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.

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Octopamine (neurotransmitter), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.bing.com/knows/Octopamine.

It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't have an objection to splitting octopamine into two articles, one problem this creates is that there are now many incoming links to the page that now need to be disambiguated. If fact, there are well over one thousand of them that need to be fixed. Is there a plan for dealing with them? -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of those come from a few templates, so the problem is not nearly as bad as it looks. The number of pages that actually talk about octopamine in the article text is unlikely to be more than a couple of dozen, mainly relating to insects. I'll start fixing them shortly. Looie496 (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I hadn't noticed that it is mostly template links. That certainly makes it easier. Let me know if you need any help. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all you have done this year :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected a typo in your post, hope that's okay. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good, thanks. Looie496 (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken on the task! I do not take an adversarial role in my reviews so comment as you feel led. Realize that you don't need to agree with me on every point; just the major things required. The Very best of regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  21:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Charles R. Knight, 1922)

(Unknown artist, Norway, 1916)

One reviewer, Tony Lang, has done a very thorough once-through and made detailed notes and some proposed changes - all using the "review" function in Microsoft Word. Now the others have all gone, "Yeah, that's what we should be using." So I have acquiesced. Once they've agreed on what changes are necessary, I'll concoct a diff of some kind and, along with their relevant notes, paste it onto the talk page, so you and any other interested editors can respond. I guess. Unless something else changes.

Most of what Tony has picked up on are relatively recent changes in practice. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]