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 I've withdrawn the complaint as the user applogised to me.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 Looie Thank you for your comments! There is not a single sign of "advertisement" in the paragraph I have added. You may need to redefine "advertisement" and "information". To me, advertisement means "to campaign for correctness of an idea". That is far from what is reported in the paragraph I have added. The paragraph is talking about a hypothesis that can be tested, accepted or rejected, but not removed without proper reasons. You may of course conduct a series of experiments in your lab, reject one or more points of the hypothesis, report them in a paper of your own, and then add (not remove) some text after my paragraph saying that the hypothesis has been questioned, rejected or accepted by your results. Otherwise, removing an informative statement about a new functional hypothesis seems more like "censorship", which is way far from Wikipedia mission.