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).

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]

Hey, this is Unknown31415, sorry for the vandalism I did, I hope you erased them!!! :) Thanks for the message, I won't do that again!! Thanks (P.S: I didn't know where else to put this message, so I just put here, if you don't mind)

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" [1] 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]

Okay, thanks for letting me know. I won't change the ones I've already done (to avoid confusion), but I won't cross out any more. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect: same happened to me in my first FAC (it feels great to croos out adresses :-). I also wanted to say that personally I still think that you have done a wonderful job in the brain article... It is really better than before even if I completely disagree that as it is it should be a FA right now. Anyway, there are not many editors involved in neuroscience, so if it does not become a FA I hope we work together to improve it or if it does we cross in other project. Best regards. --Garrondo (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undid your reversion of edits to the page on Oct. 17. Your objection was that blogs cannot be cited as sources which would apply if these were opinion based blog posts. However, the actual source for the additions is comments made by recognized experts from reputable institutions at a highly regarded industry conference. The blog from the journal cited (note that this is a journal that maintains a blog, not just a blog) are simply used as validation that the remarks cited were actually made. I changed the citations a bit to make this more explicit but they should probably be changed a bit more so that they reference the site as something like "see:" rather than what it currently stands as. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.231.211 (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. As you see, I did take a bit of leeway and I think the article is easier to understand now. Also a kind person helped out with some pictures and some extra examples. Best Americanlinguist (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hi! Thanks for your message.[2] I edited on this, since I was amazed how philanthropy can make this world a better planet to live in. While the study was made on a mouse, then, and in the near future, man's spinal cord by mapping, may tell more of the mysteries of our existence.[3] Please feel free to amend, modify, revise and correct any of my edits, since, we editors aim to make this online book a better thing for our future .... for researchers, readers and scholars. BTW, here in the Philippines, Wikipedia was, for the first time since I joined on July 2007, down, out, or off line. I wonder how you were able to edit yesterday; I myself failed to edit, even in the evening, it was still offline. Thanks for your visit and edit.[4]

On my user page, the gun,[5]- well, it is humor and memorable treasure. I had used the gun for bird hunting in 1960's when there was no law on conservation and there were lots of wild pigeons. The gun does not function and is a collection item. It was used last 1980's for hunting birds, and since then, it could not be fired due to rusts. Hoping for your kind understanding, on this. Cheers.--Florentino floro (talk) 06:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hi, again. I was a bit confused about the gun. Oh, here. In my talk page, I asked the permission of my former adopter -User talk:Ianlopez1115 to copy his own gun humor image, etc.[6] I am 56 years old and he is 16 years old, a very intelligent High School graduating student of Laguna, Philippines. So, I was so envy of his style; so, you know, Filipinos like me are copy cats. So, it is not really humour but willing copy not vio cat. Hope I explained my seemingly bad talk page. I changed the gun and caught the bird or rather peacock image, instead, for yeah. Regards.[7]Regards.--Florentino floro (talk) 07:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I understood that the gun was not meant seriously, but it still gave me a bad impression when I first saw it. It's sort of like meeting a stranger and saying, "I'm going to kill you, hah hah" in a joking way. Regards, and thanks for the cookie. Looie496 (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Computational capabilities of the human brain, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computational capabilities of the human brain. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. —G716 <^T·_C> 01:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Computational capabilities of the human brain, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computational capabilities of the human brain. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. —G716 <^T·_C> 01:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the double notice - I thought TW was done before it was—G716 <^T·_C> 01:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting me Nervous system .I really appreciate your concern.That was wrong reversion by me.Checked and rechecked and wonder how I reverted to an earlier version[8].That was clearly an error on my part .I would like to thank you for reverting my error.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the page looks ridiculous with the image so big. I agree that there are too many images that are too small as thumbnails, because some essential details are incomprehensibly small. However, the text alone doesn't convey with sufficient clearness what a synapse is. I don't think that's really possible to do with words only. Therefore the image is necessary for even beginning to understand the article. I think the way forward is to adapt the picture used in Dendrite.

Thanks for the compliments. I completely understand your point about naming these disorders. I prefer the sound of eponymous diseases when they're in the possessive form (eg, Alzheimer's disease) but prefer the more neutral non-possessive form (eg, Alzheimer disease) for more academic reasons, mainly because the latter doesn't imply that Alzheimer had or owns the disease. I could easily be swayed, especially if Wikipedia had a policy on the matter, but it doesn't as far as I can tell. The only relevant discussions on the possessive vs. non-possessive issue are over at Talk:List of eponymous diseases, but it doesn't discuss policy per se. The best I could find is over at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles), which suggests using the WHO's ICD 10 titles. And guess what? Alzheimer's disease is preferred by WHO. And so you'll be happy to hear that I've updated Long-term potentiation#Clinical significance accordingly. :-) Cheers, David Iberri (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was completely bogus as propylhexedrine isn't even close to being able to be converted to an amphetamine. Although I am sorry that I even posted it. I probably just thought of it as a harmless joke to someone asking how to make methamphetamine. Won't do it again. Regards, C6541 (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea the recipe was bogus -- anyway, thanks for the response. looie496 (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the calm attitude in addressing my mistake, makes a huge difference for me personally. Sincerally and truly yours, C6541 (talk) 08:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two references to third party scientific publications to help with the criticism of sources of reference material - "The Journal of the Scientific and Medical Network" and "The European Journal of Clinical Hypnosis." I'm at a loss to comment on the other criticisms about the article. I thought it was balanced, particularly with the previous Wikipedia editorial help. Can you help move this forward or do I need to go to some sort of appeal. Thanks, Andy 82.3.225.139 (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the article was reasonably neutral before, but since my actual opinion is that PLR is bogus and perhaps dangerous in some circumstances, I'm reluctant to actively defend the article at this point. Sorry, but that's how it is. looie496 (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK I respect you having different views and thanks for the previous help. All I need to know is how do I go about moving forward to getting what I think is important information in this article into Wikipedia, and who is the editor who is now involved. Lastly a small favour - I added a date and reference to the article on Andy Tomlinson as requested by a flag – can you remove the flag on this article now? 86.27.187.181 (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should feel free to remove the tag yourself, if you have done what it asks for. Might be nice to add a note on the talk page explaining that that's what you've done. looie496 (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not attending to your inquiry earlier. I thought at first that the deletion of the reference I added to Consciousness was a glitch. Unlike you, I'm not an experienced editor - in fact, this was my first attempt to "edit" anything in wikipedia. I read the interview on the Psychological Channel and felt that it was a worthy and timely "further reading" to the article in question. (I originally even thought of inserting a brief elaboration of the theory in the Physical theories section but was unsure how to go about it.) While I can understand why you'd be taken aback by an editor who appears not to be playing by the rules, I was personally piqued by your attempt to present my addition as spam. This is among the more interesting and readable piece I've read on the topic of consciousness for quite some time (at the level of the general readership of Wikipedia, that is, not arcane academic journals). Read it - I believe that you too agree it’s a worthy further read on the topic. Best wishes, Vhhkprhi (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually open-minded about it -- I looked at the link and saw some good stuff there, but given that it was somebody I hadn't heard of and given Wikipedia's general negativity toward external links, I thought it needed to be discussed. I didn't develop a negative attitude until you reinserted the link without discussion or even an edit summary. I'm still quite open to the possibility that it is a worthwhile link, but I ask you to write on the talk page the reason why it is worth adding. Regards, looie496 (talk) 03:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt reply. I read a little more about editing and I'm fascinated by the behind the scene workings of wikipedia… I always wondered how an encyclopedia anybody can temper with manages to maintain near professional quality (and remain above professional sectarianism). You seem to have edited a fair number of articles on unrelated topics – did you just happen to read those or were you somehow alerted to changes made in them? More specifically, how did you notice my minor addition? Were you actively "watching" this particular page?

I'm not quite sure how to present my case on the talk page, as per your advice (I gather that the talk page is the article's "discussion" page) – am I supposed to start a new section there and simply write, 'Hi guys, I think this reference should be added for this and that reason'? How does the ensued discussion solidify in any given direction and what happens if there's no clear consensus – in short, how does one know "it’s O.K." to reinstate the change? (And why bother, really, if within a few days some uninitiated fellow may remove the entry again?) Many questions, I'm afraid. Vhhkprhi (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty much managing Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience right now, and watch every article in the project to prevent vandalism from getting through. I also keep an eye on Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and occasionally patrol "Recent Changes" when I'm bored, which is mainly how I get involved in other things. Anyway, I think there are basically three issues about the link you added: (1) It's an interview -- is the guy an authority in the field? I hadn't heard of him. (2) Does the interview contribute something that will really help a reader who wants to learn about consciousness? (3) It reads sort of like a "fake interview" -- that is, a thing where the writer poses questions to himself. Is it, and does this matter? Procedurally, what you should do is to write an item on Talk:Consciousness that says "I would like to add this item to the external links, because XXXXX. Does anybody have an opinion about this?" You should start a new section using a header like "== May I add this link? ==" or whatever you choose. Then wait a couple of days, and if the responses are positive, or if there are no responses, go ahead and add it. If there is disagreement, usually a calm discussion will lead to a clear majority emerging on one side or the other. The answer to "why bother" is that I and others are watching the article, and will revert anybody who removes the item without discussing it in the same way I reverted you for adding it without discussing it. Regards, looie496 (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patient reply. I'm impressed with your commitment to Wikipedia, and apologize that our dialogue has the irksome quality of deep space communication on my end, as if I were writing from the outskirts of the Oort cloud – so much to do, so little time, you know. For that reason, I think I'll pass this time. I still think the link is a worthwhile addition to "further reading" for the reasons outlined above (your objections notwithstanding). Feel free to raise the issue yourself, if you're so inclined – you're quite cognizant of the pros and cons and much better adept in Wikipedia's procedures. Either way, thanks again for showing me the ropes and keep up the good work! Vhhkprhi (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Looie496. You asked at WP:AN about handling spam, but your question got archived before I could comment.

I'd suggest you still consider WP:AIV. The header of WP:AIV says: This page is intended to get administrator attention for obvious and persistent vandals and spammers only. That suggests that they *do* handle spam complaints. Just be sure that the spam is blatant, you've given enough warnings, and the person has continued past a final warning. If it's not totally blatant, then WT:WPSPAM is good, but it's not always quick. If the guy only spams *exactly* once on one article, and you are determined to observe 1RR, you are stuck with going to WT:WPSPAM because you can't do the escalating warnings. But who ever spams exactly once? EdJohnston (talk) 06:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted to last previous and added under notable financial astrologers * Evangeline Adams, which I was about to document before I got called to lunch. Smallbones (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's requesting unblock; one other user has already weighed in in his defense, saying it looks like he just forgot the password and created a new account. In order to fully consider this request, I'd like to know what your basis for this comment was. Daniel Case (talk) 14:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may have misinterpreted. I looked at Mark McCoy and saw the multiple accounts and reverted edits, with edits adding a link to http://www.ihatemarkmccoy.com and the word "semen". looie496 (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked. Daniel Case (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you reverted an edit by this user to Girl Genius. This user has been going around comics articles adding this same sentence to try to imply that WCCAs are worthless, and adding a ref to make his edit look legitimate (in fact, the content of the ref says the complete opposite of what his edits are saying). I'm just letting you know here, to give you a heads-up. If you see this user editing more comics articles in this way, please revert him on sight. Thanks, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; that user was just editing disruptively to prove a point at an AfD discussion. I have left him a message and he says he won't do it again. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 03:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comments on the AFD page. In short: A page for merged material cannot be deleted, because that would mean attribution of the material would be lost. Also, mergers should be requested at Wikipedia:Requested mergers. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the heads-up! Does that mean there is no requirement for external independent sources when it comes to schools? --lightspeedchick (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They can be deleted, they just can't be speedied. But lots of times it's kids editing the articles, and worthwhile giving them a lot of space to experiment with gradually fixing things, as long as they don't vandalize. looie496 (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely fresh. I have written on this area and was surprised not to see a specific article about it. --LittleHow (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You asked about what was happening to Pallium. Perhaps you don't need this much of an explanation, but here goes: what I did a day or two ago was to give the word "Pallium" as used in neuroanatomy its own article, by itself, by "moving" it from Pallium (anatomy) to Pallium (neuroanatomy). That seemed like a good idea because previously the important brain info was sandwiched into the very short article Pallium (anatomy) along with mentions of mollusks, brachiopods, birds, etc. (I am a mollusk person, and Pallium is used a lot as an anatomical term in malacology as a Latin version of the word mantle, mostly in terms such as "pallial line", "pallial sinus" and so forth.) It seemed that a disambiguation page was really needed, so I made Pallium (anatomy) into the disambiguation page. The last thing I did was to move the 2 WikiProject Medicine tags from the old talk page to the new one, the Pallium (neuroanatomy) page. I accidentally typed "Siphon" when I meant "Pallium" as I had been working on both articles that day. Hope this seems OK to you. All good wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine -- the typo is what got me. I mainly wanted to be sure this stayed in WikiProject Neuroscience and on my watchlist. Regards, looie496 (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good, I'm sorry about the typo, no wonder you were confused by it. Invertzoo (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you SERIOUS? I edited out NO information that didn't IMMEDIATELY reappear in the very next sentence! I edited out a textual DUPLICATION! That's not removal of information, that's improving the readability of the text. I dont need to get approval to edit out 'and death may occur' at the end of one sentence when the next sentence says 'In cases of extreme overdose, death can result.' OK, maybe I should've ticked the minor edit box, but I'd suggest you actually read the edit you're reverting and not go soley on edit tags. If I find a double space or some silly parentheses I'm going to edit them out without discussing on the talk page either! Mdw0 (talk) 05:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Sorry, it's often hard to read diffs. Note for the future that a simple edit summary saying "remove redundancy" would have prevented the fuss. I made a small follow-up edit to fix the grammar. Anyway, thanks for explaining -- for what it's worth, I'm maintaining about 200 articles, and deal every day with a dozen edits that add or remove or change things in completely inexplicable ways. If there's no edit summary, there's a limit to how hard I'm willing to work to understand something, and ignoring edits that I don't understand is bound to make the articles steadily deteriorate. Regards, looie496 (talk) 05:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'There's a limit to how hard I'm willing to work' - Love it! With that as the reply I can forgive anything! Mdw0 (talk) 06:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Just to follow up -- I probably should just shut up -- this is the sort of thing that pops out at you when you're reading the article, but isn't obvious at all when you look at the diff for the edit. looie496 (talk) 06:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's true - perhaps you need to take some time for some leisurely reading of the articles you're maintaining. After all, that is the point of the exercise, no? Mdw0 (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Note to all !voters on the original Major depressive disorder FAC: The FAC for that article has been restarted at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Major_depressive_disorder. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed myself on editor review at Wikipedia:Editor_review/Cosmic_Latte, and I'm reaching out for feedback to editors who seem to be reasonably familiar with my work. If you have a moment to comment there, your feedback would be most appreciated. Thanks, Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that my last few edits may have been a little immature. I try to be a good contributing member of wikipedia, and for the most part I think I have succeeded. I know Pumre personally and we have been arguing ever since he/she created their account. He/Se threatens to make unconstructive edits to Parkway Middle School (La Mesa CA), and also says that they are trying to get me banned. I still think that Pumre may try to make such edits in the future, but until it happens I cannot say, and if it does I must respond appropriately. It's my fault for bringing personal feuds to wikipedia. In the end, I just want to benefit the encyclopedia. Thanks for hearing me out. No hard feelings.Dudemeister1234 (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, you let yourself get trolled! There's no possibility of somebody else getting you banned unless you actively help out, which you have been doing. Anyway, if you ever need advice about anything Wiki-ish, drop a line on my talk page. looie496 (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the Medved reference to the new article on his book Hollywood vs. America; I was having trouble figuring out the formatting, so your addition is appreciated. Minaker (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Sorry for stepping on your toes if you were about to add it. looie496 (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Central executive and the SAS was described by Norman & Shallice (1980). If you wish, you could move the term, "Supervisory attentional system" to the talk page until it can be fleshed out in the body of the article. It would be nice to rewrite that entire article from the ground up. Actually, all the articles on memory and cognition need work. --Scott Coleman (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that you have similar problems with this editor at Major depressive disorder as we do at Fibromyalgia. You mention that he is under Arbcom sanctions; where can I find those? Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I find your style of editing even more problematic than OM's, and I don't want to give even the appearance of cooperating with you at this time. looie496 (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe we have met before. But if you have any objection to my editing style, you are always welcome to express your concerns, provided that you stay civil. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looie is lying out and out. I am under no such restrictions. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I searched and could indeed not find any, just the ugliness of a secret arbcom procedure that was cut short (what were they smoking). Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you and I agree on something. Dank U well. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you should not have asked the qy you just asked on a noticeboard. I've asked for it to be oversighted. Please feel free to email me about this.DGG (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ask that you're blocked for your out and out lies if they are not immediately removed and an apology placed on my page. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In lieu of your inability or refusal to retract your despicable lies and slander, I will be filing an ANI post haste. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See ANI.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that The Epoch Times was founded to raise awareness of the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners, and doesn't function as a mechanism for promoting the practice of Falun Gong per se. It appears to be a secular newspaper run by Falun Gong practitioners, appealing to the public on secular grounds. That's different to saying that Epoch Times staff are paid to promote Falun Gong.--Asdfg12345 00:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no wish to make a big production out of it, and my talk page should do just fine...unless you would prefer that it be on AN/I. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably let you know that I drew Malcolm's attention to the thread after I posted to it mentioning his name. However, given the four minute gap between my post to his talk page and his post to the thread, he might already have noticed it.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested to see a diff of more abusive conduct from Malcolm Schosha - and it comes after he's been admin warned for interfering with TalkPages. PR^talk 19:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to blame somebody for removing something from their own talk page, unless it creates a misleading result -- which I don't think this does. Looie496 (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am still hoping to hear from you, as you promised. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree (as I tried to squeeze into the edit summary). Other than the outputs part, the box applies equally well to DG and CA3 as well as to CA1. But the whole article is written as describing hippocampal place cells (as opposed to place cells in general), so I thought it reasonable to leave that information intact. Oh, but now that I think about it, both granule cells in the DG and even some interneurons in CA1 have place fields, so a lot of the infobox is inaccurate in that sense (I will update the infobox at least to reflect that information) I do agree, though, that it is a functional characterization rather than an anatomical one. I think the easiest solution would be to just rename the article "Hippocampal place cell." The best solution, of course, would be to describe all sorts of place cells, but that would take a lot of work.

An unrelated question: the image you added is cited as coming from Skaggs 1996, but that image is not in my copy of the paper. I'm looking at Skaggs, McNaughton, wilson, and Barnes (1996) from Hippocampus. The reference in the wiki article is incomplete, so it wasn't clear if that was the article you meant. digfarenough (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it actually came from the paper it would be copyrighted. It was made using the data from that paper -- I'm Skaggs and I made it. I haven't yet figured out all the tricks of saying these things correctly when uploading to Commons. I was trying to do it in a way that wouldn't require contacting OTRS or anything like that, but if you think it needs to be done differently, let me know. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. First off I'd like to apologize for the nuisance we've become and let you know that we aren't spammers and we really do mean well. Unfortunately we are quite new to the whole Wikipedia thing and still find the guidelines and such confusing. We thought that the links we were putting up were relevant to the page and very informative and we were unaware we were violating any guidelines and for that we do apologize. We really think the information we have could be informative but like I said I'm still confused on where exactly to put them all or how to go about it. I'm embarrassed to admit that it took me a good part of an hour just to figure out what to do first. Can you please advise me on how to go about this? I would appreciate any help and guidance that you can offer so we do not repeat the same mistakes. Thanks and again our apologies. Hope to hear from you soon. Shato (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Looie496: I've responded to this at User talk:Shato. EyeSerene^talk 12:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, I tried to take some of them out. Hopefully I got them all. I was just wondering how to add references and get them linked properly and how to external link with a name and not the whole web address. this is my first time posting on WIKI so I am not too familiar with how everything works. Thanks, Awalzy9

The best way to put in refs is to use "cite" templates. Most commonly you will want to cite either a book, a journal article, or a web page. For a web page, the code looks like <ref>{{cite web| title=The Foo of Bar |url=http://foobar.org |format=HTML}}</ref> -- you can look at Template:Cite web for documentation. The only required field is the url -- you can leave out any that you don't want to fill in. You can find documentation for other types of citations at Wikipedia:Citation templates.

For linking to something else on Wikipedia, you just need to know its "wiki name" and put it in double-brackets, like [[The Foo of Bar]]. If you get it wrong, the link will show up in red, and you can take another shot. Note that for wiki-links of this sort, you don't use "_" in the names -- it's not [[The_Foo_of_Bar]].

If I haven't managed to answer the question, clarify and I'll try again. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You sent me a message telling me you wanted to delete four articles I had created, because the terms are not sufficiently widespread use to justify articles. But why do you think I made them??? I read these terms in articles, and I had no idea what was meant. It was not at all easy to find the meanings of these concepts. For instance: tonic receptor. Just looking for the meaning of tonic and receptor does not give a clue about the meaning of tonic receptor. Because it is a two-word-concept, Wiktionary is not the right place for it.
The whole idea with creating the article is that, next time somebody is in the same predicament as I was, this person simply reads the articles in Wikipedia, and doesn't have to spend an hour looking for the answers on the internet. That is the whole idea of Wikipedia.
By the way, I see that I did not put any sources in the article, so the next few days I'll make sure the articles are referenced. Lova Falk (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]