If you leave a message for me here, I'll respond here. If I leave a message on your talk page, I'll look there for a response (but of course you can respond here if you want to).

Well done. If you look back you'll see I arrived on the talk page saying I had a view on the issues but was not going to say what it was. And you've seen how well that worked. But what do I know, I'm only a social scientist. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your example of an article on Zeus was apposite. One way I think of it is that each article must fall under some area of scholarship. When you can identify what that area is, then you can identify which sources to use in the article. For example, in cold fusion, a very contentious article, I suggested that it was a science article and therefore we should be using mainly scientific literature; that was agreed. ASDD is not a science article but an article on science politics (more precisely, science politics in the USA). So the references should mainly be to political analysts and commentators. I had high hopes of the Renka article as the author is a political scientist, but when I looked more closely it was hardly a notable opinion at all. There is one basic problem with this article, and that is that there has not been a great deal of commentary on the petition. I really wish we could find more sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Judith. I think with patience it may be possible to work this out, since all of us have the same basic attitude toward the topic, and it's simply a question of how to organize the presentation. The basic problem is that the people who've been contributing to the article have worked on it so much that they're no longer able to see it from the viewpoint of a reader. If we can get them to do that again, the battle will be largely won (I hope).Looie496 (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply here. However the user who first raised the issue about thoese statments still doesn't seem convinced basically because it was the only reply and because you "about 200 edits". Do you think you could go into and bit more detail or recommend another user to ask. Buc (talk) 07:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason nobody else said anything is because there was nothing else to say: it's just too obvious. Could you point me to the relevant discussion -- I wasn't able to find it. If I could understand why the person in question thinks there is a pov problem, I might be able to say something.Looie496 (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzo fan2007 is the user who has a problem with it. Mainly because of the use of word "only". Buc (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy those figures were yours. As I write my thesis on phase precession, I have become quite familiar with your '95 thesis and was worried that someone was using your figures without attribution. ThetaMonkey (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: "Dawkins on Darwin" to air August 4, 2008

I thought you might be interested in the following:

A July 18, 2008 Times-Online interview with Richard Dawkins discussed an upcoming television film entitled, "Dawkins on Darwin", which will air in the UK on Channel 4 from August 4. In the interview, Dawkins specifically states that his film is about Darwinism.

Given Dawkins' high profile in this controversy, it should be informative to watch and see how he currently uses the terms: Darwinism, evolution and natural-selection. Enjoy! - DannyMuse (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest, next time you feel the need to butt in and tell someone to "chill out" you take a moment to shut your mouth and think to yourself: am I helping the situation one iota? In this case, you were not, and I ask that you refrain from posting similar drivel on my talk page ever again. I hope I've made myself clear, and I hope you have a wonderful day. You're right. Apologies. --Badger Drink (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC) updated Badger Drink (talk) 01:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. Peace. Looie496 (talk) 02:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a problem in the link to you Talk Page, which causes it to color in RED, as an unresolved link.

Word has it, that you are already implicated in more wars than one.

Should you continue to ignore the article's discussion page, or threaten me, and in your words: exercise "Brute Force", prepare to face the consequences.

If, on the other hand, you want to play by the rules, and be civil, then I suggest that you wait for the contents change, as per ths suggested concensus on the talk page.

BTW, I am a physicist, among my other sins, and I beg to differ on your odd statement, that - "You will not find physicists nowadays, who believe that this has anything to do with physics" (excuse any inaccuracies in the quotation).

--Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The red link is my (non-existent) user page, not my talk page. Looie496 (talk) 03:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Looie496, I appreciate your effort to participate in this discussion, which is the appropriate thing to do. You raise a concern that I agree with, and so does Dbrodbeck (see above), which is that this should not be an original research, and that we need more Sources. In this spirit, let's cooperate, instead of waging wars. --Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding the comments, please see: User talk:Hersfold. In the end, I took the time to type it all up. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 04:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was just a mistake, but I thought I'd let you know, I restored Chautauqua Airlines destinations. A large number of airline destination lists exist (Category:Airline destinations) and this particular one had over 100 edits since September 2007. Articles such as this should have at least gone to AfD, as many have (and survived). - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 06:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "witch hunts didn't become frequent until after the medieval period" —your edit summary in SRA

And you wrote 16th to 17th centuries in article. In fact, the Malleus Maleficarum was published in the 15th century. —Cesar Tort 03:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The time period given in witch hunt is 1450-1700, so it's post-medieval in any case; the medieval period officially ends with the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Feel free to correct the wording. Looie496 (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I realise I did say what I said a little too abruptly ("I agree..." essentially) and I've just responded to the user's concerns and you may wish to read them. I've basically explained that you and Kbs666 have provided more-than-adequete reasoning for your proposed changes, whereas Morphh seems to be merely opposing them based upon him having to find new sources. Primary sources are worse than articles that provide secondary sources, that is pretty clear cut in policy in my opinion. —[[::User:Cyclonenim|Cyclonenim]] ([[::User talk:Cyclonenim|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Cyclonenim|contribs]]) 22:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to voice support for your objection in the section on Race in the Lovecraft article. I am new to this, and I do not want to make such drastic changes myself, but I am rather disturbed by the inordinate amount of attention his quite frankly rather banal sense of racism--for his day--has received. I would like to see a more experienced editor than myself attempt these changes. Phrenology (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I cited veritable sources and it is becoming a widely known event. I know my section needs inprovement, but please don't revert it. I'm working on it. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at your source. It's a rumor mill, and it only describes this as "word of mouth", not as verified. The Wikipedia rules on potentially libelous material are very strict, partly to prevent Wikipedia from being involved in lawsuits. You need a good, reputable source before you add something like that to an article. Even then, it has to be important enough to belong in an encyclopedia article. Looie496 (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking to Winger84 regarding the advice to WP:DONTBITE, you just happened to make a comment in between, totally different from what was already being discussed and I commented after you, making it look like my answer was towards you. I know you said the sources aren't good enough for the article and I accepted that. Please don't be offended. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 04:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your note about the Liz Parker article. I made multiple changes to the article, so please be more specific regarding the edit. I have "This is a minor edit" set as my default, so it's possible that I forgot to uncheck the box when I made a major edit. --*momoricks* (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I got your message about my edits. I was not altering the words in the text itself, just fixing up the indents at the side, because they do not conform to the right format. I thought it would make it easier to follow. Anyhow, it is not a big issue. I will leave it. (I am new to Wikipedia, so I am learning all the ins and outs.) Thanks. Angie186 (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the diffs were too complicated to understand, and your edit messages didn't explain what you were doing. Do you realize, by the way, that the article has been pretty much blanked out, because it was so poorly structured? Looie496 (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that. Hopefully it can be re-written in a better format. Angie186 (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You dont care whatever I say here and Im not pertaining to you anyway so why the hell you are commenting and reacting that way? (Note to myself: this unsigned message was from Fetch Dickson)

I do care. I can see that you're trying to make Wikipedia better, and when your efforts in that direction make you do things that will lead to problems, I care enough to tell you so. Looie496 (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looie: I saw your comment on the Patrick McCarthy page for deletion. There is a serious error that has been added to the article, alleging that the subject "testified" (an attorney no less) before the Supreme Court of the United States. I cannot really edit it because that will be shoved down my throat, though we all know that the SCOTUS is an appelate body (thus, no one testifies, they look at the record on appeal), and the source displays that the things alleged to have been "testified" to were simply quotes, with nothing more to show when and where they were made. Can you review this for me and give me your feedback, or make changes as you see appropriate?[1] Thanks. Yachtsman1 (talk) 07:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Looie, The stuff in the article is all correct. It was all over the newspapers 30yrs ago. The correct approach is not to remove the content of the article but to insert a warning box at the top asking for inline citations, so that it gets improved. We are not going to get improvement if it is removed. There is such a box, do you know where to get it from?BaronHirst (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I don't think that's the right approach here. Based on the history, if such a tag is added, the article will just sit there forever in its current state, with the tag. For conspiracy-cruft like this, that isn't acceptable. What it comes to is that if you want that material to be there, it's your job to add citations. Looie496 (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're awake. I saw that earlier, and I thought I'd changed it. Obviously not. I got six hits when I googled it... it was just some wally with too much time on his hands. Good work soldier.

Declan Davis (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did change it. He did it again. Looie496 (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, that explains it then... *Declan shakes fist at pesky user*

Declan Davis (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any comments on Cailil's latest proposal on this article's talk page? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see the value of splitting the article. I thought you were saying earlier that the topic of acid throwing to force women to keep their heads covered was given disproportionate weight in the article, and I would support a change to reduce the amount of weight it gets. Looie496 (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was my view. I didn't notify you because i thought you would agree with me. I notiied you because you had expressed views about the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to you on Talk:Alzheimer's disease. --Una Smith (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you an admin? Can we protect the page so that only registered users can edit? It's on my watch list and there only ever seems to be vandalism reversal taking place.

 Declan Davis   (talk)  19:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not an admin. You could try asking for help on WP:ANI, but in my experience it has to be really bad to get anybody to do anything about it. When there's a rash of vandalism, it's usually possible to get somebody to "semi-protect" an article so that IP editors can't alter it, but that never lasts for very long. (This is the most annoying aspect of Wikipedia.) Looie496 (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so... Have a nice evening.  Declan Davis   (talk)  00:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Looie, I only just saw your comment over on the talk page. I think this would make a great addition somewhere. Do you have more details? Yours, Verbal chat 08:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Brain (as food), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. You may also want to move the page to EverythingWiki. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 22:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you right, sorry should not have slipped that in, will have a look at a few textbooks I have lying around ;) good call on the revert, was not thinking. Equine-man (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(copied over from my talk page:) Nah, it's clumsy and redundant in all cases, without exception. If you want to indicate that you are offering a particular definition (in this case, the DSM's), then you should say so. As in: "The DSM defines 'major depressive episode' as..." HTH. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your response was so very idiotic. But if you want to re-word it, go ahead! Physchim62 (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was idiotic because if I'd thought for a moment, I'd have seen that I was just basically repeating what had already been said -- but thanks for your kind words. Looie496 (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, that's not idiotic that's just human; and thank [INSERT NAME OF PREFERRED DEÏTY HERE] that most Wikipedia editors are actually human! Physchim62 (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looie, we're having a bit of a dispute about the appropriateness of blogs as a Reliable Source in a BLP article. Since you contributed to this discussion previously and are well versed in the WP-policies related to this issue I was wondering if you'd take a look and perhaps make a comment. Thanks. - DannyMuse (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, sorry about the mis-addressing initially. I was copy & pasting this to a few editors that have shown an interest in this subject and forgot to change the address. I still would like your input if you're in a position to comment! DannyMuse (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way you know my comment relating the above wasn't personal, right? I'd just had a few hassles over tagging of new articles and couldn't understand why they seem to be treated differently sometimes...shouldn't have even brought it up EverSince (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's cool -- you pretty much have to hit me over the head to get me to take a comment personally. Anyway, I share the same frustration -- tags usually don't say anything that isn't obvious, and they really look ugly. It's kind of remarkable how little tagging there is of neuroscience articles, but I don't particularly want to call attention to that fact. Looie496 (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

surely was better a link to some documentation, than a simple trust in me--Efa2 (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you have removed the addition of P to the Methamphetamine? As this is the name used in New Zealand there is no reason for its exclusion, therefore I have restored it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.1.162 (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the reason for removing it in my edit summary: no documentation. There must be 5000 things that people call meth around the world, and we surely can't list all of them -- the most reasonable way of keeping it in bounds is to at least ask that a name be used widely enough to show up in published sources. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary didn't make sense. The use of 'P' is widespread in New Zealand, infact is the main name used, and as such there is plenty of documentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.1.162 (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, outside New Zealand the name is never used at all, as far as I can tell. Anyway, I have fixed the article by adding a source. It seems a little unfair that I should have to spend my time doing the research for this. Looie496 (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was you the decided to delete it. It is also very unfair that the inclusion of one name was challenged and was only permitted to remain once a reference was given when 8 other names, all unreferenced, are allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.1.162 (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you patrol new articles. Look here 2008 Australian zoo killings. Let me know how I can improve it. With the help from others, it may be usable. Can you patrol this? 903M (talk) 02:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any problems with it content-wise. I took the liberty of doing a copy-edit to make it read a little more smoothly. Nasty story. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before adding a CSD tag to an article, I suggest that you check the article's history. I bring this discussion to you because of your recent speedy tag for Nelly. The article was vandalized; it was not a nonsense page. Just a heads up to keep an eye on these things. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 03:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I realized it, but too late. Sorry. Looie496 (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a significant change to the citation style. The usage of Short footnotes are not absolutely necessary and do not need an immediate change. Their purpose is to allow people to cite multiple locations within a lengthy source. Don't worry, I know what I'm doing. ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well, you made a few errors in setting it up. (Unfortunately, "cite book" does not render correctly if you give editors but not an author.) You might look at hippocampus for an example that uses the short-footnote method in the usual way. Looie496 (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This book doesn't appear to have a definite author, but instead a set of editors (four to be exact) with Barbara to be the primary contributor. I've made a brief move around so that she is the author instead of the editor. ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking for clarity on which eliminativists argue that no coherent neural basis will be found for many everyday psychological concepts such as belief or desire, since they are poorly defined, that's all. Octane ^{[improve me?]} 06.10.08 0010 (UTC)

It seems clear to me from reading the text that the source is given in the following sentence, and I'm not sure how that could be made more clear. Any suggestions? Maybe that ref should be moved up one sentence. Looie496 (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't so sure—I don't have the book, so I couldn't look it up—maybe it could be duplicated like you say (not sure what the technical name for it would be, but so that the reference is given a name param and has a, b links at the bottom). Octane ^{[improve me?]} 07.10.08 1554 (UTC)

Hi Looie496. Can I ask you to consider being more careful with your comments? I think referring to particle physics terminology as "cruft" [2] is a bit derogatory; please keep in mind that particle physics is science, not just stuff that's made up for the fun of it, and that professional researchers are putting their time into improving Wikipedia's coverage of the field. Your concerns about how the material is presented are absolutely valid, but it makes it hard to work together to improve things when you appear to be casting such scorn on the subject matter. Thanks! -- SCZenz (talk) 06:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote (at Enchanted loom, Talk): "...I'm pretty well up on current understanding of what happens in the brain during sleep, and will certainly pitch in if that aspect comes into play." Moving that here, as that was an obscure place for such a thread.

Thanks a million! It may be ages until I get to it - am just starting thinking. There wasn't room for such a section in Sleep medicine, but articles about medical specialties ought to include something about 'Research themes in specialty' which would mean current stuff as well as some history. I'm thinking a daughter article, thus primarily human, though various fruit flies and mice will also need to be credited. Thanks again, --Hordaland (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heuristics is the study of how the human mind makes choices. Did you look at the article linked and its section on psychology?

In psychology, heuristics are simple, efficient rules, hard-coded by evolutionary processes or learned, which have been proposed to explain how people make decisions, come to judgments, and solve problems, typically when facing complex problems or incomplete information. These rules work well under most circumstances, but in certain cases lead to systematic cognitive biases.

For instance, people may tend to perceive more expensive beers as tasting better than inexpensive ones (providing the two beers are of similar initial quality or lack of quality and of similar style). This finding holds true even when prices and brands are switched; putting the high price on the normally relatively inexpensive brand is enough to lead subjects to perceive it as tasting better than the beer that is normally more expensive. One might call this "price implies quality" bias. (Cf. Veblen good.) While much of the work of discovering heuristics in human decision-makers has been done by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman[3], the concept was originally introduced by Nobel laureate Herbert Simon . Gerd Gigerenzer focuses on how heuristics can be used to make judgments that are in principle accurate, rather than producing cognitive biases – heuristics that are "fast and frugal".[4]

What do you mean by look up the word in the dictionary? Please clarify if you meant something demeaning by it. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so you do know what the word means. But it completely escapes me why you believe there is a connection between that and free will. Looie496 (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I have written a new introduction for quark at User:SCZenz/Quark#New intro. As you expressed concern about the complexity of the previous introduction, I'd be especially pleased if you would take a look, let me know what you think, and help improve it. -- SCZenz (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I saw your comments on the AfD. I think the problem that has arisen on WP is that the policy on BLP's has tightened up. The journal Progress in Physics, possibly the worst journal in physics, has been put up for deletion, but was kept precisely for the reasoning you have given in the AfD - as a warning to physicists, because it publishes highly questionable articles on fringe theories. The BLP of Evans started off by one of his cohort posting his CV on wikipedia. It therefore was a sly way of presenting ECE theory. However, this was all removed later on, leaving a biographical stub. I agree that it was useful that it included a fairly concise assessment of the flaws in ECE theory, conforming to normal wikipedia standards. Now, however, BLP standards have become tighter. This means that articles on other fringe scientists, like Santilli or Smarandache, should probably also be put up for deletion. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for filling me in. As you can tell no doubt, I'm totally opposed to this trend. Since this seems to be a matter of a policy evolving in a direction that I think is very misguided, I'm wondering whether it might be worth bringing the issue to the attention of Arbcom or even Jimbo. Looie496 (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More than a month ago, you mentioned on my page that edits I made to Jan Hendrik Schön in 2004 seem very similar to parts of a book published in 2007. 2004 is a long time ago but I remember a little about writing that article. I used entirely online sources, all of which I then linked to in the external links section. I highly doubt that I word-for-word copied anything from anywhere. Honestly, though, it really was a long time ago. It is quite possible that he took the information from Wikipedia, but it is also possible that he and I used the same sources and paraphrased them similarly. moink (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for responding. I think I've sort of figured out the situation in the meantime. You certainly didn't use the book, but the author had constructed the book largely by putting together short pieces he had written in various places, and I think you used one of those short pieces that was available online. It's pretty clear that you did copy in a more word-for-word way than you should have, but in any case, the situation seems to be okay now--the book is fully credited, and Agin knows about the article and isn't complaining. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes I would agree to that, just keep it toned down, so for example state that methamphetamine can be strongly/very/extremely addicting, and may cause serious harm or something like that. I am trying very hardly to keep amphetamine articles nice and NPOV, its hard with all the vandals, sorry if my edit was bad or something. Regards, C6541 (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is custom in FAC to leave editors to cross their own comments when they think they have been adressed, since they are the ones to decide if they are happy about how this has been done. I am sure they agree with your changes, and that you did not know the custom, so it is not really a problem, but lets say that it is the polite way of doing it.

Best regards --Garrondo (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]