User talk:Neurorel

Bingham
Found a UCL reference for Roger Bingham. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/alumni/alumni-news/ucl-people/68_memories Wagonlease (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Caltech reference
Could you add a link to the reference you site for Roger Bingham's time as a visiting scholar at Caltech? You mention it in the comments but it didn't get a ref link. Also, the paragraph about Bingham's theory of evolutionary theoretical neuroscience seems to have been changed a lot recently on that page so I am adding a section to discuss that to the Talk page. Caromk (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Sock puppet investigation
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Neurorel. Thank you. Edhubbard (talk) 03:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Neuroscientist vs. Neurologist
It looks like it has been left as Neuroscientist! Thanks for the message on my page; I haven't logged in since I made that edit. Obsessive Wikipedia users are incredibly annoying, even when something is plainly obvious! Vivara (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Mirror neuron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Churchland (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) 10:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
... for letting me know. Unbelievable, huh? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Medical Hypotheses
is not a MEDRS. It has generally not even been considered a RS, as it is intended for publishing speculation.  DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

September 2018
Your recent editing history at VS Ramachandran shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your attention. It's been very peaceful on the Ramachandran entry for the last six months. Then, on Aug 30, Sciencelover2016 reappeared and began insisting on moving material (references to Newsweek and Time lists of influential scientists) into the opening paragraph. We went back and forth about this and I made several suggestions about compromises. Sciencelover was not amenable. It's a peculiar development --back in February he actually agreed that this material belonged in the Awards and Honors section, which is where it rested until last Friday, when he moved it back to the opening paragraph. My point of view is: the references to Newsweek and Prospect are blank flags. They tell us nothing about Ramachandran's status as a scientist or as a public figure. The Time list (which was compiled through an on-line survey) points toward Ramachandran's status as a science celebrity, so I am ok with that. Ramachandran is a sort of pop-scientist, so gently representing his dual status is challenging. Personally, I like to keep blank flags to a minimum.

0

ANI Noticeboard
I have filed a complaint at the BLP noticeboard about your BLP violations at VS Ramachandran. Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard HouseOfChange (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * An experienced editor at BLP noticeboard advised me that WP:ANI, not BLPN, is the place to get help. This is  concerning your repeated disruptions of articles about VS Ramachandran, Roger Bingham, and topics related to them, where you have consistently removed positive or simply descriptive material, and in the case of Ramachandran repeatedly tried to introduce, often in the article lead, unflattering trivia of various kinds. Here is the link to the ANI discussion: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)