User talk:Looie496/Archive 3

BrainInfo/NeuroNames
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)


 * You beat me to it. There generally isn't a delay for articles to show up, so I'm not sure what happened. Note that you can always review your own past work by looking at your Contribs. I'll response to the other things as soon as I have a chance to figure them out; anyway thanks for informing me. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes
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)
 * Did I misunderstand? "Is it A, or is it B?"  "Yes."  I'm sorry, but that's lame.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 03:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was answering the first part of the question only. See Hanlon's razor for further explanation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Neuroscience as WikiProject
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)
 * Yes, it does exist, although SfN had nothing to do with creating it -- see WikiProject Neuroscience. You can add an article to the project by typing  at the top of its talk page.  What table of WikiProjects are you referring to?  I didn't know there was one.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Looie 496

To get to the listof WikiProjects go to WikiProject Neuroscience and click 'Directory of WikiProjects'. I don't find any mention of WikiProject Neuroscience there.

Someone has entered  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 ? 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)


 * Yes, I think it would be better to substitute WPNEURO. If you want to fill in the fields, you could use , or set the importance to "mid" if the area has a substantial literature.  We do try to follow the WikiProject Medicine guidelines in most respects. Looie496 (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, WikiProject Neuroscience was in fact listed in the directory, but in the wrong category -- I have now moved it into the Biology category. Looie496 (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Message from an IP
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)

Artificial consciousness
Please read my reply to your comment at. 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)

Cognitive dissonance
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)

Deleting hat
I've deleted the hat 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)

Consciousness
Added references to my edit on the subject ‘Consciousness’, as you requested. Oliver9909 (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

may I help you?
Toddst1 (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you see your way to re-del'ing this? I want to post about it to ANI, but it would be better if the personal identifying information was made inaccessible except to admins first.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Toddst1 (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Looie496 (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

RDMA; revision hiding
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)
 * Well, most likely nothing really needs to be done. The editor in question earlier that day made a series of edits that to me, based on experience, are indicative of schizophrenia, a type of schizophrenia in which people believe that other people are implanting thoughts and sensations in their minds.  (This is actually quite common.)  The edit in question implicitly named two people as some of the villains.  Most likely, based on experience, these are people the editor knows, perhaps landlords or neighbors.  In most cases situations like this don't turn ugly, but once in awhile they do -- the fact that specific people were named, together with the fact that the IP geolocates to somewhere near the place they were said to live, made me just uncomfortable enough to bring up the matter at ANI.  That's about it.


 * Also, I do understand the policy on rev-dels, and I actually got an experienced admin (Toddst1) to do that before I brought the matter up at ANI. Nobody except admins would have been able to see those names.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

AIV report
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)
 * Spelling error on my part -- it is actually I meant.  This editor has been a continuing plague at the Reference desks for a long time, as a search of the talk page archives for "LightCurrent" will show.  Admins who are familiar with the Ref Desks generally know his MO and IP range well enough to be ready to block on sight.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Yes, I saw this, Sockpuppet investigations/Light current/Archive. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate post
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)

Regarding the Psychological causes of OCD
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!
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)

Totally agree
--Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Brain (food)
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)

User:Looie496/Computation and Neural Systems
Your userfied article is ready. Spartaz Humbug! 19:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, sir. Looie496 (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

thank u!
thanks for the book suggestions!(in the reference desk?)--Irrational number (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

review
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)
 * Wikipedia policy is that articles have to 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.  I can't see any such sources that verify the information in the article.


 * I can't delete the article -- I am not an administrator. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Naturopathy
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)

Article on Swami Budhpuri Ji Rewritten
The concerned article has been rewritten. Kindly review it and suggest improvements.Svechu (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Recall
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)
 * Especially since it was very unfair! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Caffeine FAR
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)

Reconsider
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)
 * Let me clarify something: I nominated the article for deletion for the reasons I explained, but I was not the person who made the final decision to delete it -- that was a result of the other editors who expressed opinions.  In fact I never looked at the article after I nominated it, so I can't comment on any changes you made to it.  My impression when I nominated it was that there was no evidence that "ACS" had drawn any attention outside your own group, and from the comments that other editors made at the deletion discussion, it appears that they had the same opinion, even after your changes.  That's about all I can say.  In principle you can recreate the article at any time, but for it to survive I think you would have to be able to show, using outside sources, that ACS has drawn substantial outside attention. Looie496 (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Your help is requested
Hi. It appears that WP:HD is currently backlogged. Please help. Emergency. Thanks. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 23:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind. The emergency has somewhat ended. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 00:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Jimbo
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)
 * It is possible, but the basic principle that applies to this is just don't do it. Revising things that have received later responses makes it extremely difficult for readers to figure out the sequence of events.  If you absolutely need to have everything in one place, the best approach is to restate all of it.  But I don't see a need for that here:  it isn't so difficult to understand what you are saying.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. We'll leave it as it is. Could you say something about the message you would have posted if my original message had contained the addition? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes -- if there is a Policy Committee, I believe it should function as a legislature, with complete control over the writing of policy. It could recruit other editors to participate if it felt a need, but its role would not simply be oversight and problem-solving.  I don't think a simple oversight role would actually accomplish very much. Looie496 (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My interest is less ambitious than that and is concerned mainly with improving the clarity and organization. Although this is less than what you want, perhaps you might reconsider whether this is useful? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's kind of a moot point: there would have to be dozens of editors in support of action to make anything happen, and I don't see that yet.  I think if more people support the general concept, we can start to work on refining proposals. Looie496 (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wasn't suggesting this to editors. I was suggesting this to Jimbo. After all, that's why I posted the message on his talk page. This part of my discussion with you here was to understand what and how you thought, not to convince you of anything. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:18, 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)
 * Well, if you feel it's essential to do so, that's the way to do it. But I advise you not to make a habit of it, that's all. Looie496 (talk) 04:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

re: your message
Hi, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek. 69  talk  01:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
(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 &#124; Sign my guestbook!)  17:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Advice for new Wikipedia editors
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)

Footnotes/Refs
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)

Looking for a picture of an HF burn
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)
 * I'm not sure why you are asking me. You could try asking at WT:MED, where the physicians hang out.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 05:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Spazzstick - replaced with better ref
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)

Brain
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)

Visual system
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 can become part of an independent outline soon, so I am asking whether the following scheme is acceptable:


 * I have separated the LGN M cell pathway and the P cell pathway to their own table, as a detail, because each of these pathways is a separate modality within vision. My problem has been to flesh out that table for the outline. As you know, I previously added a dysfunction table for parts of the visual system which have demonstrated necessary, but not sufficient, parts of the brain to implement some brain function,
 * As a didactic scheme for the layout of the outline, I propose to lay out some of the modalities under the problem of situated cognition (meaning cognition about a situation) by some agent which is embodied in a vertebrate organism. Thus the agent has an agenda, because the agent is engaged in embodied cognition. Based on that agenda, the agent has an interest in resolving a situation under 5 Ws and an H: WWWWWH. At any time, the resolution can be restarted or discarded as a bad guess. So the sequence is a rudimentary form of hypothesis formation as output from its sensory system, in preparation for transmission to the motor control (e.g., saccade to another angular position, so this is all happening very fast, and occurs before conscious thought 0.5 sec later).
 * Where: get place location of an object in the scene (in this case, angular 2D position of a target) first, because an embodied agent already knows its own reference frame, being at the origin of its coordinate system. I recognize that the agent must continually infer distance to that target (that is immaterial to WWWWWH because the brain works much faster than physical motion of any objects in the scene, even at 100ms response times).
 * When: the agent's body has previously taken multiple looks and has taken multiple assessments of any objects in the scene, including what to ignore (so that is a rudimentary form of attention). But time sequence is an easy way to filter out what to ignore or not, in the vast array of demands for our attention.
 * What: the agent assesses what an object might be (Friend, Foe, Food, Fun, etc. as a rudimentary form of prioritization)
 * Who: the agent has combined previous steps in the assessment to judge the name of the object in the scene (a rudimentary category)
 * Why: the agent has just filled in enough to determine whether the cognition fits the agenda. In the simplest agenda, whether to ignore the sensory input or not. If the assessment is to ignore, then our conscious attention would end here. (I care/I don't care about the posited situation)
 * How: the agent has decided how to implement its agenda (e.g., Fight, Flee, smile, talk, frown, etc.), and this has all happened at a glance, within the half-second delay before it hits consciousness.

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)
 * Unfortunately I only have a pretty dim grasp of what you are saying here. My initial reaction, based on that dim grasp, is that you seem to be injecting a lot of your own ideas here, which is a dangerous thing to do in a Wikipedia article.  But there's a good chance that I simply have failed to get the idea.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I will wait for these ideas to appear in the literature before I attempt to use them in a schema for the outline. It has been decades since Crick spoke to us, and this has been incubating in a lot of minds, so this will appear in some form sooner or later. WWWWWH is a generalization of the two streams hypothesis (so I thought it was an obvious follow-on, but I misjudged, apparently). My guess is that Ramachandran or another researcher will say these words, sooner or later. I was hoping that you had run across them already. -- Regards, Ancheta Wis (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm very far from an expert on the visual system -- I just know it in broad outline. I'm sure you know a lot more about it than I do. Looie496 (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

If you feel like helping newbies
Articles for creation/The American Psychological Association's Stance on Repressed Memories. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 08:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Coordinated Universal Time
I believe the "Coordinated Universal Time" article is ready for you to continue your GA review. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Brain
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)

How embarrassing!
Yikes! Thanks for this. Can't imagine how I didn't notice my goof! Best, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 09:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Ḿulakḩafma Fḩukḩafma
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)
 * What language is that? Looie496 (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keç Maźitakǘ ya. Maźitakǘ from Caucasus mountains. Sḩo eçekmet, zerǘt? Goluksopad (talk) 09:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you think I would understand you? I'm an American, and only speak English and a little German.  Are you mistaking me for somebody else? Looie496 (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ka, araçbý karaçme,sḩo maraptadak karasuçma, zavalük. Söreptadör hasbadafḩe samadakma umekçek, Nüralogaýnǘ Statý Poroźekka zükabaźet. Çedok tatlaikudas haraźbaź, kakda eçekömetadas? Maraḩasḿaḩle? Looie496, Neurologisty, this are correct. Kağolukluk varaç Inýğiliźiz vehereç, haźdele üçemdele Maźittaküz dönerle tatlaiku, öras maç dösidereos ka! Havaçekle źadok! Marasiḿat sörep-faikḩ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goluksopad (talk • contribs) 00:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Conscious dogs
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)

Your GA nomination of Consciousness
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. Monty 845  23:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Dolphin Brain
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)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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, 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)

Is there anywhere on the wikipedia neuroscience project and neuro project talk pages, where it is appropriate to post calls for participants?
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)


 * If you think it won't annoy people, you can post at WT:WPNEURO, the WikiProject Neuroscience talk page. But you'll be very lucky if you get half a dozen responses that way -- it isn't a very well-populated project.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:24, 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)

GIMP question
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)
 * Sorry, I don't have a clue. Printing problems are often very difficult because they may be specific to particular types of printers, and may involve problems with the Gnome printing architecture that aren't solvable within GIMP.  You might have better luck asking on the GIMP users mailing list, see https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list for more information. Looie496 (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll try that. I am working around quite happily by making a blank image the size of the page and pasting things onto it in place where I want them; but I thought there might be something obvious I was missing. JohnCD (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your comment on User talk:Anatomist90
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. → Aza Toth 21:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * He is adding his images to a whole bunch of articles at random places, with no regard to whether they belong there. Of course he is welcome to contribute to the articles, as everybody is, but he is not trying to improve them, only looking for places where he can put his images.  I am not the only editor who feels that way, as the history of the articles will show, and I am just trying to guide him away from behaviors that if persisted in will ultimately result in him being blocked. Looie496 (talk) 23:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Office Hours
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)
 * Hey; once again, office hours for the article feedback tool! These will be held at 22:00 UTC this evening; logs from the last session can be found here. Hope to see you there :). Do drop me a note if you're not familiar with IRC and would like the cliff's notes, or if you can't attend but would like the logs/have some questions for me to pass on to the devs :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Self-reference
Hi. Please add or suggest some topics that I added to self-reference as you appear to be highly knowledgeable in the topic. Thanks. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 18:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Oi! Science is quiet now....
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)

I have a slide on your study as well
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)

GA/FA analysis
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)

Fun fact: location of Broca's area
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)


 * My experimental work has all involved rats and monkeys, and I'm quite sketchy about which gyri and sulci do what in the human brain, so you should handle this in whatever way seems right to you -- you surely know a lot more about it than I do. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing stub banner?
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)
 * You can do it by editing the article -- down at the bottom there will be a line that says or , or something like that.  If you simply remove that line, the article will no longer be marked as a stub.  Any editor who feels in good faith that the article has more than a bare minimum of content should feel free to remove the "stub" marker.  Note that if the article is maintained by a WikiProject such as WikiProject Neuroscience, then there is a separate classification that goes on the article's talk page, but I won't say any more about that unless for some reason it matters to you. Looie496 (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Broad topics
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)


 * Reading your essay and TCO's and the discussion that followed makes my heart ache and my head spin. I thought I was an indigenous wikipedian but now I feel alienated. Anyhow: Would it help to pose a rather strict limitation on length on FA's? The narrow topic articles are very consistently shorter, often very much shorter. Writing very concisely is of course difficult in itself. But fewer facts would be needed and there would be fewer citations to check and mend and it would be more difficult to say that something is missing. The opponent would need to explain why the supposedly missing stuff is more important then what is already there. My intuition is that the number of readers falls very quickly down the text, so a shorter format would make it more likely that the important parts are read. This does (of course) not entail a limit on what is included in Wikipedia. It is just a suggested constraint on how it is structured.--Ettrig (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool newsletter
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)

Article Feedback
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)

Quote for Signpost
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)
 * Um, I do think there are sometimes issues about things being too obvious to need citing, but that's not what I was saying there -- actually more like the opposite: that when broad generalizations need to be made, it often takes expertise to tell whether a given statement is adequately sourced.  But in any case I am comfortable with being quoted if you quote that passage in the form you did above.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction (and permission). I've added it here (footnote 4); please let me know if I've mischaracterized it.  (And of course if you have any other comments I'd be glad of those too.) Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Office Hours
Hey ; 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)

I've put back my two different sub-questions you had deleted from the Math Reference Desk
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)

Article Feedback Tool - notes and office hours
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:
 * The design of the feedback page, which will display all the feedback gathered through whichever form comes out on top.
 * An expansion of the pool of articles which have AFT5 displayed, from 0.1 percent to 0.3 (which is what we were going to do initially anyway)
 * An upcoming Request for Comment that will cover (amongst other things) who can access various features in the tool, such as the "hide" button.

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)

Decoded Neurofeedback
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)
 * Looking further, I see that the methodology is described in detail in the Supporting Online Material, which I am able to access. It's a bit complicated, but I'll try to add some explanation (or if you would like to do it yourself, I'll hold off to give you a chance.)  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's cool, I don't really understand Decoded Neurofeedback or have that much experience editing WP, I'm glad you found it Abacusbox (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of pov tags
Hi, have you read NPOVD? 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)
 * User in question has also made changes to the text of the lead without consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The proper use of pov tags is to draw attention to an issue, not to force changes into an article against consensus. This issue is getting plenty of attention. Looie496 (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The proper use is also to alert the reader that the neutrality of the article is being disputed, which is the case. The text changes where not intentional, and have been removed after I found I was restoring those as well.
 * With plenty of attention the dispute should be solved within a small amount of time, allowing removal of the tag once it is resolved. Since there is plenty of attention, there is (imo) no need to remove the tag prematurely... But even if there was, there is no rule that says the tag can be removed while the dispute is ongoing.ViezeRick (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool - things to do
Hey guys! A couple of highly important things to do over the next few weeks:
 * We've opened a Request for Comment on several of the most important aspects of the tool, including who should be able to hide inappropriate comments. It will remain open until 20 January; I encourage everyone with an interest to take part :).
 * A second round of feedback categorisation will take place in a few weeks, so we can properly evaluate which design works the best and keeps all the junk out :P. All volunteers are welcome and desired; there may be foundation swag in it for you!

Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool
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)

I am American
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.


 * Anonyma Mädel (talk) 06:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

office hours
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)

Tribal
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)
 * I agree! Looie496 (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Seen this? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, thanks for the pointer. I won't bother with it since the last edit was so long ago, but I'll keep an eye on it.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

ELF/SLF/ULF Radio - misrepresentation?
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)
 * I am very surprised that you, or anyone else, have not deleted this, from an ip editor "who works in that area", for being WP:OR. I am quite sure that the authors of those papers cited would never claim that they have demonstrated any kind of "Brain Computer Interface". But the crux of the matter here is what is "controlling" what, and to what end. If I saw this in any other encyclopedia I would be laughing out loud, before I threw it away. Surely that last paragraph is, in fact, a joke? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Pineal gland
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)

Re: Reference desk/Humanities
Sorry about that, I honestly hit the button by mistake. Kiko4564 (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what I figured. No worries. Looie496 (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your help at the reference desk.
 * Peace and Passion &#9774; ''("I'm listening....") 20:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

What are your merits?
I am simply curious, what have you contributed to the world's pool of knowledge? LaRouxEMP (talk) 05:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are simply curious, I think you are angry. Looie496 (talk) 05:35, 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)


 * (Munching popcorn sound) Doc   talk  06:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Logician vs Neuroscientist LaRouxEMP (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * (Furious popcorn munching) Doc   talk  07:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Mmmm. (Crunching Jaffas sound) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't want to have a fight. I don't like fights.  I don't even like winning fights.  I reverted the edit because it was trying so hard to be elegant that it ended up being unreadable.  The point you were making was probably valid, and if you could make it in a simple and direct way, I might not have any problem with it.  At least not as large a problem. Looie496 (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Eating a box of Chocolates out of amusement - can't anyone agree to disagree in my humble opinion? Everyone has their own differing aspects and opinions however when it comes to experts; even I, myself having Doctorates, for over 30 years, being a Professor - we know one thing - we are always a student, superimposed, it is insinuating to come across someone who is assisting others and overstepping their boundaries too much, so says the old adage "do not trouble the waters, lest it returns to trouble you" still holds true (I had to revise it out of southern language to plain English so everyone could understand it.
 * Eating a box of Chocolates out of amusement - can't anyone agree to disagree in my humble opinion? Everyone has their own differing aspects and opinions however when it comes to experts; even I, myself having Doctorates, for over 30 years, being a Professor - we know one thing - we are always a student, superimposed, it is insinuating to come across someone who is assisting others and overstepping their boundaries too much, so says the old adage "do not trouble the waters, lest it returns to trouble you" still holds true (I had to revise it out of southern language to plain English so everyone could understand it.
 * Eating a box of Chocolates out of amusement - can't anyone agree to disagree in my humble opinion? Everyone has their own differing aspects and opinions however when it comes to experts; even I, myself having Doctorates, for over 30 years, being a Professor - we know one thing - we are always a student, superimposed, it is insinuating to come across someone who is assisting others and overstepping their boundaries too much, so says the old adage "do not trouble the waters, lest it returns to trouble you" still holds true (I had to revise it out of southern language to plain English so everyone could understand it.
 * Eating a box of Chocolates out of amusement - can't anyone agree to disagree in my humble opinion? Everyone has their own differing aspects and opinions however when it comes to experts; even I, myself having Doctorates, for over 30 years, being a Professor - we know one thing - we are always a student, superimposed, it is insinuating to come across someone who is assisting others and overstepping their boundaries too much, so says the old adage "do not trouble the waters, lest it returns to trouble you" still holds true (I had to revise it out of southern language to plain English so everyone could understand it.


 * I must add - there will ALWAYS, I mean ALWAYS will be controversial and complex topics; especially revolving around Science (not necessarily in Medical but in the whole vast horizon in its own scope); for even the wisest ones are keen and fully aware the bickering and bantering that goes on betwixt among each other whereas they are divided. Therefore, it holds true - you will encounter one saying and holding this proof thereof and to another just the opposite; so who is correct? One cannot say neither nor yay to one and nay to the other, but remain neutral - the only way to proceed is to await for the exact and finalized answer and conclusion(s). There are always surprises along the way, that which were thought to be turns out though they were not; and things that both argued though they were not, turned out that such it were so; and it goes on from that standpoint as Science in all of its entirely progresses. Can we say they were wrong? NO, but we chalk them up as historical learning of the knowledge of what they possessed, learning from their mistakes, calculations and miscalculations, and yadda, yadda, yadda.


 * Rather not to put the cart before the horse, the wisest thing one can do is read up and learn and move forward, for often times, those tiny little clues that were "right smack under their noses" were overlooked; the combination of this party here and that party here put together sometimes ends up being the resolution ... who knows? Let's be peaceful, for much what you post can either tarnish your image or make your reputation look good. You do have a choice. Having been a Website Owner, Administrator, Moderator, WebMaster, etc... for decades; now retired. Seen plenty and heard far more than you can imagine that it is unfit to repeat or repost; for they would be hilarious it if were not so pathetic.


 * AwahiliGuni (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Would like to Share my own fMRI

 * Wiki has changed over the years; when having an fMRI, it was a rare event to have a epilepsy (Tonic Clonic) seizure during the process; I have an image in full blown color but I want to remain anonymous - because it also shows the Thalamus and Basal Gangila (if I spelled that correctly) being enlarged - for it is worse now; the cross hairs are placed there by the Neurosurgeons. This was performed in 2007; but I still have the entire discs (or disks) but this one specific image which I took via Photo Shop, moving the main part to the upper end and all three ends (left, rear, and right of the head (there was nothing in the front aka frontolobe region). To have the movie version clip would be too long; for one would see the burst of energy (white) suddenly burst out from the both lobes (Temporal) and then head on to the Gray Matter area - it is really impressive; yet not a surgical candidate. Already been declared and affirmed of that after seeking 2nd and 3rd opinions (which includes Cleveland Clinic). Is this possible? And thanks for the redirection to the proper place.

AwahiliGuni (talk) 02:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Neuroscience recent changes
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)
 * That is partially due to the Congress budget cutting and President Obama's axe chopping in Neuroscience which caused a lot of projects to researching to come to a screeching halt; due to lack of funds - it's hurting them and the major issue here is Neuroscience has to determine which end is of extreme importance on this tight end of the budge. It was hard enough as is when (ex)President Carter chopped it severely as he deemed Neuroscience as "waste of Federal money and taxpayer's money" and narrowed it down to 3% and increased money funds and grants to other places which already are successful and don't need any more funding(s)." At this present stage, Neuroscience is only receiving less than 1% of Federal Funding and Grants; the last time I received the information it was almost at .5% - that is absurd; no Neuroscience is going to accomplish much at this amount of money therefore the need of seeking money from Private to Public Sponsors, Contributors all the way to General Public to a point of literally begging.
 * That is partially due to the Congress budget cutting and President Obama's axe chopping in Neuroscience which caused a lot of projects to researching to come to a screeching halt; due to lack of funds - it's hurting them and the major issue here is Neuroscience has to determine which end is of extreme importance on this tight end of the budge. It was hard enough as is when (ex)President Carter chopped it severely as he deemed Neuroscience as "waste of Federal money and taxpayer's money" and narrowed it down to 3% and increased money funds and grants to other places which already are successful and don't need any more funding(s)." At this present stage, Neuroscience is only receiving less than 1% of Federal Funding and Grants; the last time I received the information it was almost at .5% - that is absurd; no Neuroscience is going to accomplish much at this amount of money therefore the need of seeking money from Private to Public Sponsors, Contributors all the way to General Public to a point of literally begging.
 * That is partially due to the Congress budget cutting and President Obama's axe chopping in Neuroscience which caused a lot of projects to researching to come to a screeching halt; due to lack of funds - it's hurting them and the major issue here is Neuroscience has to determine which end is of extreme importance on this tight end of the budge. It was hard enough as is when (ex)President Carter chopped it severely as he deemed Neuroscience as "waste of Federal money and taxpayer's money" and narrowed it down to 3% and increased money funds and grants to other places which already are successful and don't need any more funding(s)." At this present stage, Neuroscience is only receiving less than 1% of Federal Funding and Grants; the last time I received the information it was almost at .5% - that is absurd; no Neuroscience is going to accomplish much at this amount of money therefore the need of seeking money from Private to Public Sponsors, Contributors all the way to General Public to a point of literally begging.
 * That is partially due to the Congress budget cutting and President Obama's axe chopping in Neuroscience which caused a lot of projects to researching to come to a screeching halt; due to lack of funds - it's hurting them and the major issue here is Neuroscience has to determine which end is of extreme importance on this tight end of the budge. It was hard enough as is when (ex)President Carter chopped it severely as he deemed Neuroscience as "waste of Federal money and taxpayer's money" and narrowed it down to 3% and increased money funds and grants to other places which already are successful and don't need any more funding(s)." At this present stage, Neuroscience is only receiving less than 1% of Federal Funding and Grants; the last time I received the information it was almost at .5% - that is absurd; no Neuroscience is going to accomplish much at this amount of money therefore the need of seeking money from Private to Public Sponsors, Contributors all the way to General Public to a point of literally begging.


 * Take a step into PLoS (US Gov) go back to Carter Era - and look into Neuroscience (take your pick - whatever you desire, I am not linking anything) from there, go forward - you will find cases that have gone unfinished or incomplete as time progresses. FDA has no involvement in this, they never shut it down, it just had been postponed until money/fund/grant to run these programs. Keep in mind, 1 case does not make a successful and merit a valid FDA approval; it has to be done all over with n (number) equal men, women and if so permitted teens or children if minors and as far as sex gender goes that part is empty. You can also look over, if you can acces it to American Neurology Association (ANA) and take a look; they have restricted their web design page due to bots; yet, you can still retrive some info there too, along with PubMed and here's a bonus - Nature dot com ... a big plus there - it is free, while they have archives, you don't necessarily have to pay, but if you add your valid email address, they often add for a limited time free PDF files where you can actually gain full access to full cases insomuch what was missing in PLoS you would now be able to attain it there sometimes; same goes with Wiley and Wiley-Blackwell. I have to keep up-to-date due to the fact, I am an Epilepsy Advocate since 1970s'; so it is very imperative and much of the information and assistance I provide to people online - goes everywhere so people do get confused when they do research in Wiki and then here and there and there.


 * I have a post here - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Neuroscience


 * To be honest, it is almost become like Abbott and Costello's famous "Who's on first and what's on second?" to sum it up. (Sorry LOOIE - just wanted to add my 3 cents - due to inflation here... a very good topic and point here.)


 * AwahiliGuni (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Attack of the wiki zombies
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)


 * Even the Daily Mail should be ashamed for printing stuff like that. It just feeds paranoia.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

BCI - Daily Mail Article
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)

Invitation to events: bot, template, and Gadget makers wanted
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)

ANI proposal to ban an editor
Hello Looie496. You are one of the admins who has blocked User:Rinpoche. See WP:ANI in case you want to comment. EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Brain cell
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)

Hi Kenway!
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)


 * Have I interacted with you? "Kenway" means absolutely nothing to me. Looie496 (talk) 05:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It just dawned on me what this is about. I am not Kenway Louie -- I'm familiar with the work he did in Matt Wilson's lab, though.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Artificial consciousness
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)


 * Yikes! (1) Nobody complained to me, I watch that page and responded on my own initiative.  (2) If I distrusted you, I would have reverted you.  Leaving a message on your talk page is the minimum response above doing nothing, as I see it.  (3) As I said, I think perhaps you misread the diffs, which is unfortunately easy to do -- the editor did not actually delete anything.  (4) I am most emphatically not trying to be hostile.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes maybe i misread the diffs, yet the remarq that the editor should be more brief, was right. Adding a lot of text and changing the order of the parts of text during one editing session is confusing and can easily cause misunderstanding. This should be avoided, when one wants to add a text, one should do only that at first, wait until others read it, and then rearrange. This was a too complex edit to do at once, and it was also unnecessarily too long. Made also by a new user who had not made any edits before, it seemed to me as trolling, so i reverted it to find better ways how to change the article.


 * All the key points proposed by that user including both of his references are now added to the article, but in a shorter and clearer way so that the reader can more easily understand what is said. So i think everything should be OK now and no one should have any complaints. Any further complaints should be addressed on tha article's talk page.


 * I'm sorry but, i cannot be pushed that much. I now had to solve all the problems with this section quickly, and quickly add the points proposed by that user, to solve the issue and avoid any possible further problems. Taking time to work only with that, when this event of new user coming in and making all his/her changes of course happened in the worst time when i had a lot more to do. I'm sorry but, i have things to do, i have to do the cooking, and eat, and cure myself, and take the shower, and i also need to make a living. I cannot jump to action in any arbitrary moment, so that there would be huge problems and great mistrust when i cannot solve everything quickly and perfectly at that. I am sorry but i'm human as we all are, and expecting that from me by every "new user" is a torture.Tkorrovi (talk) 19:02, 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)

A kitten for you!
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,

&mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC) 

Removed comment on Ref Desk
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)
 * Don't worry about it. My real opinion was that the item did not belong there at all, but I knew that if I just removed it somebody would just put it back, so I tried to promote the same end in an alternate way.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The particular refdesk item is also being discussed at AN/I, though your edit has not come up. Monty  845  16:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sunny Singh, IX 'D' of DAV Sasaram
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)

Miscellaneous Reference Desk
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)
 * And I see that it has been reverted. I apologize for my forwardness.--WaltCip (talk) 23:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any need to apologize. Policy on the Reference desks has become so random that I mostly do what seems right to me and then don't worry if somebody else undoes it.  Otherwise I would spend all my time being angry, which is no fun.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 00:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello. As I'm the person whose question you chose to question, I'd like to comment. (Thank you, WaltCip, for getting to this before me.) Looie, you wrote a few minutes after my posting, "The Reference desks are intended for people actually looking for information, not for rants disguised as questions." I view this as tantamount to an accusation against me of misusing the refdesk by looking for an argument. I do not appreciate being accused of such things. My record over the past half-decade or more of contributions will stand up to scrutiny. I worded my question as one of puzzlement - "I don't understand" - and you interpreted this in bad faith as ranting. I note that several editors have attempted to answer my question, granting me the courtesy of assuming good faith. I request an apology from you, within that refdesk thread. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't think you were looking for an argument, I thought you were doing an Andy Rooney. If that reference is obscure to you, this clip might be helpful.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I knew the name but not anything about the person. Having read the article, and attempted to view the video, I fail to see how your comparison helps. I think your comment on the refdesk was discourteous, and I request again that you apologise there, either by striking it through or removing it, or by adding words of reconsideration. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

What are the odds?
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)

Theta binaural beats
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)

Comments redacted
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)
 * That's fine, thanks for letting me know. Looie496 (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
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: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

ENCODE
T. Canens (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Scholarpedia
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:, 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)

AN/I
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

How to start a WP:ARBCON
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 think you would be wasting your time. This is basically a content dispute, as far as I can see, and ARBCOM won't touch it. Looie496 (talk) 02:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I started on RfC on the top of Talk:CBS Records.  Did I do that correctly?  Thanks. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

CBS Records
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)
 * It's not a question of balls. If you want action on a noticeboard, state your case as concisely and clearly as possible, and then leave it to admins to take it from there.  If the opposing party presents a counterargument, don't let yourself get sucked into a back-and-forth argument -- admins are very experienced at handling disputes and can tell for themselves whether an argument is valid.  Don't add material unless there are additional facts that need to be presented, or unless somebody directly asks you a question. Flooding the thread makes it very difficult for admins to figure out what is going on. (Also, the proper place for an issue like this is WP:ANI, not WP:AN, but that's not the most important thing.)  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Good advise - will take it to heart - just odd no admins got involved. Basically the whole thing was pointless. I see why so many editors dont bother with noticeboards anymore - seems to be more about the best presentation then actual problem solving. Thank you for your time.Moxy (talk)
 * Admins are just people. If a situation is too complicated for them to understand, they won't want to get involved. Looie496 (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Parkinson's science learning project in Wikiversity
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)

Bipolar disorder
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)
 * following on from this, massive apologies for not realising that the GA review had started - I've been distracted by all manner of things both on-wiki and off. Following on from Anome's work I've just done some WP:BOLD condensing of the lede - including removing references - I hesitate to do much more without getting community consensus - but is that moving the the right direction? Fayedizard (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Signpost Article
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)
 * Thanks. I imagine something similar to ArbCom, where anybody in good standing can run.  I doubt that people who have never been admins would have much chance of being elected, though. Looie496 (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Just stumbled on your essay and couldn't resist pointing out that I thought of it, too. I'd say great minds think alike, but I'm no great mind. Anyway, thank you for the op-ed! --87.78.5.129 (talk) 22:37, 21 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)

Could you give your thoughts on this question?
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)

Guidance for well-meaning but errant editor
Looie, perhaps you can help this person  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)
 * I left a note on her talk page. We'll see what sort of response it gets.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Cookies
Thank you! Lova Falk  talk  09:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Taste
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)


 * "Taste" is a word in the English language. People who speak Malay can't say anything about the definition of a word that belongs to the English language.  The fact that the Malay language has a word that is defined differently is not relevant. Looie496 (talk) 02:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Did I miss something? I specifically mentioned that taste in other culture (non-English). This is an encyclopedia, not dictionary. We are not talking about words, but the concept of taste. Who are you to say people who speak Malay can't say anything about the concept of word taste. Your personal opinion is not Wikipedia policy. Point out to me Wikipedia policy that say people who speak Malay can't say anything about the definition of a word that belongs to the English language. Yosri (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd like to chime in here and say that what I think Looie496 is saying is that the definition of the word "taste" in English is different from what you think it is. It may be that the line between taste and flavor is different in Malay than in English, but that what you are describing does not belong in the article about the sensory input of taste. Similarly, the English word "taste" also refers to someone's aesthetic preferences, but that also does not belong in the article on the sense taste. Just because in Malay there's a word that is translated as taste does not mean it belongs in that article. If you think that it's appropriate for the article, maybe take it to the talk page there and make your case. --0x0077BE (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I was about to make almost exactly the same points as 0x0077BE. I would add that while, yes, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, words are nonetheless its medium of communication, and as this is the English Wikipedia it's English words and their meanings that count.  EEng (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Bipolar disorder/GA1
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)

One's already been deleted
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)

share the tea and cookies
here ParkSehJik (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

User ParkSehJik on Forensic psychiatry
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
Please stop removing POV tags. ParkSehJik (talk) 04:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, Looie496. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at 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)

Notice of change
Hello. You are receiving this message because of a [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrators&oldid=526254016#Restoration_of_the_tools_.28proposal.29 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)

'tendentious editor with a strongly anti-psychiatry point of view causing trouble'
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)


 * I didn't use the word "nutcase". I wrote what you quoted in the title of this section, and everything you have done confirms it.  If you want me to AGF, stop fighting with everybody you encounter. Looie496 (talk) 06:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Having now read some of that article's history, I introduced the term "nutcase" as WP:Spade describing some of the editors of the past. Who am I fighting with? ParkSehJik (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You are fighting with me here over minor copy-edits that were meant to improve the article. Sorry to hijack your talkpage Looie496 but I may be forced to take Park to ANI and I am looking to see if there are any previous patterns of this behaviour to determine if I am just being unreasonable in my assessment of him/her.Puhlaa (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Puhlaa is referring to my restoration of edits of others diffed here. ParkSehJik (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

"Very annoying book spam"
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 think there's a good chance you're right, but it's spam nevertheless, and needs to be fought. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanksssss
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)

Louie Louie Louieee, Louie Louie Louie Lou I-hi-hi / Louie Louie Louieeee-e-he, Louie Louie you're gonna cry.
(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 ? 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. 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)


 * I've done some reverting. Let's see what the upshot is. Looie496 (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * He's got two IPs now:
 * Special:Contributions/87.67.18.206
 * Special:Contributions/87.67.21.139
 * To bed now. Don't forget to look for your packet of cash (see edit summary here) in the Waterloo Station gents, behind the water pipes, 3rd loo from the left.
 * EEng (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've opened a section at ANI. Looie496 (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me...
No doubt I'll get tsk-tsked for this. EEng (talk) 13:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC on physical determinism
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)

Evil
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)


 * I think that many people use the terms "psychopath" and "evil" too loosely, to simply mean any behavior they don't like. Nothing so loose could possibly have a specific brain correlate.  There are a subgroup of "psychopaths" who seem to be particularly insensitive to punishment, and who commit crimes because they don't fear the consequences -- it is reasonable that there would be brain correlates for that group, but not clear whether they match up with Roth's area.  People like Hitler and Stalin would certainly not fall into that group, though.


 * It's also worth pointing out that soldiers in wartime frequently behave in ways that would be called psychopathic if they occurred during peacetime. If basically ordinary people can be driven into such behaviors by situational factors, there probably is not a simple brain correlate that is strongly predictive of them.


 * I've never even heard of luminosity, I'm afraid. Regarding brain chips or brain–computer interfaces in general, there are going to be huge advances in that area over the next couple of decades, but I don't think it is possible to predict how they will play out.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hippocampus
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)

You have been nominated!

 * Thanks! I wasn't aware of that concept, so it will take me a little while to grok it.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, I received such a T-Shirt.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Ping
See Reference desk/Humanities. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for answer at Ref Desk.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I have a question
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)
 * Thanks. If it ever happens again, feel free to add an unsigned template. Looie496 (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey
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)
 * I had never even heard of Wikidoc until I saw your question. But it looks like the people who edit there have to show that they are medical professionals, so you probably don't get the same sort of totally ignorant editing that you often see on Wikipedia.  Beyond that I can't say. Looie496 (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

New editor with interest/expertise in neuroimaging
FYI EEng (talk) 07:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (for the record) Unfortunately,.
 * If you have a spare few minutes, can you review the new material in Phineas Gage re the Van Horn paper? I'm out of my depth. Also, can you tell me whether my interpretation of fiber pathway damage extended... (here) makes is anywhere near right? EEng (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to nag, but... . EEng (talk) 04:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Insomnia
''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)''


 * Wikipedia does not allow links to sources that require membership or paid registration to access.
 * "There have been a lot of junk edits recently: "Other stuff exists" (that is, other people's bad edits) is no reason to make more bad edits.
 * "that edit actually strikes me as valid": That may be true, but "the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."
 * You've been on Wikipedia a while, so I won't link to other policies, but if you have questions about sourcing, especially for medical articles, feel free to ask. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "You've been on WP a while, so I won't link to other policies": Actually, I think maybe you should link to policies you cite, to be sure you understand them properly. In this case, WP:LINKSTOAVOID discourages
 * 6.Sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless...the link is a convenience link to a citation .
 * If you don't have access to this particular paper, you're just going to have to take Looie's word for it. I've restored the content you removed. If you have questions about sourcing, feel free to ask. EEng (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have mixed feelings about this. See WP:EDUN for an overview of what has been going on here. Looie496 (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't know anything specific though from the above I had an inkling. However, I was only responding to Cresix's erroneous high-handedness. (As you know I can be quite high-handed myself, but I try hard to be accurately high-handed.) Sorry if I butted in -- I was just passing by. EEng (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Phineas Gage got spiked
Do you have any idea how Phineas Gage got these, er, spikes ? 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)

Copernican_Principle
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)

Copyright problems in striatum article
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 [|added 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)


 * Thanks for pointing this out. After looking it over, I was able to remove all the copyvio material, I think (as noted on the talk page).  I also looked at dorsal striatum, and ended up turning it back into a redirect.  Nearly everything in the article was wrong, because Frozenman did not understand the difference between the dorsal striatum and the corpus striatum. Looie496 (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Puzzled
You wrote that $$\lim_{n \to \infty}{\int_0^\infty{\underbrace{x^{{\color{Red}-}x^{\cdot^{\cdot^x}}}}_{{\color{Red}2}n}\ dx}}$$ is convergent because of a certain unspecified connection with the fact that infinite tetration is itself convergent in between $$1 \over e^e$$ and $$\sqrt[e]{e}$$. I was just wondering what that connection might be exactly. — 79.113.234.168 (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it's clear that the expression inside the integral converges to zero for $$x > e^{1/e}$$, right? And in fact for any given n it converges to zero very rapidly as $$x \rightarrow \infty$$.  So all that matters is whether the expression inside the integral converges to a finite limit for $$0 < x < e^{1/e}$$.  And if it is restricted to even numbers of x's, it does, right?  That isn't a formal proof, of course, but it seems to me to be convincing. Looie496 (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Those were my suspicions as well... Would you by any chance also happen to know the exact value of the limit in question ? — 79.113.234.168 (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I doubt that it can be worked out except numerically, and that seems like it would be a lot of work. Looie496 (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

OK. One more question: We know that $$\int_0^{\infty}{x^{-x}}dx=1.995\cdots$$ : 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)
 * I'm afraid I don't have the slightest idea. If anything it would be some sort of contour integral, but I've never really understood how to do those. Looie496 (talk) 23:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Please do not delete information merely stating that patents exist.
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)


 * That's correct, but you're drawing the wrong conclusion from it. The only thing those patents establish is that patents exist.  They don't make an invention notable.  You need to provide some evidence that those purported inventions are worth discussing before inserting them into the article.  There are very situations where self-published and primary sources are usable, and this isn't one of them.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * That's Paul Bedson again. Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Bedson. I'm beginning to think he's certifiable. He created an stub about me having a "serious Christian pov". That's just insane. Dougweller (talk) 05:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free!
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)

note
 Hello Looie496, Sm8900 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. 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)
 * thanks very much for your related subsequent follow-up note at the Arbcomm page. your note is the first time that I have been able to get some constructive input from other editors or admins on this item. I appreciate it. by the way, I have added a small note of my own to your extremely helpful and well-written note there. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

arbcomm item
hi. i have opened a request at the arbcomm page related to your recent note. it is located at this page: Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment. feel free to comment there if you wish. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * hi there. just letting you know, Arbcomm has now replied in regards to that proceeding. feel free to be in touch. if you want, feell free to comment at that proceeding. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 11:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Bless you
i personally thank you for your RD\Science answer ! Ben-Natan (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Visual perception edits
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)
 * For scientific facts, the preferred sources are recent review articles written by people who are authorities on science. Also some of the information you added is not correct (those frequency numbers are way off, visible light is in the Megahertz frequency range), and the style was not suitable for an ecyclopedia. Looie496 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

note on proceeding
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)


 * hmm, any further thoughts on this? your insight on this has been very valuable. what do you think of the current disposition of this proceeding? thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

that crap
How dare you! ...before I did? μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Heh. Looie496 (talk) 02:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Greetings
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)
 * First let me point out that the fact that nobody else responded there means that nobody who read your application disagrees with me. The main issue, as I wrote, is lack of experience.  We have found that it is nearly impossible for somebody who has not edited articles to give good advice about how to do it.  Regarding copyright, here is what you wrote, with an explanation of why it is not quite correct:

8. How would you make sure your students were not violating copyright laws?
 * I would tell them to not do so, and the consequences if they do that. I would tell them that they will have severe consequences if they violate any of the copyrights.
 * You need to show that you know how to recognize whether something is a copyright violation.

9. If one of your students had an issue with copyright violation how would you resolve it?
 * I would warn him/ her, and if they do it again, I would block their account for temporary time.
 * You must also make sure that the copyright violation is removed from the article. You can't block an account -- only administrators can do that.

10. In your _own_ words describe what copyright violation is.
 * copyright violation is taking credit of other people's work, and it is unauthorized.
 * Copyright violation means copying somebody else's work without permission. The problem is copying, not taking credit.

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)

3RR for Mandragua
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. 20:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I see you already gave him a 3RR warning but he removed it from his Talk page. Feel free to make the report.    20:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Neocortex Editing Questions
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)


 * I've read one of Kurzweil's earlier books, and I agree that he is very influential. But for material like this to belong in an encyclopedia article about the neocortex, there would have to be evidence that his ideas play a major role in mainstream thinking about how the neocortex works.  I see no evidence of that.  Even if the material did belong, it would not belong in the lead (the top part of the article), which is supposed to provide a capsule overview of the topic.  The proper place for this material, I believe, is in the Ray Kurzweil article.  If you do choose to add it there, you should use the book itself as your reference, not a youtube video.  The use of youtube as reference is generally discouraged because so many totally bogus things can be found there.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

subconscious motor tracts
 D ip ta ns hu Talk 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.  D ip ta ns hu Talk 06:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Spinal cord and Hereditary spastic paraplegia need improvement
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.  D ip ta ns hu Talk 06:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

aleppo
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)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
{||}

Phineas Gage "Good Article" review
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)

Neural accommodation
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)
 * We could have a move discussion on the article talk page, but my opinion would be to keep the page name as it is now and, instead, eventually broaden the scope as Looie suggested on that talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 21
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)

As I see you are a NeuroGuy :)
Hi, Do you have any Idea about this edit? Regards,KhabarNegar Talk 04:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it really necessary to have that in that article? I don't think so? is it?KhabarNegar Talk 04:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you are telling me here. I am a "neuroguy" but I don't understand the peripheral effects of dopamine well at all, so if you think something is wrong there, you are probably right -- but I can't quite figure out what you are saying.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 06:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought you are the one here probably know that, & I can learn it from you. Sorry if I bother, but as the article is popular, I just thought these little things are also important, Thanks for the help, I just revert I.P. edit to what it was before, Thanks,KhabarNegar Talk 07:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

FYI
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)

Richard Matheson
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)

I came to apologize
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. D u <font color="#009900">s <font color="#0000ff">t <font color="#6600cc">i *poke* 05:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thought, but I think it would have happened sooner or later anyway. I really didn't value those buttons enough to be motivated to use them carefully.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

ITN for Evolution of the horse
-- Spencer T♦ C 00:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

* A barnstar for you! *

 * Thanks, coming from you that means a lot! Looie496 (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Vestibulospinal tract Question
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)
 * Hi Lorenzes -- I adjusted the rating in response to a request at the WikiProject Neuroscience page. The main reason for rating it C rather than B is the low prose quality of the lead.  The lead of an article like this should be written so that a reader with limited background can go through it and come away with a basic understanding of the topic.  The current version doesn't come close to that -- it is a mixture of important and unimportant things, arranged in a random order, using terminology that many readers won't understand.  Most of the rest of the article is much better -- in fact the article could be greatly improved by taking the "Functions" section and pasting it in place of the current lead.  There are other more minor issues, but that's by far the largest one.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice. Lorenzes (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

File:VE modified ui suggestion.png missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: 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.
 * File:VE modified ui suggestion.png

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)

Any Thoughts ?
Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2013 July 6. — 79.113.213.214 (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Looie496 (talk) 03:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
EagerToddler39 (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
EagerToddler39 (talk) 03:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Legit?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tryptofish#Society_for_Brain_Mapping_and_Therapeutics Rick (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any red flags, and their board of directors list contains some very reputable people, but that's not my area and I don't know anything about them. Looie496 (talk) 20:11, 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)
 * There have been cases where people were quite surprised to learn that they were on the board of directors of some entity, so it doesn't automatically guarantee anything, but I don't see any reason for suspicion here. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 03:06, 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)
 * Founding Executive Director, IBMISPS
 * defunct? No 2012 tax return, web site now defunct: http://www.ibmisps.org/
 * Managing Editor of NeuroImage
 * not according to http://www.journals.elsevier.com/neuroimage/editorial-board/
 * Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology, USA
 * "I'm sorry, I can't find a match for Kateb in the Caltech directory. "
 * per http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/10016.html back in 2004
 * "Babak Kateb, a research fellow in the USC department of neurological surgery and an M.D./Ph.D. candidate"
 * however since then I find no degrees, undergraduate, nor graduate, nor listing in any MD society
 * per the 2011 tax return (no 2012 found) Kateb was CEO and worked 25 hours per week on the organization. Was paid 5,000. That's about $4.34 per hour.


 * It looks like at the very least he edited a special supplement to NeuroImage containing papers from his meeting -- see http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10538119/54/supp/S1. Looie496 (talk) 04:57, 8 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)
 * It seems to me that the page is not particularly harmful, but my suggestion to Rick is to take it to WP:AFD if you really feel very strongly about it, and to just let it drop if you don't. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 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)

Is it that bad?
Hey I just got your comment. I think I know what I am talking about.--User:guptakhy
 * Okay, you may remove if you wish, I will stop editing. Thank you Khyati Gupta (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am new, it would be appreciated if you can ask since I don't want to make uninformed edits and requests. I will stop editing now. Thank you. Khyati Gupta (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thank you for being nice about it.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Million Award
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 Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

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)

Bupropion
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)

Curious edit
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)

Thank you, thank you, thank you!
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)


 * Ah, if I knew you hadn't read it I would have sent you a message. Anyway, it's a shame that you weren't around to give your own answers.  If the Signpost covered WikiProject Neuroscience while I was away, I'd be very annoyed.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

ITN for Typhoon Usagi (2013)
-- Spencer T♦ C 16:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Please check my edit at Human brain
Could you please check my recent edit there? Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you were right. The rest of that edit might be worth saving, if the source was better.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, why did you write things OVER my messages? please leave them alone thankyou
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)
 * You are wasting your effort. Nobody wants to read such a large mass of text, and if you keep trying to add it, you will eventually just be blocked from editing.  If you can't say what you mean in one or two paragraphs, don't bother -- nobody will read it. (Incidentally, I did not remove your text.  It's all there for anybody who clicks the "show" link.) Looie496 (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Campus Ambassador application: Aashaa
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)

Evolution Article
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)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the 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)

admins
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)

Declined arbitration request
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)

Neuromechanics
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)


 * Oops, thanks for fixing it. Looie496 (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Heat transfer coefficient
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)
 * You should ask this at the Ref desk. I know nothing about this topic -- I just glanced at our article after seeing your question.  If you have doubts about the article, I can't help with them.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 03:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Functional integration
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)

WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard
Your participation is invited (but please don't poop out before getting to WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard). EEng (talk) 05:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * EEng, that's on the borderline of canvassing, so please be careful. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The conversation is so long and wall-of-text I was afraid he wouldn't persevere to the end. You and I know Looie well enough to know he'll make up his own mind independently, but I probably should have left that bit out. I really appreciate your participation, BTW. EEng (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC) P.S. I don't think it would be considered canvassing for you to add your encouragement to Looie that his participation might be helpful.
 * I haven't monitored that article for quite some time, so I'm not going to get involved anyway -- but thanks for letting me know. Looie496 (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope you won't mind my summarizing that the claim is that material that's been in the article for the last 5 years is evidence of my severe COI and that (it is even being suggested) I should be banned from the article (and make only edit-requests via talk page etc.). Because you were watching for so many years your longterm view could be especially valuable. Beyond mentioning that I respect your choice of course. EEng (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hatting of Reference Desk answer
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)


 * The question was about humans. In 1953 nothing meaningful was known about the neural basis of human memory, and publications from that era have only historical relevance.  The first important clue came in 1971, and since then a reasonably clear picture has been worked out, though much remains to be known.  Neuroscience is a young discipline -- many graduate students get antsy if they have to read anything more than 20 years old.  (I'm amazed that you just automatically assume that material taught in cybernetics courses 40 years ago remains valid.) Looie496 (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You haven't shown why the 40 year old material is invalid, nor have you answered my question above. Students these days in any discipline tend to disregard anything old.  I've made a bit of money on the side regurgitating in modern language and republishing material from 1920's thru to 1950's textbooks for just this reason.  But basic principles do not change.  In my field, electrical engineering, fundamental to it is Ohm's Law, identified well over 100 years ago.  Closer to your field, the two basic concepts in learning are operant conditioning, and classical conditioning.  These concepts were identified as fundamental about 100 years ago, by Pavlov and others.  They were taught in those 40 year old cybernetics classes as well!  I hope you and the students you know do not reject operant and classical conditioning because they are 100 year old concepts and taught 40 years ago in universities.  Fundamental to gas phase chemistry is the kinetic theory of gasses - you may recall learning it when you were in high school.  Do you think it is no longer valid because it is old?  I hope not - it is the basis of the very forefront of modern gas phase chemical reaction calculations.  Unless you can indentify where and why my post on Ref Desk is wrong, you might like to do the right thing and remove your comment about mis-information, as your hatting comment is misinformation.  You can leave the hatting if you want.  I'm not Wickwack, but I appreciate you cannot tell, and hatting does nothing anyway.  Is neuroscience all that young?  It goes back to at least Berger (1920's) in macro terms, and Golgi (1890's) in micro terms.  You will be well aware of their work.  RJB 1.122.90.176 (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And to hear some people tell it, to Phineas Gage in projectile terms. EEng (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * RJB, yes, I too was distressed by the responses to your edit. Even Isaac Newton (1727), Principia, General Scholium could not resist speculating that electrical bodies were the key to the puzzle. Perhaps everything now needs to be couched in terms of the Neural correlates of consciousness, of memory, and other wetware, instead of hardware, before it gains currency. because I talk to Looie sometimes --Ancheta Wis    (talk  &#124; contribs) 21:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * For God's sake! It's like answering a question about fire by talking about phlogiston!  This sort of damnable nonsense crops up whenever Wickwack gets involved -- that's why he was banned from the ref desks. Looie496 (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly stating my approach is nonsense does not make it nonsense no matter how many times you say it. However, logical argument may well do so.  You still haven't explained why my answer is invalid.  The best you've done, Looie, is come back with a load of irrelevant woffle about the attitudes of students and a implication that stuff written years ago is not now applicable.  So I explained with obvious examples of why that's wrong in the case of fundamental principles.  The fact is, a network of neurons interconnected in a seemingly random way will exhibit a pattern of firing.  Two interconnected neurons constitute a feedback network, which may or may not result in them re-triggering each other, depening on the configuration of each neuron (inhibitory or excitatory synapses and thresholds).  As the number of neurons in a net increases, the probablity of re-triggering increases, and the pattern of firing looks more and more random.  It isn't truely random of course. An external stimulus will cause a flurry of increased firing following by relaxation to a slightly different pattern.  That has been shown by experiment and by computer simulation.  I'm sure you already know this.  It's fundamental - it was true before researchers realised it, and will still be true until life on earth no longer exists, if not longer. Since you have not provided any logical refutation, I must assume you cannot.  Wickwack being banned has nothing to do with me.  Most likely he should have been banned, it seems so, but I am not he.  RJB 120.145.141.60 (talk) 02:43, 17 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)
 * No argument with your general thoughts there, EEng. But if a simulation gave the right results 40 years ago, it will now. That cannot be invalidated. And if you look at my post on Reference Desk (in archives, as some dude deleted it from the current page), I did preface it by saying "This is how it probably works.." and basically said that growing new synapses was not necessary for short term memory because experiment and computer simulation of neural nets had shown that rewiring was not necesary.  Remember the OP asked if growing new synapses was necessary.  So, I answered the OP's question in that regard.  It may well be that short term memory does not work that way, or, more likely, the concept that I explained is only part of it.  As I said in my Ref Desk post, it is a fast (ie faster than growing synapses) but very inefficient way to use neurons.  Perhaps you missed that bit.  Meanwhile Looie has not shown that it is wrong.  I don't think he can. I'm sure he would like to put me away with an expanation if he could.  Incidentally, the concepts I learnt in the cybernetics course turned out to be very usefull in my career as an electrical engineer and computer programmer. RJB 120.145.141.60 (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * if a simulation gave the right results 40 years ago, it will now: Yes, but if the simulation turns out to be based on promises which are no longer believed to apply to the problem at hand, then it becomes irrelevant despite still giving the "right results" according to the obsolete conceptual framework in which it was conceived. In the case of Miller-Urey, the brilliant simplicity of its success was tarnished somewhat years later when the understanding of early-earth conditions moved away from those M-U used; so while the experiment "worked" as well as it did 40 years before, it no longer meant anything. So your argument, "The simulation still works" doesn't mean anything. The fact that you've found these concepts useful in EE and programming (I do similar work, by the way) says nothing about whether they apply to the brain.
 * But wait! Even later, yet-more-refined models of early earth brought those models back into line with the M-U assumptions. Who knows? Maybe, like a stopped clock which is right twice a day, your outmoded narrative too will someday seem once again relevant. EEng (talk) 07:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes again, indeed. Your comparison with the M-U experiments is rather good actually. If the simulation turns out to be based on premises which are no longer believed to apply...  Well, as far as I know, the brain is still believed to comprise of a) neurons,  b)each neuron has inputs and outputs, c) each input can be excitatory or inhibitory, d) each neuron fires its outputs depending on a threshold test, and e) there are a large number of neurons.  These are all and the only premises the basic simulation was based on  (there are some subtleties that improve performance, but are not essential).  And, as I said in my Reference Desk post, experiments have been done on actual neural nets, extracted from a convenient animal and kept going long enough with nutrients - same result occurred.  We also know that our DNA, though it contains an extraordinary amount of data, is in no way sufficient to specify all the synapses in the relevant part of the brain.  This means that synapses must be initially random, or there is a regular patterm imposed.  There is considerable structure in the brain, but not even at the neuronal level in the relavent part of the brain, let alone the synapse level - only a broad structure of neuron classes.  So there is a mix of structure and randomness - and as soon as you have interconnection randomness, the net behaviour I described arises.  That's why the simulation was tried. And it does answer part of the OP's query - essentially "is the growth of new synapses required?"  Outmoded or not, the simulation is proof that new synapse growth is not required.  But there may well be other reasons why.  And, as far as the simulation goes, the brain might just rely on synapse growth anyway, as we know it does for long term memory, the mastering of manual skills etc. RJB 124.182.149.202 (talk) 12:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Look -- an answer can be not utterly wrong and still not be a good answer for the question posed. EEng (talk) 05:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Pain in animals
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)

WP Neuroscience in the Signpost
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)

Simple
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)

Wow
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)
 * Thank you for the very kind comments. I think this is one of several areas where a superficial mental image impels people toward a certain way of thinking, even if it doesn't make sense when spelled out explicitly.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation join the new Physiology Wikiproject!
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.
 * Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
 * You can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with   with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
 * You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
 * We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
 * Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
 * Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
 * To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
 * To welcome editors of physiology articles, copy and past this template (with the signature):
 * You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.
 * You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.
 * You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.

Hoping for your cooperation!  D ip ta ns hu Talk 12:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Your area of expertise...
Did you start some of the WP:FTN / SPI stuff related to this last year? Cheers, Stalwart 111  04:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't recall ever seeing any of that. Looie496 (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Aporia and Cognitive Dissonance
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 Withaak. I didn't even remember commenting on the article until I looked at the talk page.  If you're suggesting adding that material to the article, that probably isn't a good idea unless you can find published sources that explicitly discuss the connection between Plato's "aporia" and c.d.  Best regards, Looie496 (talk) 12:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Consciousness
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)
 * Hi Anthony. That's a widely recognized phenomenon, but hasn't been studied very extensively as far as I know.  There is no formal term for it as far as I know, but "zoning out" is sometimes used.  I think it is probably better described as a type of amnesia than as a phenomenon related to consciousness -- what happens is that after the task you don't remember anything that happened during it, but that doesn't necessarily imply anything about consciousness during it.  I don't think "all or part of me is absent" is a productive way to think about what is happening.  I've written a (rather long) essay that tries to explain why, which can be found on my website if you're interested.  (Metaphorical dualism and the Cartesian Airplane).  Best regards, Looie496 (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I find this topic very interesting (if, ultimately, unresolved). It's still at the infant stage in neuroscience, but in psychology, there's a large literature on attention and cognitive inhibition. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Looie, it could be a severe curtailing of working memory. I'll take a look at your essay later, when I've had some sleep. Mmm. I'll check out cognitive inhibition, too, Tryptofish. I've never heard of that. (21:40, 9 July 2014) I just peeked at the latter. In the lede: "...neural inhibition, which refers to the ability of individual neurons to stop elements of thought". I might drag out my old Psychology 101 textbook. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I, too, saw that mention of "neural inhibition". I'm very skeptical that cognitive inhibition is anything as reductive as inhibitory synaptic transmission or long-term depression. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have a vague recollection of reading a paper or two about this stuff at some point, but I can't remember any details and haven't been able to formulate a Google search that gets me back to it. Looie496 (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Looie, I looked at your website; do you prefer replies here, or there. I tried googling Salience because it appears claustrum is part of the machinery for salience. Regarding absent-mindedness, I found  a public domain test: Attention-Related Cognitive Errors Scale (ARCES). --Ancheta Wis    (talk  &#124; contribs) 01:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Feel free to reply wherever is most convenient. About absent-mindedness, what I was trying to say and didn't get across clearly is that I remember seeing a paper about the phenomenon of driving along a familiar route and then not remembering anything about the trip at the end.  That might be a spurious memory though. Looie496 (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Carl Sagan mentioned that he had to make a conscious effort to remember to drive to point A when getting in his car; otherwise, he would either drive to work, or drive home. --Ancheta Wis    (talk  &#124; contribs) 14:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I had a pet hypothesis, spurred by Ronald Graham, mathematician and juggler, who observed that no one had juggled more than 6 balls at a time; the correspondence with the 6 layers of cortex was just too suggestive. But the 7 ball feat was published via youtube in 2011. Anyway, since the claustrum has been mooted as a "7th layer", maybe I can still hope. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 14:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That sort of numerology pretty much leaves me cold, but if you're interested in such things check out The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two. Looie496 (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, given what we know of information flow in the cortex, it's extremely unlikely that it is one juggled ball per cortical layer. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Streambedry
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)
 * Um, yeah. Looie496 (talk) 12:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

RD deletion
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)

Theta
I rather expect that today's Nobel is going to give the theta oscillation more prominence. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow! All three of them are good friends.  I knew that they were doing Nobel-quality work but I never expected anything to happen so soon. Looie496 (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've never met them, but I was very happy to see them selected. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 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)


 * No, I still think that idea probably has some level of validity, but I don't think it can be anything like the full story. I was really referring to later unpublished thoughts.  That conjecture does make the point though that precession could do something useful without doing anything that could reasonably called "temporal coding".  Anyway I've replied there. Looie496 (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, well, well
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 would be a good place to start. EEng (talk) 05:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For me, not cabin fever, but maybe a strong urge to heave. (EEng knows what I mean, and no, not Ebola.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't be scared off, Looie -- we take all appropriate precautions, and not one discussion participant has become infected (except with enthusiasm, of course). Please come join us. EEng (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't do well with extended disputes like that. If things don't get resolved in a reasonable time I get too frustrated. Looie496 (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You could just drop in and give your opinion. You don't have to sign up for the long haul. Tell you what -- suppose a question was succinctly summarized and your opinion was solicited. Could you consider responding, with no obligation to stick around? EEng (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Cerebellum
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)

cerebellum
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)
 * There's some evidence for just about anything; that's why we require secondary sources. That evidence doesn't seem very strong to me. There's a long distance between mouse misbehavior and autism. Looie496 (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Peter Damian
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)


 * Given the amount of trouble he caused, not just to me but to the whole community, and given the amount of lying he did, there's no way I can be enthusiastic about that. I haven't interacted with him for a long time, but I still can't imagine feeling any enthusiasm.  He basically did his best to destroy Wikipedia (in the guise of improving it), and that's a hard thing to get over. Looie496 (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I didn't see any of that. Probably before my time. Can you point me to some incidents? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have just restored this section after it was deleted by user:Solti, which has the look of a throwaway account. I also received an email from Peter complaining about what I wrote.  As you can imagine, these events don't increase my enthusiasm for his return. Looie496 (talk) 14:51, 10 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)
 * Thank you. Perhaps he is referring to the use of 'alternate accounts'. I have used many of these. But I always used them constructively to improve Wikipedia, and I always let someone know, or the whole community know, that it was me, to avoid charges of deception. I have never used alternate accounts to gain an advantage in a dispute, or for vote stacking. I despise such practices. So I would appreciate if Mr. S could either substantiate this allegation, or remove it, and preferably apologise.Solti (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For God's sake! You were community banned precisely for using alternative accounts to gain an advantage in a dispute (with FT2). Looie496 (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The account was ironically called 'A sock of course', and no attempt was made to conceal its identity (I was blocked at the time). And I was not banned for that, I was banned for accusing him of abusive socking. Solti (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) No, I don't feel a need to spend hours digging up ancient history. Treat it as a baseless opinion if you want to. I didn't go out of my way to get into this: you asked me about it in a public forum, and I answered with my honest opinion. Looie496 (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Then why are you making these baseless accusations? You talk about "the amount of lying he did", and you clearly can't remember any incident, nor was there one. Please delete your comment above, and I will disappear again. Solti (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, fortunately you've saved me from having to do any work. The statement above about not having used alternative accounts to gain an advantage in a dispute is just the sort of lie I was talking about.  And what's more, you made that statement from a sleeper account that you used to gain an advantage in this very dispute. Looie496 (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, I was blocked at the time, and I created a throwaway account to put a sockpuppet tag on the guy's page. Everyone knew what was going on, and I emailed an administrator to spell out exactly what was happening. The account was called 'a sock of course'. There was no deception involved whatsoever. It is the deceptive socking which creates the illusion of different people in the discussion, or dishonest vote stacking, that I was talking about. Again: where is this 'amount of lying'? You say 'just the sort of lie I was talking about'. The whole point of the sockpuppet tag was to call attention to a lie. Solti (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This sleeper account has never been used deceptively. Look at the edit history. I have not concealed my identity for one minute. Solti (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Never been used deceptively! The account was created with a message saying "I have been editing for some time as an IP. The time has come." -- which was a lie.  You used it to support Carrite's RFA without identifying yourself, which was deceptive and also makes your claim above about vote-stacking a lie. Looie496 (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And I was indeed editing as an IP. I voted in Tim's RFA, and no other account was used. 'Vote stacking' means voting twice, yes? To clarify exactly what I meant: I have never used alternative accounts in a way that would lead any editor to believe that there were two separate people with different minds and separate beliefs or belief systems etc., in order to gain the advantage in an editorial dispute. Nor have I ever voted twice, for the same reason. Obviously I have used many alternate accounts (although none for a few years), but they never interacted jointly with others in order to give the impression of advantage of numbers. You must be familiar with that kind of behavior (not from yourself I am sure). I am truly puzzled by your attitude. I just looked for some of your stuff on the web, and found this, which is very good, and Wikipedia needs editors of your calibre. But I simply don't understand the hostility. Solti (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI
—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 &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Human spinal paralysis
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)
 * I honestly don't even remember where or when I mentioned that, anyway I certainly make no claims to be an expert on that topic. Is this the same Jerry Lettvin who worked on the frog's eye paper with Maturana, McCulloch  & Pitts (and many other things of course)? Looie496 (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If you haven't seen it,
Manuel da Silva Rosa. Dougweller (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it possible that you're confusing me with another editor? I have no idea why you left me this message.  Best regards, Looie496 (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry. It was because of Articles for deletion/Manuel Rosa. Dougweller (talk) 09:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, now I get it. My memory doesn't encompass seven year old deletion discussions, I guess. Looie496 (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nor does mine, but I've been keeping track of attempts to promote Rosa. Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Inositol Trisphosphate-3 Kinase
Found in User:Lrdrake/sandbox; would it be something you had an opinion on? Best, -- Sam Sing! 13:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's quite a nice article, but it looks like an educational assignment at the University of Michigan. If so, it shouldn't really be going through AFC.  Anyway, I've asked a couple of questions in the AFC section. Looie496 (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- Sam Sing! 15:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Another

 * Not related, but what would you do with User:Harald Blautand/sandbox? -- Sam Sing! 14:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That doesn't have the form of a Wikipedia article and the title isn't suitable for an encyclopedia article. This editor needs to learn more about how Wikipedia works. Looie496 (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, could it be incorporated in article you know? -- Sam Sing! 15:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reasonable way of using it. That's a throwaway that was creating by somebody blasting out text for five minutes -- you shouldn't feel guilty for rejecting it. Looie496 (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Momentary editing exercise
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)

Bioelectronic Medicine
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)


 * The article is so far from usable that I don't see a clear path to fixing it. The problems include (1) the article is not written in encyclopedic style; (2) many statements are loose or incorrect; (3) many of the sources are primary research articles, and therefore not compatible with WP:MEDRS; (4) the article functions as a covert advertisement for an unproven treatment, namely vagus nerve stimulation.  If you would like a "second opinion", feel free to post a request at WT:MED for other editors to look at the draft. Looie496 (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Invitation


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.

Unsubscribe from this list •  Sign up for VisualEditor's multilingual newsletter  •   Translate the user guide

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

DSM-5 codes
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 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)
 * That article represents less than an hour's work on my part. I created it by cutting out a bunch of material that didn't belong from the DSM-5 article -- rather than consign it to the bitbucket I used it to  create a new article.  I really don't feel like I have any stake here.  The editor who added the material to the DSM-5 article might care more than I do.  Best regards, Looie496 (talk) 03:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, so I see. I didn't look at the edit summary. I'll go look and see who added the content to DSM-5 and see if I can track from there. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh. Blocked sock. So that's that, then. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

MIDDAYEXPRESS: supposed involvement in MUSLIM TERRORISM SUPPORT
<tldr removed>


 * I'm no longer an admin and don't have the power to block anybody even if I want to. I have deleted your very long message to keep it from cluttering my archive.  Best regards, Looie496 (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello from the team at Featured article review!


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!

PLoS ONE drug paper review
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)

A hypothesis and more...
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)


 * The difficulty, if I understand what you are saying, is that remembering something is not the same as experiencing it. The two events clearly are related, but they aren't the same.  Philosophers and neuroscientists have been struggling since the 1600s to describe the relationship between memory/imagination and experience, but it's hard.  One of the early theories was that remembering something causes the same type of brain activity as experiencing it, except weaker -- but there are all kinds of objections to that idea.  So the answer, I think, is that the memory of coffee or LSD has some relationship with the actual experience of them, but we don't yet understand exactly what that relationship is.  I hope this helps; I'm sure it's confusing. Looie496 (talk) 18:37, 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)


 * This isn't really the place for a deep discussion -- I don't mind taking a bit of liberty, but I want to keep my talk page here focused mainly on Wikipedia-related topics. Anyway, to briefly reply:  (1) I have no idea what causes LSD flashbacks, and I'm not 100% convinced that they really exist; (2) Yes, I know about Sam Harris -- also our article neuroscience of free will deals with some of those issues.  Harris is not the only neuroscientist willing to talk about them.  (3) Lots of times we simply don't know why an area lights up.  Our understanding of brain function is still very primitive.  Best regards, Looie496 (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

hi
I would appreciate your opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine .thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case opening
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 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at 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, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 01:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

BCI article
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


 * Thanks for asking. The basic policy is embodied in WP:MEDRS, which says that we should rely as much as possible on secondary sources, meaning mainly review articles.  There are several reasons for that:  First, review papers give guidance on how material should be weighted -- it's difficult to tell the difference between an important research paper and one that is trivial or dubious.  Second, review papers present a more consistent picture of the state of the field.  Third, using review papers improves maintainability of the article.  Best regards, Looie496 (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyright violation you could deal with
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)

Dorsal striatum reversion?
Hey Looie496,

I wanted to ask for your reasoning in reverting the 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)


 * The problem is that the article was full of errors. In modern terminology the globus pallidus is not considered part of the dorsal striatum -- it is part of the so-called "corpus striatum" (and certainly part of the "basal ganglia"), but not of the dorsal striatum, which in humans consists of the caudate and putamen, along with the internal capsule that separates them.  This error is repeated several times.  Also the article is not very useful unless it contrasts the dorsal striatum with the ventral striatum.  The first paragraph of the striatum article explains what the dorsal striatum is in a correct way.  Let me add that the terminology here is not very logical, and has been used variably in older literature, but our job is describe the terminology as it is used by modern anatomists, regardless of whether it makes sense.  Best regards, Looie496 (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Let me add that I have no problem at all with turning the redirect back into an article, as long as the material that goes into the article is correct and understandable. Looie496 (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the reply.Calaka (talk) 06:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)