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).

Archives

User Talk:Looie496/Archive 1 User Talk:Looie496/Archive 2

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 14 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hi, Looie496. What do you think of my suggestion that we look at the rest of the review, and then return to the lede. --Philcha (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Looie496, you seem to busy at present. Please note that I'll be on holiday Fri 18 Mar to Mon 28 Mar 2011 inclusive. --Philcha (talk) 10:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merit was not only mine. Your marvellous GA review was of great help. Just for curiosity: I hope Parkinson's disease appears in Main page in a month (April 11: world's PD day). Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 07:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you know how to go about nominating it? Looie496 (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will nominate it along the week: since it is 8 points there should be no problem with it getting to the main page.--Garrondo (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed split appears to be appropriate. However, this is a specialised topic so the work should be done by somebody who understand the topic. I am also notifying User:Captain-n00dle who proposed the split, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience and Wikipedia:WikiProject Primates. I am removing the split tag, as the request has now been responded to, and it is up to those closest to the topic to carry out the split. SilkTork *^YES! 21:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rastamouse-ting (talk · contribs · logs) has been indefinitely blocked for "Personal attacks or harassment". Cheers,  Chzz  ►  20:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I guess we self-righteous tossers will just have to get along without him somehow. Looie496 (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I've withdrawn the complaint as the user applogised to me. KnowIG (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Looie496, Thank you for your comment! The Wikipedia article on the basal ganglia is embarrasingly poor. It does not even include text book information. It does not say anything for example about hyperdirect pathway. It does not say anything about dimensionality reduction, it does not say anything about "hold your horses" hypothesis and many more. Ironically, it contains so many details such as existance of the basal ganglia in lamprey which is definitely not a text book fact. In fact, as we have also reported in our paper, the existance of full basal ganglia connectivity in lamprey has just been recently (2011) verified. When we were publishing our article, we contacted our friends who proved it, they have not et even published it. In fact, six references in the current version of the Wikipedia article on basal ganglia are 2010 papers, one is 2009, three are 2008. You can barely find anything before 2000 in it. Therefore, I am afraid I can not accept your logic. Your logic seems correct, but that logic is not implemented in the basal ganglia article. I am sure it is not implemented elsewhere in Wikipedia either. You may check the article on "Basal Ganglia System in Primates" where you can find tens of "non-text book" level points. I would love of course to contribute to a more comprehensive article, once we have an actually implemented rule. Before that, I guess removing the paragraphs I add is unfair, and certainly not professional. Our paper is indeed a novel hypothesis discussing a "big picture" of the basal ganglia. The paper is about what basal ganglia is on a macro level. In other words, it is certainly a text book level paper. Read it and you will find a sweet story that is understandable for people in hippocampus or migrain research as well. It is readable and understandable for anyone who knows basic neuroscience. It is not a detailed analysis of the synapses between two nuclei in a specific thread of rats. It is a generic story of the basal ganglia that best fits text books. On the other hand, it has fully covered almost any other big picture demonstrated by others since 1970s. The fact that the wikipedia article on basal ganglia is so poor to have missed for example Mink's ideas or Graybiel's matrisome concept that are 70s and 80s ideas does not justify removing our novel idea. Iman Kamali Sarvestani (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are exactly right! The article is embarrassingly poor. And the primate basal ganglia article is truly awful. If you would like to make the BG article better by putting in some of the textbook information that is missing, that would be wonderful. A discussion of action-selection theories based on recent reviews would not be out of place, and I would not object (much) to a citation of your own paper in the context of a full comparative discussion. But we need to avoid using Wikipedia simply as a pointer to our own papers. I have my own theory of how the hippocampus (my own research topic) works, which I think everybody ought to know, but I have not described it in the hippocampus article, even though I wrote most of that article. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Looie, Thank you for your comments! I will be more than glad to contribute to writing an article on current state of art in how decisions are made in the BG. That takes some days. I will be back to you with a draft. Cheers Iman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iman Kamali Sarvestani (talk • contribs) 00:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I do not think they get less points by interacting with others, and nevertheless most of my edits have been as examples of what has to be done. Have you notice the talk page I have created for making general comments to the students? --Garrondo (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's very good, I should have said so. I did not really mean to be critical of your excellent efforts, it's just that I found that one of the hardest things for people who have not been teachers (and I really don't know whether you have or not) is to suppress the natural human urge to be helpful. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]