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.

Most of the editors see this article as mainly about the usage, associations, and history of "white" in the humanities, rather than stating or explaining what white literally is as a color, which is well-understood in color science. Could you weigh in on the current dispute on the talk page of "White" article, which mainly is between just two editors? DavRosen (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite, but I don't think I have anything useful to contribute there. Looie496 (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Looie496. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		A Poorly Photoshopped Google-Foo Barnstar
		One poorly photoshopped Google-foo barnstar, for figuring out the strange use of semi-colons on the source for Pointing. GMGtalk 13:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just started that page. Since this is really in your wheelhouse, it would be great if you would look it over and fix anything that needs it. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! I've responded on the talk page. Looie496 (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any RS sources that express skepticism about phase precession? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anybody has expressed skepticism about the existence of the phenomenon for a long time -- honestly, it's hard to see how anybody who looks over Figure 7 of my Hippocampus paper could. Gyuri Buzsaki was skeptical about the significance of the phenomenon for a few years, thinking that it was an artifact of activity-dependent plasticity, but he eventually changed his mind. Of course any given theory of the meaning of the phenomenon is a subject of great skepticism. Looie496 (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking because the DYK reviewer feels that there is a POV problem in only presenting work that supports the existence of the phenomenon, and I was looking for a way to satisfy them. Does Buzsaki have an old paper where he expresses that skepticism, followed by a more recent paper that supports it? If so, I could cite both. But I can also say that these observations have been replicated by multiple laboratories, and there really isn't any doubt. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Not necessarily directly addressing the question, but if you haven't yet, you might like to look over the material on the topic in Buzsaki's Rhythms of the Brain: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gyorgy_Buzsaki/publication/223130267_Rhythms_of_The_Brain/links/00b4952bb0ae609ac9000000/Rhythms-of-The-Brain.pdf, pp 313-323. Looie496 (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Looie496, thanks for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bradka! As I mentioned at Talk:Kevin_Warwick#Sockpuppetry_–_maybe_stubify?, I think the problem runs deeper than the three editors blocked today. For example, I randomly chose two editors to Kevin Warwick (LucretiaTox and TexTucker), and both were editors with low edit counts and rather high percentage of edits to that one article. I will definitely look into this more when I can, but the next week or so is going to be pretty hectic for me. Just wanted to drop you a note in case you wanted to look into this further. Thanks! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another user who edited Kevin Warwick and seems to have promoted Warwick in the article Turing test in this edit is Joseperez22. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kevin, thanks for looking into it. I don't know anything about Kevin Warwick, but this is definitely helpful in dealing with the Turing test article. Looie496 (talk) 11:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looie496, I have completely rewritten dementia with Lewy bodies, in case you are interested in having a look. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]