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.

please help translate this message into the local language

	The Cure Award
	In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

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)[reply]

I rather expect that today's Nobel is going to give the theta oscillation more prominence. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've never met them, but I was very happy to see them selected. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 I was really referring to later unpublished thoughts.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)[reply]

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#Comparison_of_proposals would be a good place to start. EEng (talk) 05:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]