnowing the list where appropriate.
Please take a look at the sandbox list, check over the FAs listed by your name, and indicate on the sandbox talk page your assessment of their current status. Likewise, if you have taken on the maintenance of any listed FAs that were originally nominated by a departed editor, please indicate their status. BLPs should be given especially careful consideration.
Thanks for your help! Maralia (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
P.S. - Hippocampus is the only article that you nominated that's on the list, but I'd also appreciate your opinion on Huntington's disease, as it appears you and I are the only ones monitoring it these days. Thanks!
Thanks a lot for writing up this review! I have added some more quotes from their conclusions, and linked our coverage of earlier related paper. Hope this works for you, considering that the review emphasizes first person singular somewhat - if you prefer, we can also clarify that it was two people who contributed text. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a common fallacy in regards to LSD residing in the spinal cord The myth as I heard it: "LSD resides in the spinal cord. When someone 'pops' or 'cracks' their back some of the residing LSD is released into the blood stream causing a hallucinogenic experience" (once the LSD tainted blood reaches the brain). However flashbacks are a real thing Some people get them others do not. Since you are a scientist I wanted your expert opinion about my opinion Although a specific scientist would be nifty. I have this (crazy) idea that when someone has an experience the "wiring of synapses" in the brain physically changes. So if you have tried coffee your brain is physically different than the brain of a person who has never tried coffee (only in the context of that part of the brain from experiencing coffee). So is it possible to have the psychoactive experience of coffee consumption when you are not under the influence of coffee? Like the memory of coffee experience being "triggered"? So if that isn't complete nonsense (I await your judgement) is it at least moderately probable that the same could be applied to LSD use? Once you have tried LSD the memory of that experience could be triggered causing someone to have an unexpected psychedelic experience? If this is all claptrap (i just like using that word in a facecious manner) what are your thoughts about this? I am hesitant to ask about the "more" part as you might not want to. If you do reply I am forever in your service. Post Scriptum: I have been trying to find scientists of various disciplines and ask them about their opinions. I know scientific consensus has nothing to do with the actual validity of things, but scientists seem to have their act together (mostly) Agent of the nine (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Do you have any thoughts about what causes LSD flashbacks?Agent of the nine (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Also have you heard of Sam harris he is a very controversial person. He is a neuroscientist and has made many claims in regards to the human brain. An example would be the statement that "free will" is an illusion and so is the ego or idea of self. There is a lot of evidence and information about these subjects and it is very exciting! When questioned if other scientific bodies shared his views or not he mainly expressed "i dont know". Which makes sense because if neuroscientists started talking about free will being an illusion etc (assuming that that is true) there would be huge social uproars (like with biological evolution) and I don't blame scientists for not wanting to be involved in hot button topics. They just want to be involved in science without any drama. I have also seen a few other neuroscientists speak about new research/experiments and they talk about the evidence, results, and then they fail to draw a conclusion (or express one) with their final statement being "well you'll have to draw your own conclusions about this". An example would be when studies showed that when most people thought deeply about themselves area "x" of the brain lit up. Then when people thought about god deeply area "x" of the bain would light up. And there you have it folks! no explanation... What are your thoughts about this?Agent of the nine (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I would appreciate your opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus .thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 30, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 01:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Sir, thank you for your quick edit after my changes to my BCI page. Please clarify how some of the new references that I added violated policy. They are journal publications (and one conf proceeding) from reputable sources referenced in PubMed. They are relevant to the use of high gamma activity for functional brain mapping.
Thanks, Brendan Allison, PhD
RE thanks for input | |
Hi there,
Just wanted to thank you for your input re my MCT article a few months ago. Sorry I didn't reply earlier. I am just starting out with the Wiki and getting the hang of creating/editing as well as the general acceptable tone of articles is taking me some time! Your comments and corrections were helpful in this process. Regards Wiki_Djinn42 Wiki Djinn42 (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC) |
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dendritic_spine#Copyright_violation
While I was involved with the project long time ago I do not have time to deal with it, but I remember your interest in the cerebellum... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.219.27.80 (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey Looie496,
I wanted to ask for your reasoning in reverting the [20] page to redirect back to the striatum page? I am only beginning to grasp the complexity of this brain region in my current studies, and as far as I could understand, I couldn't see an error with the dorsal striatum page? From what I have read:
-Basal ganglia, made up of striatum (consisting of dorsal (which itself consists of caudate nucleus and putamen - and I have seen in brain maps sometimes abbreviated as Cpu - Caudate Putamen), and ventral (which consists of the nucleus accumbens and olfactory tubercle)), globus pallidus, ventral pallidum, substantia nigra, and subthalamic nucleus.
I noticed that the dorsal striatum page talked about additional items which may be out of date now? (leniform nucleus for instance?), but in either case, I feel this page should be added back on as it seems like a relevant anatomical component of the brain, perhaps updated with the latest terminology or what the brain regions are properly designated. Kind regards, Calaka (talk) 06:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)