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.

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]

OOOPsss: I am really sorry: at that specific moment I was in a bad mood and I felt really tired but I knew that your comment was well intended. However may answer may have been too short and give the appearance that I had been pissed off... No offense was taken, truly. Regarding articles: I am trying to make comments to all of them, but if you could make comments to those (and maybe others also on basic neuroscience) would be great, since they are the most difficult for me to comment. Thanks for everything.--Garrondo (talk) 07:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that nomination of any of the articles right now for GAN would be greatly premature.--Garrondo (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I wonder whether it would be best to make that clear on the page of general advice you wrote, or to discuss the issue with NeuroJoe? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either way probably a good idea.--Garrondo (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to re-add any content, I am not sure on what is truly relevant and what is simply synthesis and miscellanea. Anyway article is one of the least active of the class project. --Garrondo (talk) 06:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Looie496. I had an excellent holiday - so now need I another to recover. Shall we resume with the GA review. --Philcha (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! I'll get on it shortly. Looie496 (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Looie496. We seem to have such different priorities that I'm asking at WT:GAN for a 2nd opinion. Please summarise your view at Talk:Nemertea/GA1#Philcha_asking_for_a_2nd_opinion. --Philcha (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I was about to suggest that. I'll do so. Looie496 (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Looie496! I am one of the students working on NeuroJoe's Wikipedia neuroscience assignment for the semester. My group is working on the Satellite cell (glial) page and we have yet to receive any feedback from other editors and/or experts. If you could offer any advice for improvements, it would be much appreciated! Thanks, LaurenMalishchak (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that on 2 October 2010, you blocked Abcassionchan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for disruption. However, that user returned today as Crushedtiggy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

I don't know the full story on the original account, other than seeing the sockpuppetry issues on the talk page. On the one hand, it's been six months. On the other hand, it has not been a year yet. The user has not violated any other guideline, so the only reason to block right now would be creating a new account before the old block expired. How do you want to proceed? —C.Fred (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She said similar things before and broke her promise. But if I were handling this, I would not block at this point, but would keep an eye on the contribs, and reimpose the block if she shows signs of screwing around. I think we're dealing with somebody pretty young here, and kids can mature a lot in 6 months, so you never know. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True. And if you'd blocked her indefinitely, six months would be enough time to let her have a clean go at it. I'll take her statement of "here's who I was" as a good faith effort to say she's not trying to game the system, but at the same time, I'll watch to see what she's up to—but only block if she messes up. —C.Fred (talk) 05:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to help the students with their review so that it is successful, but obviously, I don't want to do their homework for them. I'm trying to confine myself to minor fixes and changes (such as correcting the date and adding sources). If needed, I can help with major changes. I'll try and get their attention on their talk page. I would hope you would leave this review open long enough for them to make a major effort. Thanks, and keep me in the loop. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely not in a hurry. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 05:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI... I contacted the nominator.[1] Viriditas (talk) 10:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]