User talk:Looie496/Archive 1

Active discussions



Thanks for reviewing Sponge - I blinked and missed the review! --Philcha (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Deleted image

Hello, Looie496. You have new messages at [[User talk::commons:User talk:Looie496|User talk:Looie496's talk page]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

555 17:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

North American river otter

I wonder if you have seen the message on User talk:Steven Walling? The nominator's tutor is asking that it being given more time rather than quick-failed - is it worth suggesting that it's withdrawn from GAN until the major issues with formatting, uncited sections etc and content are addressed? your call of course, jimfbleak (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, sir, you have dialed a wrong number. I have no connection with that article whatsoever. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see what happened here - all is clear now jimfbleak (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Mayer–Vietoris sequence article

About a week ago, you left your opinion about the article. May I ask you give it another read? I'm interested in your opinion now that I've tried to make it more accessible. Best, GeometryGirl (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


I'm not all that familiar with the system so there will be some problems with my edits for a while. Hopefully not for a long while.Rvfrolov (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Lateral Computing

Regarding your comments on Lateral Computing page I created recently: The term Lateral Computing has been accepted by IEEE Transactions and also two international Conferences have been held in 2004 and 2005. The WCLC 2004 and WCLC 2005 saw the participation by several leading researchers from US, India, Australia. ( To name a few: Prof P.R. Kumar UIUC,USA, Dr Anil Thakoor, NASA USA, Prof Sargur Srihari , New York etc). A Review paper on Lateral Computing was presented in HiPC ( International Conference on High Performance Computing). I think we need to dessiminate information on Lateral Computing, as similar pages exist for computing topics such as Grid Computing, Parallel Computing etc. I advice you not to delete the page as we keep improving the Lateral Computing page in coming weeks. Suthikshn.kumar (talk) 04:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Suthikshn Kumar

Conferences are not reviewed, and conference presentations are often of low quality, as I know from experience. I would be much happier if you could point to at least one high-quality journal publication or book where the term is used. IEEE Trans might be okay -- what is the reference for that? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, The term "Lateral Computing" with definition was introduced in my paper "A Review of Smart Volume Controllers for Consumer Electronics", IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, Vol 51, No.2, May 2005, pp. 600-605. I also am editor of International Journal of Lateral Computing. We have brought out several issues. It has ISSN 0973-208X. Suthikshn.kumar (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Medical weight loss

This is a legitimate article on a topic that is of growing interest to the general public. Dr. Sasse is an expert on this particular topic and a deserving reference for the article. It was created in strict adherence to wikipedia's guidelines and its references are all thoroughly researched. You seem to be objecting to the possible motivation for the article rather than the article itself. --Infofreq (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


I happen to agree with your recent addition to the policy. Among other things, you are absolutely correct when you point out that many who are taught to do scholarly work dependent on primary-source research are dealing with something that's rather the opposite here in WP. IMO, your explanation was well tuned to a fairly common problem on the wiki. Unfortunately, as you may already have discerned, your excellent expression of the situation was just too much to include in the body text of the policy. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


Is anyone still working on that GAN? I have the impression it was a "fire and forget" nomination (and it's not the first one of that kind I've seen). Xasodfuih (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


At FAC, it is expected that opposing editors cite the featured article criteria. Thank you. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't see anything there about notability -- and yet I see that your own submissions of storm articles are careful to point out why they are especially notable. Why would you do that if it didn't matter? (Not trying to be trollish -- I just feel that FA's ought to be important and accessible regardless of what the criteria state, and I'm ready to be a bit of a gadfly to advocate for that. Since FA is not a vote, my opinions can always be ignored.) Regards, Looie496 (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Why do I point out the notability of a subject in its respective article? To meet WP:N. It has nothing to do with the FA criteria, as it has no limit as to how "notable" an article must be to attain featured status. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking of your submission-notes at WP:FAC#Typhoon Tip and WP:FAC#Hurricane Linda (1997). Looie496 (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Well, it has nothing to do with the FA criteria; I just like to grab reviewers' attention in my nomination statements. Regards, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Horus and My Bad Reputation

A sidebar. The edit ban on me is on Acharya S, not on Egyptian Mythology.

So be uncomfortable all you like, and hey, maybe I cna be set before Arbitration again. We all know Im a fndamentlaist Christian Zealot who only edits to protect my view of what Christianity is, and Im ever so nasty to Acharya for makign threats.

The reason I left Wimipedia is because the plac eis crap. it allows bad informaiton to be propogate donlien and any attmeot to prevent this is edite dout. Peopel liek me are margionalised while peopel who want to propogandise, liek the CHrist Mythers, are allowed to do so. Hell, just because I am Christian Im seen as Biased on Wikipedia.

Still, if you agree with the edits why worry? My wuesitonable hisotry and bad repuitation boil down to me not wanting Wikipeida to be used as a platform for false informaiton ebcaue I know its used as an informaiton soruce for a lot of peope who accept hwat it says with no wuesiton.

I didnt want to threaten Acharya S as much as I needed to, because I've dealt with her sort obefore, as I explained. There can be no consensus until you compleltey agre with them and htey wont bakc down unless threatened.

I also dont troll Wikipedia tryogn to make sur emy narrow fundy views of CHristiantiy are supproted and I dont remove arguments ritical of CHristianity.

But come on! The whole "Jeuss was a stolen pagan god and these oher godmen had identical lvies" theory is bogus, and guess what? its provabley Bogus.

This isn't me defendign my faith, this is me statign the truth and not bakcign down and not willignto be maniulated or intmidated.

So I contest the arbitration.

Not that it matters, you lot wont listen to me over it, and I doutb this caneb reversed,and myr eputation si permenantly dmaaged here. All thanks to conspiracy theoriest who want to propogate hatred toward Chrstianity.

Still, I cna edit Egyptian Mythology if I like.

But hey, I dont expec tto be respected aroudn here or be given a fair second chance, to shwo Im not a nasty mean spirited CHristian who only edited to protect my faith and made vile criminal threats... I expect the reputation and arbitration to stand and to be a pariah.

But lets be reasonable for once, the whole Christ Myth theory is only added to these articles by those who want to undermine Christianity, and rmeovign it wss even supported by you. Im not beign unreasonable by sayign its all garbage, because it is, and Imnot goign abotu wikipeida damnign poepo to Hell for challenging the CHristian Faith.

All I ever asked ws that Wikipeida not submit tot he bullyign Acharya S is famous for in gettign her way, and fo this Ive been branded fo r life as "Questionable".

But lets let my work here stand alone shall we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZAROVE (talkcontribs) 04:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Maximum spacing estimation

Hello. I added a sentence in the lede that shows some of the applications of the method via the literature in which it is discussed. As for your last point about the ties, I have sent a long e-mail to Dr. Cheng, but I am sure he is busy. Also, I did tweak the text to remove "true ties" and "as opposed to rounding" as that technically would be original research, even though I think that reading the papers and the theory makes it pretty clear. Is there anything else for which you would be looking before you make your final decision? Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I looked around a bit to see whether anybody has ever actually applied this method, and wasn't able to find very much. Two things actually, this unpublished paper about bison spatial distributions, and this paper about rainfall variability, which I can't download. The bison paper said that a publication would follow describing its methods, but as far as I can tell that did not happen. Anyway, on p 13 the paper says An alternative estimation technique was invented in the early 1980s called the Maximum spacing product (Cheng and Amin 1982; Ranneby 1984). This method was explicitly designed for boundary problems. This method has not been employed often, primarily because it is massively computational. The estimation is based on an optimization that at each step requires numerical integration. We implemented the algorithm on the Montana State University’s Center for Computational Biology thirty-two processor super computer, and were able to obtain results. A paper by Mark L. Taper and Brian Dennis describing these procedures in detail is in preparation. If this claim about the computational requirements of the algorithm is supported by other publications, I think it ought to be discussed in the article. Does this make sense? Looie496 (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
In general, I'm not certain how it is any more massively computational than maximum likelihood. I've done it in Excel without any code for distributions with built in functionality (or using EXP(GAMMALN())) and in R, with pretty simple code, for other distributions. The paper you reference is specifically using a beta-binomial model, and there is no closed form of the distribution function of the beta distribution which would make it very computationally intensive. Did you see the sentence I added regarding hydrology and econometrics? -- Avi (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your suggestions, advice, and patience! -- Avi (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

FAC revisit

Looie496, thanks for all of your recent FAC reviews. Would you mind revisiting Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Calvin to see if issues have been addressed ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

A centralised discussion which may interest you

Hi. You may be interested in a centralised discussion on the subject of "lists of unusual things" to be found here. SP-KP (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Neuroscience Importance Scale

Hi Looie496. I believe that the articles efficient coding hypothesis and complex cell should have at least Mid-importance instead of Low-importance. The efficient coding hypothesis is important for theoretical neuroscience and complex cells are covered in basic visual neuroscience. Would you mind upgrading the importance? Thanks, JonathanWilliford (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC).

What you are saying makes sense. Feel free to change them yourself -- all you have to do is edit the text at the top of the article's talk page. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Cool, it's done. JonathanWilliford (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

3RR notice (don't worry, not about you!)

Hey Looie496, thanks for giving your input at the Mismatch negativity dispute a while back. I just wanted to let you know, that editor has continued edit warring (and has also spread his war to Neurolinguistics, an article I've been working on for two months and don't want to have destabilized right when it's up for GAN), and I have filed a 3RR report here. Your comments as a neutral editor would be appreciated. Best, Politizer talk/contribs 14:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Never mind; the report has been closed (surprisingly quickly, I think, for an AN3 report!) and both pages semi'ed for a month. Politizer talk/contribs 19:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving from the fence?

Hello. Concerning the Calvin FAC, the lead has been changed based on Ealdgyth's comments. Would you please take a look again? Thanks. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: GA review

Care to point out which sentences you consider "bad"? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a bunch of them. From the lead: "Terrain is considered in QPFs by use of topography…" Considered by use of topography? Ugh. "QPFs were used within hydrologic forecast models to simulate impact to rivers…" Simulate is obviously the wrong word, it should be predict. "Forecast models show significant sensitivity to humidity levels within the planetary boundary layer, or in the lowest levels of the atmosphere, which decreases with height." Huh? What decreases with height? "Radar imagery forecasting techniques show higher skill…" Skill is presumably some kind of jargon of the sort that doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. Since I generally find your own writing to be quite clear, I'm surprised that you didn't object to these things. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Good points. I was a bit tired when I passed the article, so I'll go back and check it tomorrow morning. Best, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Edoardo Agnelli

Is Reuters not a good source? Conspiracy theories are present in every article when they exist, why is this article an exception? (talk) 03:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't object to mentioning the fact that some people think there was a conspiracy, but your edit gives the impression that most people think so, which is totally contradictory to the Reuters source, which is very explicit in saying that the conspiracy idea is unsupported by anything except Iranian public opinion. Looie496 (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

A-Class discussion

Hi, we're starting the discussion on A-Class here today, thanks for signing up! I hope you can present your views. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 07:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Fluoridation opposition

I would appreciate an explanation of your comment. I don't see what I've done to deserve the bad faith, and I thought I could expect better from you. II | (t - c) 00:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what I did to engender such hostility, but if you ever feel up to analyzing that edit and telling me which changes "were rejected in August 2008", let me know. I figured you might be a little more careful in throwing around accusations like this, considering that you were accused of being a CAM POV pusher for simply not wanting a citation to be misrepresented. As I look at that thread, however, I see that these accusations may not be a new thing for you. Malcom said that "Looie496 seems to have a pattern of making foundationless serious accusations against other users which are insulting, and apparently intended to undermine the credibility of those he criticizes". Or perhaps in the wake of earlier accusation from Orangemarlin, you're trying to beef up your "anti-fringe" credibility. As one of my favorite economists likes to note [1], groupthink is maintained through the "fear [you] won’t be taken seriously" because "wander too far and you find yourself on the fringe". Good luck. II | (t - c) 06:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright stuff

Hi. Sorry for spilling over from AN, but I don't want to hijack the thread. You're obviously up on copyright issues. User:Dcoetzee and I have been talking about finding some way to get editors who are knowledgeable and interested together to coordinate when necessary on such concerns. I'm not sure that this will fly. Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing didn't get very far, and Wikipedia:Plagiarism has evidently been languishing under "proposed" status forever. But I am currently involved in cleaning up massive infringement here and just last night (my time) discovered what I'm afraid is going to turn out to be at least as big a mess as that one, if not bigger. (See the user talk page; one article was tagged for infringement; I found more in a recent DYK.) Anyway, I'm here to see if you'd like to be notified when we figure out what might work, in case you would be interested in participating in some way. Currently, I am the primary administrator volunteering at WP:CP; for the most part, it is manageable, but situations like these two and this one, some kind of project or task force would be very useful. If this isn't an area where you'd be interested in contributing, of course, that's fine, but I can't let someone who obviously knows what he's doing walk by without checking. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't actually know that much; this thread just happened to relate to one of the parts I do understand. But please feel free to put me in the loop. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll let you know if we figure out something workable. Any input at all is highly appreciated! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I am working towards a "WikiProject." If I get sufficient input and show of interest (I think the WikiProject Council likes at least five members), I'll take it live. Currently, it's under development. If you have any suggestions for it, it would be much appreciated. :) It's at User:Moonriddengirl/WikiProject Copyright Cleanup at the moment. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Still at it

Check this out, II reinstates the edit again: [2]. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Melodrama and race

Many thanks for the reassuring good sense on this issue in FTN. The offending section has been removed without retaliation for a couple of days, so keeping fingers crossed! Cheers Bjenks (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


“I don't think you need that many sources to establish a single point.” Unfortunately, many sources are needed to give a historically truthful overview of the mortality statistics on this issue. A historic overview of these statistics is important because the subject of the article isn’t “Recent Hunger” but simply “Hunger”. And so many are needed also because I haven’t yet found a single reliable source which groups all the scattered reliable statistics on the matter.

“‘reference bombing’ an article is bad because it makes articles hard to maintain” The truth is always more important than convenience and in this case the truth needs many sources as explained already above.

“More importantly, a line like "1 person dies every second as a result of hunger - 4000 every hour - 100 000 each day - 36 million each year - 58 % of all deaths" is what I call gee-whizzery.” I think the variations on the statistic (which you call “gee-whizzery”) are necessary because these variations are found in the scattered various reliable sources one might find (including the sources used by me) and also because they are used regularly in news outlets and on seemingly authoritative sites (such as etc) without precise reliable sources, and on other more dubious sites with weak sources (as was the case before my contribution on this aspect on wikipedia). If one wants to check on one of these variations found somewhere, at least now Wikipedia gives solid sources to support or criticize what one has found.

“Material in an encyclopedia should not be written in such breathless language.” My contribution was meant to be statistical only and does not mean chapters of explanation in an “encyclopedic language” on the same aspect don’t have their place. But “raw” statistics also have a place in Wikipedia: there are countless articles where “raw” statistics peacefully cohabit with “encyclopedic language”. It also must be added that my contribution is obviously a tiny one on the major subject of mortality due to hunger that deserves greater development in Wikipedia, but it shouldn’t be eliminated simply because it’s not complete enough on the whole subject. Hopefully the article will grow in the future.

“Furthermore, statistics like "1 person dies every second" are also given to impress rather than inform. They don't actually mean anything: the proof is that if you get them badly wrong -- "1 person dies every 2 seconds" -- they don't look any less bad, even though that's only half the death rate. You could make up any number you want and nobody would know the difference.” I don’t really understand what you mean by all this. I’m guessing that you do not mean that all statistical numbers, even true, are always meaningless because that would be morally unacceptable. So the only other thing I can see, but that leaves me perplexed, is that you are saying that a death statistic translated in time is meaningless. But it seems simple to understand that if “6 million children die each year” is true, then “1 child dies every 5 seconds” is also true and vice versa. All you need to do is to calculate it if you want to verify. I could make up any number (on any subject, the size of the earth for example) but it seems obvious that somebody who looked at the many sources I give (or looked up sources on his own) could “ know the difference”. All this seems so obvious that I guess that maybe I just don’t understand what you are trying to say. If such is the case please try to explain all this again. (?)

Another reason I had to give as many reliable sources to support the statistics was precisely to avoid to “get them badly wrong”

Regards Armando Navarro (talk) 03:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Depersonalization disorder/GA1

This gonna be followed up on at all? Wizardman 16:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Is that still somehow open? I thought somebody else closed it a long time ago, due to lack of response by the author to the reviews. Apologies if I dropped the ball somehow. Looie496 (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
You're the one that's officially doing the review, so I think you have to close it. Xasodfuih (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hunger stats

I left a note on the article's talk page, but it's getting ignored. Should we start a RfC on this issue? Or the user in question maybe? Xasodfuih (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it. The problem with using words like "a bit of" and "unsure" is that it makes it unclear that you're serious. I suggest following up with a message that says politely but definitively what you think ought to be done, and we can go from there. Anyway, thanks for the support. Looie496 (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Mortality statistics

I see a bit of WP:OR in this section in that the original sources give the mortality per year. I'm unsure of the value of deriving the mortality per second, hour, day, etc. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy, even for a good cause. Xasodfuih (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


It is not WP:OR. Please read carefully before judging : the original sources do give variations on the mortality statistics as one can read in the sources I provide in the " References" and as one can also read in the many links to actual source material that I give in the " References"

For example, in the “References"

[17] ^ Jacques Diouf. “The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2004: Monitoring Progress Towards the World Food Summit and Millennium Development Goals”. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2004, p. 4. “one child dies every five seconds as a result of hunger and malnutrition”.

Jacques Diouf, FAO Director-General, wrote this, not me.

As to the value of variations on the mortality statistics, it is necessary because these variations are found in many of the reliable sources on the matter (Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to food, World Food Programme, Unicef, etc) (included in the sources used by me in the "References"). It is therefore a standard way of communicating the statistics on this matter given by the organizations responsible for establishing authoritative statistics on the subject.

it is necessary also because these variations are used regularly in reliable news outlets and by other seemingly authoritative organizations (various hunger organizations) often without precise references. If one wants to check on one of these variations found somewhere, at least now Wikipedia gives solid sources to support or criticize what one has found. Armando Navarro (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I also repeat this previous answer on the question since it seems to have been ignored :


“I don't think you need that many sources to establish a single point.” Unfortunately, many sources are needed to give a historically truthful overview of the mortality statistics on this issue. A historic overview of these statistics is important because the subject of the article isn’t “Recent Hunger” but simply “Hunger”. And so many are needed also because I haven’t yet found a single reliable source which groups all the scattered reliable statistics on the matter.

“‘reference bombing’ an article is bad because it makes articles hard to maintain” The truth is always more important than convenience and in this case the truth needs many sources as explained already above.

“More importantly, a line like "1 person dies every second as a result of hunger - 4000 every hour - 100 000 each day - 36 million each year - 58 % of all deaths" is what I call gee-whizzery.” I think the variations on the statistic (which you call “gee-whizzery”) are necessary because these variations are found in the scattered various reliable sources one might find (including the sources used by me) and also because they are used regularly in news outlets and on seemingly authoritative sites (such as etc) without precise reliable sources, and on other more dubious sites with weak sources (as was the case before my contribution on this aspect on wikipedia). If one wants to check on one of these variations found somewhere, at least now Wikipedia gives solid sources to support or criticize what one has found.

“Material in an encyclopedia should not be written in such breathless language.” My contribution was meant to be statistical only and does not mean chapters of explanation in an “encyclopedic language” on the same aspect don’t have their place. But “raw” statistics also have a place in Wikipedia: there are countless articles where “raw” statistics peacefully cohabit with “encyclopedic language”. It also must be added that my contribution is obviously a tiny one on the major subject of mortality due to hunger that deserves greater development in Wikipedia, but it shouldn’t be eliminated simply because it’s not complete enough on the whole subject. Hopefully the article will grow in the future.

“Furthermore, statistics like "1 person dies every second" are also given to impress rather than inform. They don't actually mean anything: the proof is that if you get them badly wrong -- "1 person dies every 2 seconds" -- they don't look any less bad, even though that's only half the death rate. You could make up any number you want and nobody would know the difference.” I don’t really understand what you mean by all this. I’m guessing that you do not mean that all statistical numbers, even true, are always meaningless because that would be morally unacceptable. So the only other thing I can see, but that leaves me perplexed, is that you are saying that a death statistic translated in time is meaningless. But it seems simple to understand that if “6 million children die each year” is true, then “1 child dies every 5 seconds” is also true and vice versa. All you need to do is to calculate it if you want to verify. I could make up any number (on any subject, the size of the earth for example) but it seems obvious that somebody who looked at the many sources I give (or looked up sources on his own) could “ know the difference”. All this seems so obvious that I guess that maybe I just don’t understand what you are trying to say. If such is the case please try to explain all this again. (?)

Another reason I had to give as many reliable sources to support the statistics was precisely to avoid to “get them badly wrong”

Regards Armando Navarro (talk) 03:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


I already filed a report on WP:RFPP and they denied me too with the same reasoning. Thanks anyway.TomCat4680 (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Bogart Foundation

Thanks for the suggestions - I wrote back on my talk page and would love your further comments/suggestions. Saraphrodite (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Philosophy of mind

See standard notice I placed in User talk:Djrb1979. There are hundreds of millions websites around. Wikipedia needs article text and references to text, not bare links, however valuable they may be. I may accept a wikipedian in "lazy mode", when they add an ext link which covers an obscure topic difficult to find. But links to tons of arbitrary academic papers without minimal explanations, sorry. - 7-bubёn >t 19:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


Hello, Looie496. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: twinkle, twinkle, ...

Well, one was for nominating the Wikipedia Sandbox for deletion, the other two were for edits this. Plus, the user has a sock on User:Vanlalism_warner. I am guessing this user is up to no good. - NeutralHomerTalk • March 16, 2009 @ 23:03

Maybe so, but warning the user for vandalizing the sandbox, and then suggesting that the user instead experiment on the sandbox, may be a bit difficult to follow. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Never though of that, but the warnings are from TWINKLE, so I have no control over those, but you do have a point. - NeutralHomerTalk • March 16, 2009 @ 23:09

Edmontosaurus image

Hello, Looie496;

I'd like to get your opinion on commons:File:DNMHedmonto.jpg at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Edmontosaurus. Thanks! J. Spencer (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitely more useful to the average reader than the skull or the other skeletal pictures in the article, but I still feel a picture of the dinosaur as it was thought to appear when alive would be the most useful thing for the lede. In any case, thanks for asking. Looie496 (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

style and formatting tips for GA reviews

I just made a few minor cleanup edits to your GA review of Flatworm. When making comments in GA reviews, please use only 3rd level headers and below to separate major points of the review. When you use 2nd level headers on the review subpage, those subsections appear as new topics on the talk page, rather than part of the GA review.

Also, when passing articles, your statement that you've passed (or failed) the article should be made on the GA review subpage, rather than separately on the talk page, unconnected from the actual review itself. This is important so that readers see that the GA review has concluded. Dr. Cash (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the tips. I'll be sure to follow them. Looie496 (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

2008 Pittsburgh Steelers season copyedits

I liked many of your recent edits to the lede of this article. I don't feel that they should have been completely reverted — that approach struck me as quite heavy-handed. I would welcome further input from you on the article. -- Deejayk (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


Hi -- I don't think it is useful to readers to link words like "philosopher", "scientist", and "universe". Also it's just plain wrong to link "nebulous" to fuzzy logic. I propose to undo these changes, but in the interest of not coming across as hostile, I thought it would be nice to get your reaction first. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Answer to Looie496 observation

Hi Looie496,

thanks for contacting me before undoing my revision!
You seem to be a very undooing revisionist according to your latest english wikipedia contributions:
4 reverted edits on 7 in the last two days.
But please don't get me wrong!
I am a wikipedia administrator myself and I know there is loz of vandalism "out there".
So I also appreciate that you started a discussion with me telling what were your thoughts about my last three revisionson the consciousness wikipedia article.
This even if they are all negative (if not plain negative!).
Thanks for proposing me to undo these changes:
you are the very FIRST polite editor that I have encountered on wikipedia in the last SIX years writing me so nicely about undoing my changes.
Please give me 24 hours for thinking about it.
Please also consider writing something more about yourself in the meantime!

Noone is biting you...
Thanks for reading me.
(Good night? Duh? I don't even know time zone is!)

Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: I am posting these two messages on the consciousness discussion page too in order to try involve other editors in the next 24 hours.

Bates method

Thanks for reviewing Bates method. I initially replied to your comments in a hurry, and upon further reflection changed my response on some points. The Accommodation subsection is probably the trickiest part of the article currently. If it's too much trouble you can move on to the rest of the article and get back to Accommodation later if you still feel the article has a chance to pass GA. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this since I submitted my last comments, so I don't yet know exactly what you're talking about, but I'll try not to panic in any case. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Looie496. I suggest the last para of the current lead at Bates method can be made more concise, possibly by 30%; and suspect other parts of the lead can also be streamlined without loss of info. --Philcha (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fetal farming

Hi there, several alternative redirect targets have now been proposed, could you comment on which you prefer? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


I think you're right, and agree that the second sentence is problematic. I wouldn't mind challenging the issue of the wedding gift but am not sure how to go about it. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts

I strongly encourage you to not revert any edits from other users at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. The more one lets a user leave edits there that are inappropriate, the more rope one gives them to hang themselves. --Boston (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)--Boston (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it didn't seem to me that letting an already well-hung editor get even more hung justified wasting the time of every editor who watches the page. But I accept your point. Looie496 (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Well-hung? --Philcha (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Should it be well-hanged instead? Looie496 (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, if we're talking abouit execution rather than exceptional endowment. --Philcha (talk) 06:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prevagen

An article you edited is now up for deletion. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Bates method GA pass

Thanks for your help with the article. Hopefully it will soon be at WP:FAC, but I guess it's not quite ready yet. PSWG1920 (talk) 05:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI: You've added "GA" in the edit summary after passing (as advised by the WP:GAN) so a bot will take care of the article history. Hekerui (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You have replies

At Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#No_consensus_to_remove_the_example. Feel free to join the ongoing main RM discussion here as well, if you feel like jumping into the discussion that caused the NC one. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Looie496, This is DrTonyFlagg speaking. I received your message. Please go to the talk section of the dopamine article (section: Salience). Regards, --Drtonyflagg (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Romila Thapar: False Allegations of Sock Puppetry: Please Investigate


I did read the sections. The Blocking of accounts by Nishkid64 and Regents Park, not to mention their being editors is a conflict of interest. Please investigate. Thank you--Naziasultana (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


I added them to the list. I'm pretty much certain they are both SchnitzelMannGreek. Inferno, Lord of Penguins (talk) 02:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for telling me, but I have heard of bots, but I don't know exactly what they are. I use a Java script to make insect-related pages quickly, though they are stubish. And I can understand your concern, because this can be used for mass vandalism, but I assure you, that I have no such intentions, but that of for the better good. If I am disobeying any rules, please explain. Buɡboy52.4 (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I was just about to make articles for all the species for the genus Amata, is that all right??Buɡboy52.4 (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Editing a comment of yours

I have taken the liberty of editing a comment of yours to correct what looks like the kind of typo I would make, since I believe that you meant quite the opposite of what you said. :) The edit is here. Please revert me if I'm mistaken. :) Very well explained, I think. Obviously, my attention was drawn to it by the ANI report; it looks like you've got it well in hand. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw -- thanks for fixing my typo. Looie496 (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sinhala People Talk Page

Hi Looie. I would like to apologize for what was unquestionably recent vandalism of the discussion page for the article pertaining to "Sinhala People". This was not me, but rather one of my room-mates who shares a computer with me (I forgot to logout of my account, it was my own fault).

On the same note, however, a large amount of text that I myself did indeed add to the discussion page for "Sinhala People" under the last topic: "The comment about "Muslim-Sinhalese" population is unfounded" was deleted without reason and no one left a message on the talk page explaining their actions as is the usual protocol. I did a lot of independent research and spent a lot of time writing the section that was deleted. I felt it was very important to the discussion. Is there any way to restore this section? and if there is some good reason as to why it was deleted I will alter my content as necessary to make it more appropriate (even though I find it very difficult to fathom and comprehend why it would be considered "inappropriate" in the first place) so it stays and is not deleted in future. My section was a response to user:

I'm not an administrator, I can't do anything more than you can do. I also don't know anything about the topic. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you know who is an administrator that can restore my original text? It is good that the vandalism was reverted as that was not even me, however, I think deleting several paragraphs of researched, supported, and sourced text in a legitimate talk is insulting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MultiScholar (talkcontribs) 22:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
You can restore it yourself, using the History tab. I'm not going to give you instructions, though, because it looks to me like you are fighting with other people on that page and writing comments that are much too long -- I don't want to encourage that style of editing. Looie496 (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for adding comments on the article. Unfortunately, a new GAN review should never have been initiated on the article because the article was currently listed at GA reassessment. I have moved your comments to the GA reassessment page instead, to avoid confusion. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind what I just said. I have removed myself from the process because I don't believe that I can be considered neutral anymore by Philcha. All I ask, however, is that while you complete your review, please examine my previous review and make notable comments as you see fit. Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Looie496, sorry for not responding in the last couple of days - I've caught a heavy cold and my brain don't work so good. Many thanks for the review, you've been very helpful and the article is significantly better as a result. I have to admit I found this one difficult, mainly because the taxonomic issues made it hard to fid a uniform level at wheich to summarise the critters. --Philcha (talk) 06:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Looie496, do you remember our discussion of "head" in the Flatworm GA review? Have a look at Annelid#Nervous_system_and_senses! BTW Annelid phylogeny is at least as messy as that of Flatworms - sigh. --Philcha (talk) 08:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


thanks for the tip. just quick note: i worked for mr peet in the 1980's, he was a charming man, passionate about tea more than coffee, oddly. a perfectionist, of course, so some people bristled, but he could be positively poetic about his craft. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle

FYI. Your close of this AfD was brought up on the Village pump and the Help desk, and the AfD has since been reopened. --OnoremDil 12:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(update) And it's now been closed again. --OnoremDil 13:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
For future reference, the closure you performed didn't meet the guidelines at Wikipedia:Non-admin closure and really should not have been done. You asked at ANI and multiple admins (including myself) told you that a WP:SNOW keep was out of the question, but then some time later when not much had really changed you closed anyway. In general, I'd advise only using non-admin closures for extremely unambiguous cases, which the subsequent wheel warring obviously indicates it wasn't. I'm not trying to come down on you or anything, I'm just giving some advice on how to stay out of trouble. Oren0 (talk) 03:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your response. I really don´t know why a see so many articles tagged as Orphan, like it is a necessary to have links. Also some other editors believe that some pages can be plagued with notable people in them. ----Juliaaltagracia (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hak Ja Han RFC

Thank you very much for taking the time to comment in the Request for Comment about the article Hak Ja Han. Can you please elaborate on your comments at Talk:Hak_Ja_Han#RfC:_Sentence_about_marriage_to_Sun_Myung_Moon? The issue isn't really whether or not to reduce the number of sources cited for that sentence, that would be okay with me, but rather that some individuals would rather the entire sentence not be in the article at all, sourced or not. If you could expand on your comment after reading over the posts from the "involved" contributors (including myself and others) that would be most appreciated. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 08:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for helping out with obesity hypoventilation syndrome. I suspect your work has greatly benefited the readability of the article. JFW | T@lk 20:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on my page!--Jasminekellis21 (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


Hello, Looie496. You have new messages at Dougofborg's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougofborg(talk) 18:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Huntington's disease GAC

First of all thank you for your willingness to review the article; however it's been 11 days since your first lines with general recommendations (which the editors tried to resolve) and you have made no further comments. Do you plan to finish your review? How long do you think it will take you? Bests. --Garrondo (talk) 07:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Looie, thanks for your suggestions - and edits so far, Just wondered if you had a timescale for the review - it's just that JFW is holding the Medical collaboration open (it would be a great boost to the project to achieve a GA on it's watch) - but he is probably itching to roll it over to the next article. I dropped a note for user:delldot to add any extra comments - She reviewed HD for a previous GAN but is busy so may not have spare time. Hopefully we have addressed the points you've raised so far - but if there are any problems just let us know - Many thanks and power to the pixel! L∴V 11:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Martin Bucer

Hello, the Martin Bucer FAC was archived. In my opinion, this was closed too early. I have renominated it; would you please vote or leave a comment on the new FAC? See Talk:Martin Bucer and click on "leave comments". Thanks. --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Chaos theory and Ramakrishnan

I thought the article was an interesting way to explain Ramakrishnan's free will theory. [3]. I hope you have read it before deleting the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW the original article is at [4]. However the source was not notable hence the editorial article in Times of India was put. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


Sorry I am new to wikipedia and did not know the process. How do you get to the talk section of each page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salty24 (talkcontribs) 00:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Camping Food article

I voted strong Keep on this one, read your note to the original author, and want to know what it will take to prevent deletion of this one. Yes, I've adopted it, although I do not know the author, but feel it is unjustly being nominated. I hope the writer has not been scared off. Tell me what I need to do to insure a Keep, other than my vote. Please respond on my talk page when you have time. Sincerely worried, Marcia Marcia Wright (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Method of loci

Hi, I've begun a rewrite of the Method of loci article intended to reflect the currency of the term in psychology, neurobiology and memory studies. I'd appreciate it if you might be able to take a look and vet the content, and of course, if you can, fill it out a bit. Thanks! --Picatrix (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


I am new to the contributor side of wikipedia. I have an interest primarily in contributing to the neuroscience rroject, stemming largely from SfN's new initiative to assist what you all have been doing here. I noticed your name in a number of the pages and threads that I've been looking through, and felt compelled to at least say hello. I expect to spend my time here in the coming days absorbing the process and procedures before jumping into contributing. There's lots of useful info around, but any helpful advice is always appreciated. Cheers. PhSean (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi -- take a look at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Neuroscience, that's where we've been discussing the SfN initiative. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Independent story linked in Bipolar disorder article

I see that you removed a link to a newspaper story from the bipolar disorder article per WP:MEDRS. I see that the article in question cited papers from a special edition of Personality and Individual Differences, to which I do not have access. If you have electronic journal access, would it be possible for you to look up the papers cited in the newspaper article and link to them in its stead? -- The Anome (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't do it immediately, but I'll be able to access them the next time I go into the lab, in a couple of days. But looking at the abstracts for the papers, none of them seem to deal in any sort of specific way with bipolar disorder. Also note that there are tons of high-quality sources for a relationship between bipolar and creativity, including this Scientific American article. If the statement in our article hadn't already been well-sourced, I'd have dug one up. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion

Up Your's

I see you've meet one of my many sock puppet accounts keep on the look out for any other variation of my Dr.? name out there. If you'd like to talk to me look for user talk: Joe Castillo Dr.?

P.S. you can never shut down the Doctor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Questionmark 2 (talkcontribs) 20:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

IP bans exist for a reason... so does the ability for ytour providor to shut off your internet...

P.S. The Doctor CAN be stopped.--Jakezing (Your King (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Astute observation

I think you're one of those people for whom drama is like cocaine, and you started feeling withdrawal symptoms

You nailed it. The drama magnets are indeed, addicted to it. My guess is that they want to feel alive in some way, and go out of their way to cause problems for the attention it generates. It's basically an addiction to suffering. It's strange, but no matter how many people tell you they prefer pleasure to pain, isn't it interesting how many gravitate to pain instead? What do you make of that? Viriditas (talk) 10:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's about pain, I think it's about a need for attention. Looie496 (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
No hurry on this, but can you talk a little bit more about it at your leisure? I'm interested in your perspective. There's a need for attention, sure, but if you ask what kind of attention, we can agree that it is negative attention, and this attention has a strong component of suffering attached to it; This suffering is often used as a synonym for pain. In Buddhist philosophy, there is a discussion about this state of affairs, and an observation can be made in some circles, that people like to suffer. Now, pain can be a good thing; Our bodies use it to give us information about the external world and the health of our bodies in relation to that world. But some people take it a step further. There are entire subcultures devoted to body arts, piercing and tattooing for example, and in the past, some cultures have used pain as a rite of passage. Still today, we see people who enjoy going to horror films, and watching people experience pain, and in turn experiencing fear. This type of secondary suffering has a huge audience and generates millions of dollars annually. I can go on like this, but what I am really talking about is mental suffering, but it has its roots in the things I describe. Are you saying such people need attention for any reason, such as a cry for help? Or do they just lack it to begin with, and feel lonely and unloved? Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Of course I don't really know, but I think it's more a need for adrenaline than for pain. The possibility of pain induces adrenaline, but it's the excitement that is rewarding, not the pain per se. Looie496 (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll buy that. Would this explain a "hothead" personality type on Wikipedia? In other words, people who enjoy getting angry over small things, getting into silly arguments for sport, etc. Recently, two editors who have been here since 2006 got into a major edit war and mediation case in an article about a foam takeout container. Knowing what you know about the physiological response, what can Wikipedia do to mitigate these types of conflicts, and is it possible to alter the behavior of editors over time, or is this a pipe dream? I can think of several editors here who have spent years in conflict after conflict, dispute after dispute, fight after fight, to the point where every talk page they show up on turns into a battleground. Is social engineering even possible in this case, and could it improve the level of discourse? Or, could this be characterized as healthy debate and conflict? How much is too much? If civility is the baseline for reasonable and healthy discussion, should we start blocking for incivility and personal attacks? Viriditas (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: moving new section to botttom, where new things are supposed to go

Hello I'm sorry for my mystake , error .I am new to the contributor side of wikipedia. I don't speak English very well.I have notice after you make the correction that articles it is sorting by date .I wanted to contribuate with an ideea(2-3 words) but that ideea need to be written by someone in many words/phrases , somone who speak english Thank you for your response/ the correction .I apologiasse once more .Cheers Zenhabit (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, it happens often. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 08:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the complaint on the noticeboard

Looie496, I wasn't at all happy about the way in which you chose to show me up in a bad light on the administrator's noticeboard. There is much more to the whole story that you are perhaps aware of. There was no need to read off my block record to the crowd. When the whole truth comes out, you will realize that from the very beginning those blocks were totally unjustified. But I'm not making an issue about that right now. The main point is that a settlement was in progress on the centrifugal force page. Once again, FyzixFighter intervened to undermine my contributions. I don't know what the best solution to this problem should be, but it became most important that I brought the matter to the attention of the administrators. You should have been examining FyzixFighter's latest edits and not broadcasting my block record. It's hardly fair that somebody should be disadvantaged because of events which are now passed. It's easy if you like to take a scan read a block record and ignore the details surrounding each block. I am now more aware of the wiki rules than I was last year and I have been paying much more attention to the issue of consensus. The situation now is not the same situation that we had last year. My suggestion is that nothing be done, other than that the situation be monitored. Right now, I am trying to guide a few editors towards writing a single coherent article on centrifugal force. And I am not a single purpose user as somebody suggested. I am concentrating on this particular topic as of the moment and it could have been settled a long time ago if it wasn't for the obstinance of a group of editors who don't like Leibniz's approach to centrifugal force. David Tombe (talk) 11:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA, which was unable pass with a final tally of (45/39/9). I plan on addressing the concerns raised and working to improve in the next several months. Hopefully, if/when I have another RfA I will win your support. Special thanks go to MBisanz, GT5162, and MC10 for nominating me. Thanks again, -download ׀ sign! 01:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Keratoconus disruption - now what?

It appears from Talk:Keratoconus#True_or_false:_Scubadiver99_and_Corneadoc_are_behaving_disruptively_on_this_page that there is some agreement about disruption on the talk page. Based on past experience, you're unlikely to get any input from Scubadiver99 or Corneadoc at this point. Having established disruption, how do you intend to proceed? I'd like to get this dealt with before the events become stale and the cycle starts all over again with new editors. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you didn't respond to my question above, but I've started a new thread on ANI to try to get this dealt with. Although I appreciate your attempt, I was never sure what you thought you would be able to do about the situation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not enough for two or three people to say there is disruption, you have to be able to prove it. I was trying to figure out whether you could prove it. I doubt that you'll be able to in a way that will cause admins to take action -- but we'll see. Looie496 (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback

Unfortunately, my RFA was closed today with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your participation in it. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns. Special thanks go to Schmidt, MICHAEL Q., TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 — talk 20:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Help with continued disruption on article talk page

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


Hi Louie, I wanted to let you know that starting Tuesday (19th) I'll be going on a three-week wikileave. No pressure or anything, but I think if you were to just put in a paragraph about schizophrenia and other psychiatric disorders in the new pathology section, I'd be happy to pass the article. Of course, if you feel you need more time, I have no problems with keeping the review "on hold" until I get back. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Lombard effect

Yes it is increase. Thanks. --LittleHow (talk) 08:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


My RfA

Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record.
I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


Well, back to the office it is...

fMRI background

Hey Looie,

Could you have a look at the background section on the fMRI page? It's the last paragraph I'm having trouble with. User Afiller added the section, referencing what is presumably his own paper. Nothing wrong with that, but I'm suspicious the method is not as revolutionary (or proven) as he is suggesting. I added a comment to his talk page, and he did edit. I don't want to put off a good-faith editor, but, well, I'd like the section to be accurate. I love to hear your thoughts. GyroMagician (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

My RfA

In it you stated "Oppose on concerns about temperament, augmented by personal beliefs 2 and 3 in the Optional Statement, which seems designed to justify actions that I wouldn't approve of." I'm doing what I can to address temperament issues, but what exactly did you mean that you had a problem with statements 2 and 3?

2. Just because something hasn't been done in a certain way before doesn't mean someone is wrong to do something non-standard. If something needs to be standard, then it needs to have consensus-support and be appropriately codified in a policy or guideline. It is inappropriate to malign/chastise someone because they have done something non-standard. Effectively "We don't do it that way" with no policy or guideline to back it up can result in a conflict and should be avoided. Such actions should be brought up on the related talk page and, if consensus decides that the particular method chosen can/shouldn't be used, then it should be permitted/removed (respectively).
3. Policies and guidelines are crafted slowly over time and are the "rules" by which content is kept in check on Wikipedia. Doing something that is explicitly in accordance with one of these policies/guidelines and then quoting the appropriate reason you did such an action is inherently appropriate. It is not "wikilawyering"; it is following the procedures/content rules of Wikipedia. If the rules need to be changed, then change them. If clarification is needed, then clarification needs to be added. Common sense dictates that not every situation should be expounded in-depth upon, but common sense is not common and policies/guidelines should be spelled out as much as possible to prevent problems down the road.

? — BQZip01 — talk 14:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Basically it looks to me like those statements are intended to justify actions that go against consensus. I believe that the written policies are descriptive rather than prescriptive -- they describe community opinion about how to behave rather than specifying laws that must be legalistically obeyed. Unfortunately, because of the way policy documents are edited, they don't always describe community consensus accurately. In such cases, I believe that consensus must trump the policy documents. Your statements appear to me to be arguing against that point of view. This isn't a trivial issue: admins who act against community consensus, even if they base their actions on written policy, can cause serious trouble. It's possible that I misunderstood you, because what you wrote was not very concrete, but that's the message I got. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. If what I stated was unclear, perhaps you can help me in rephrasing it. Policies are, by definition, consensus, so if an admin did something that was against consensus, it should fall under other policies (i.e. WP:IAR, WP:NFCC, etc.). Policy also typically lags behind consensus, so that must be considered as well.
In #2, my point is that if someone does something that isn't what has been done in the past, it doesn't make it wrong and "we don't do it that way" isn't an appropriate response. It's just a new idea. This is not in regard to consensus, but in instances in which there is no prior consensus on the technique.
In #3, my point is that if you do something that is explicitly permitted, people shouldn't demonize you as "wikilawyering"; in fact, they themselves may be ignorant on the subject and WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid reason. As an example, let's say you delete an image because it is copyrighted and was uploaded under false pretenses. The uploader then claims you deleted it arbitrarily. You respond with "I deleted it because it doesn't meet our non-free content criteria". Their response? "You just don't like the image and are wikilawyering to find any excuse." This kind of discussion is inherently disruptive and nonproductive. If people are going to ignore policies, they should do so for good reasons. To prevent confusion and disputes, policies should be spelled out as much as possible to prevent future problems.
Hopefully that clarifies things. — BQZip01 — talk 17:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
It helps, but if that specific example was the only thing you had in mind, you wouldn't have felt a need to write this out at such length -- almost everybody would agree with you. And it is not the case that "policies are, by definition, consensus". Policies are created by the people who edit policy documents. Since the vast majority of people don't have time to watch every change in policy documents, it is quite possible for a motivated minority to introduce nonconsensual changes into them at least for a short time. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
<scratches head> That's really all I meant by #3 in the original case, so I'm not quite sure what your first sentence refers to: "you wouldn't have felt a need to write this out at such length"? As for policy documents, I concur that non-consensus changes certainly aren't policy, but consensus changes are. I'll alter the wording of my philosophy to make that more clear. — BQZip01 — talk 18:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
When one reads a statement, one not only asks whether it was true, but also why it was written. Suppose, to invent a completely random example, you had added "#14. I believe that Barack Obama is African-American". On its face that is not a very controversial statement to most people -- but the question would be what was going through your head that caused you to feel you needed to state it explicitly. It's a similar situation with your two statements -- on their face they are quite uncontroversial, but precisely for that reason I wondered why you felt such a need to state them -- and the reasons I could think of were ones I wasn't too happy about. Looie496 (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh! Ok. Well, I suppose I better explain my reasoning for these then.
I've been told "we don't do things that way" when I try new things. Sometimes they are eventually implemented. Other times, they aren't, but we shouldn't demonize those who try new things. I defend those who try new things and/or calmly explain why we do things in certain ways (User:MichaelQSchmidt is a perfect example of that). As for new ideas, we shouldn't try to suppress them, but we can certainly explain why things are the way they are.
I've been accused by people who don't like certain policies of "wikilawyering". I also defend those who do actions explicitly permitted by policy. I feel negatively labeling those who do what they are supposed to do as some kind of pariah.
Hopefully that explains it. Would you recommend just removing those sentences altogether? Thanks for the expanded feedback. — BQZip01 — talk 01:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Intelligence-Based Design ProD

What, what a mess. Bearian (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What now?

Regardingyour comment on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:William_Allen_Simpson. On wp:wqa the disussion we closed and archived after referring me to wp:ani. You seem to be right that people on wp:ani do not respond to this post. Where does that leave me? Debresser (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, my suggestion is to reopen the WQA, but I'm not giving any guarantees :-). Looie496 (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I'll wait till tomorrow, and if there are still no reactions on wp:ani I'll use that as an argument to go back to wp:wqa. Debresser (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks at Fringe Noticeboard

I am quite unable to determine whether your remarks here are addressed to me or to Mathsci. I have made no remarks at that page that are not addressed either to the issue art hand (which is BLP policy violation) or to aggressive and irrelevant insults and threats addressed to me. A.K.Nole (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The remark was addressed to you, and related to your attack on the name "Mathsci". I feel that it's everybody's responsibility to support editors who are subjected to that sort of stalking. If you feel you were insulted, there are legitimate ways to complain about it. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

vandalism warrning

  Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--Antiedman (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


Sorry for the mistake. Please feel free to revert/fix anything. I will try to find time to continue reading/reviewing this article. Hopefully the FAC will stay open a bit longer. Colin°Talk 22:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, your edits are definitely improvements overall, I don't mind having to make a small tweak every so often. Looie496 (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

antiedmans editing behaviour

I will now leave the article Multiracial American alone as far as multiracial Americans of multiracial European decent are concerned and only provide useful information I learn about the subject.--Antiedman (talk) 04:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

oooo not just useful but also accurate information--Antiedman (talk) 04:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


Hundreds of refs. available. I started the rewrite, but I'm not an expert. DGG (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine by me. Looie496 (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

response to contact

Hi Looie496. Appreciate your feedback about my early posts on 'pleasure center' controversies. always good to get dialogue going. If you email me (my signature name below, at rcn dot com). I can forward to you some materials that might help you if you want to really tackle a re-write of the 'pleasure center' concepts. With good reason this topic has been labeled a high-priority within Wikipedia, but obviously no expert or researcher has chosen to dive in and roll up their sleeves and write a good review. Obviously the whole question of what pleasure constitutes in the brain is a huge scientific frontier, and critical to so many other questions and conceptual territories. I have just completed a book chapter on motivation which gives a broad and condensed overview of this whole confusing territory. I could forward this and some other review literature to your e-mail address if you're interested.

Just e-mail me as instructed above.

all the best, dfwatt (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Message re. a hard-banned pain in the neck

Hi. I see you had a run-in with User:Bambifan101 and his seemingly bottomless sock drawer. If any user approaches you for assistance in editing any protected juvenile-themed entertainment article or if you have another run-in with a new account similar to the one you just had, please let me know. Thanks. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It was edits to sleep that drew my attention. Juvenile-themed entertainment articles are just about the last thing I would get involved in. Anyway, thanks for the info. Looie496 (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL! I don't blame you. Somehow, I've managed to get involved with dodging and parrying this kid's idiocy; that edit you reverted was a new one, but typical of his shenanigans. No need to reply; just dropping by to thank you again. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for keeping a cool head, and your good advice.Dave (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comment on Carrt81 An/I page

I'm curious and posted on the page why you feel there is a BLP violation that would require a block?--Victor9876 (talk) 03:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, where is the legal issues?--Victor9876 (talk) 03:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The BLP violation comes from making unsubstantiated and disparaging statements about living people. The legal issues come from the same thing, and from the fact that you claim to have legally represented one of the people involved. In short, it's a can of worms, and no Wikipedia editor or admin should touch it, in my view. Looie496 (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I explained the facts in response to USER:Carrt81's accusations in the link provided at the beginning of the statement. It required revealing facts that can be substantiated as mentioned in the body of the text. My fiduciary responsibility ended when the POA ended, at the daughters request. In Law, Truth is a defense, unlike WP where verifiability is the standard. Everything I mentioned can be proven, so in short, a legal course would have no standing, except for charges and producing the evidence. This information was not used on the subjects Article page, it is used here as a defense against Carrt81's allegations contained in the link.--Victor9876 (talk) 07:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If you really want to know

Ed has been a Wikipedian since before we moved to Wikimedia; his first edit on the new system is here, creating the ID article, which he is now banned from per ArbCom decision enforcement; the same case placed him on probation. Arbcom had previously de-sysopped him. I think Jimbo removed his bureaucrat flag when he suddenly deleted all of Vfd, causing the entire site to stagger for a bit. At any rate, he has a strong POV, driven partially by his religion, and is currently an admin at Conservapedia, who appreciate his narrow fringe worldview somewhat more than Wikipedia, with its emphasis on NPOV (which, ironically enough, Ed is fond of mentioning that he helped write) does. He comes by every now and then and stirs the pot, gets trout slapped, and goes back to Conservapedia. You have to have been here for much of this for the relationship to make any kind of sense, I suppose. He's a lot like the crazy uncle who has done a lot for the family, but also done some embarrassing things, who keeps checking to see if anyone is still paying attention and if he can get away with anything. This is but a mile-high overview, of course - it would take pages to tell all the history. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, it's actually helpful. Looie496 (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Glad it helped. It might also help to know he does have a sense of humor, and doesn't mind some teasing. He's said many times he doesn't mind being called a Moonie, for example (he's a Unification Church member.) He also called me a "bitch" because I'm female, and a chihuahua is a canine, and a female canine... you get the idea. He thought it was funny, I was not amused. I don't mind "good puppy" and "fetch" jokes but "bitch" was over the line to me. When I asked him to remove it from his user page, he complied immediately and gracefully. Whether he meant his apology or was merely being political is something only Ed knows. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


Thanks very much! I greatly appreciate your kind words :). — \`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE`/ (talkcontribs) 22:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Watch who you're calling a nationalist

[5] → you need to assume better faith next time. There are American Wikipedians out there, like myself, who do not touch those pages and appreciate not being pigeonholed and compartmentalized as "nationalist" just because they were born and raised in the US. Next time, please make a better choice of words before making generalized comments like you just did. Thank you, MuZemike 07:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm an American myself. I think it's possible that you misread my message (or that I didn't say it clearly enough). Regards, Looie496 (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
That is likely. In that case, never mind then. Carry on :) MuZemike 16:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Nature Precedings article versions

Louie, I certainly take your point about Nature Precedings, but the article you are referring to is a review not a primary research article. In any case, that article is now reviewed, and accepted for publication in Neurosurgical Focus in September of 2009. It is in more or less identical format. I think the reader of the article can see the reference and understand that Nature Precedings constitutes pre-prints. The articles themselves are often $35.00 to download. If a readers wants to read all the references in some of these articles, he or she must spend over a thousand dollars to pay for all the references. Articles cannot be posted on Nature Precedings after they are accepted for publication, so there is an art of getting a post just prior to acceptance to make the manuscript available. If you think that Nature Precedings is a harmful entity then you should take up that issue directly with them an other prepress servers.


Afiller (talk)

Hi Louie, since you are involved in some of this discussion too, I would appreciate a second opinion from you on something. Could you please take another look at User talk:Afiller#unpublished review, and let me know if you think I did something wrong? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you did anything wrong. I've added a comment (hopefully in the right place). Regards, Looie496 (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks so much! He responded at my talk, and I think things are going to be ok now. Best, --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

response to Jason P Lester edits

Hi Looie496 - I appreciate your input. I work for Jason P Lester and he gave me permission to use his bio text on wikipedia. Can you help me understand your role at Wikipedia? I am new to posting and was pretty surprised to see you wipe out a bunch of what I posted. I based the entry format on other sports bios I had reviewed. The bio is a huge part of who Jason is, and you wiped it down to one sentence (incorrect at that as he is not a top competitor). Appreciate any insight you can give as to why you wiped it out.... Thank you. califrunnergirl

I'm just an ordinary editor, with no special powers. I explained on the article's talk page why I removed the material -- if that isn't clear, then you should start by reading WP:Copyright, especially the section Using copyrighted work from others. The gist of the problem is that merely having permission is not enough, you need to have permission conveyed in a way that makes it possible to prove that permission was given. This is pretty bureaucratic, no doubt, but it has to be in order to avoid the possibility of Wikipedia being sued for copyright violation. Note that if you do get properly documented permission, it will be no problem at all to put the material back, although it will then have to be edited pretty seriously to make it a neutral biography rather than a fan-piece. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Looie496 - me again! Sorry I'm still learning about wikipedia posting. I went in & rewrote his bio from memory, did not copy it from the website this time as to not infrige on copyrights. Can you take a look and let me know if this is better? THANK YOU! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Califrunnergirl (talkcontribs) 03:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Good, that's much better. It still needs work in several ways, but it doesn't blatantly violate copyright any more, which was the critical thing. Thanks for responding positively. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Louie496! If you have time, I would love ay other suggestions you have on how I can make it better. I am still learning about this whole process and want to do a good job. Thank you! --Califrunnergirl (talk) 03:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)CalifRunnergirl (first time trying to sign this properly - thanks to Sinebot who kindly informed me of proper protocol)

The main thing the article needs now to make it really proper is an indication of the sources for specific pieces of information. The referencing system is a bit complex, but you can look at other biographical articles (such as, say, Lance Armstrong, to take a completely random example) to get an idea of how it is done. Many articles begin with a lead that omits references for readability, but even then in the body of the article any important item of information should be linked to a published source that verifies it. This is something you can take your time solving, though -- the copyright issue needed to be fixed immediately. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply from ANI

Re rollback: my understanding is that the "bulk" feature is sometimes used for non-vandal damage that would take too long to fix one article at a time.

Rollback is just a faster way of going to a previous revision (from the history tab), clicking on the edit button, and clicking save. When you're not reverting vandalism, it's better to take the slightly longer route, as it gives the opportunity to leave an edit summary. Replied here to avoid bloat on ANI. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I was writing on the basis of WP:Rollback#Mass rollbacks. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Libertarianism (metaphysics)

Hey Looie, If you have time, we certainly could use a hand getting some stuff referenced and cleaned up over at the Libertarianism (metaphysics) page. It's been a mess for a long time, and finally user:Carolmooredc correctly trimmed it. user:Peterdjones and I are working to improve it now, but Carol is also pushing pretty hard to have every single addition properly referenced immediately, given the article's history of OR. I know you're interested in these topics, and I respect your edits (when I see your name in the edit history, I know it's a good edit) so I thought I'd ask you to give a hand if you have time. I'm thinking even just grabbing some page numbers from the SEP as an outside source would be great. Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:RetroS1mone

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of RetroS1mone (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RetroS1mone.

I don't know if you have any interest, but since you've commented within the last few weeks on RetroS1mone's editing, I thought I'd let you know.
Off-topic, I love your "blue better than red" reasoning for having a user page. ;) --RobinHood70 (talk) 03:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

please do not remove tags on iipm

dear user, kindly do not remove factuality dispute tags on IIPM. going by your comments, it is clear you presumed the tag is a neutrality tag. it is not. it is a factuality dispute tag. please do not remove it. cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One 05:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

dear looie, i request you to kindly look at the discussions on [6] where i have added some comments after your comments. i'll be thankful if you help resolve the dispute. cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One 06:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

pl note

hi, it'll be nice if you can visit the wiki admin noticeboard site [7] where i've requested administrators to give their view on the tag removal. cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One 06:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


There have been few movements in the article since your review. Won't be a good idea to close the GAN? Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Again: 10 more days have passed and still no movement in the page. None of your comments have been addressed. Why do not you close the GAN?. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll try to get to it today or tomorrow -- although my comments were not addressed directly, there has been a good bit of action at the article and I want to look it over again before closing. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Concerning your abusive post on my talk page

Bring down the hammer on your own head. The changes were not reversions. How dare you Please think it through before putting venom on other people's talk pages. Tony (talk) 10:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact, your post was so out of order that I'm considering making a complaint at Wikiquette. Do you make a regular practice of that kind of abuse? I find myself with a headache after your attack. And next time you accuse on the basis of an ArbCom remedy, please read it properly first. Tony (talk) 11:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Parkinson's disease

You tagged this article with {{GAreview}} on 30 June 2009, over one month ago. Have you finished your review yet? It appears that your last comments on it were on July 4, 2009. Please close the review as either a pass or fail at your earliest convenience. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I would not revert him again; but as I also wrote in his talk page I hope he answers. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 09:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

sorry sir reply : from Amitkochhar

sir actually i wasn't aware about this fact i will take care of this in future and will post data of my copyright only —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitkochhar (talkcontribs) 13:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


I saw your comment on Wikipedia:WQA. A proposed community ban of this user couldn't be more overdue. I mean, just look at the size of his more than full block log (and don't forget that there is also a second page of 50 more logs). I almost fainted when I saw that, I have never ever seen a block log that size and I know of a handful of banned users who haven't been blocked half as often as this guy. I think a proposal for a community ban would be the only choice (a lot of it for lack of civility and personal attacks but looking through the block log you should see a ton of other problems).--The LegendarySky Attacker 20:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You should

Hi, I was thinking that you should apply for adminship. I have noticed you have a good knowledge of wikipedia, are good at mediating and so forth.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I'm not sure I have the courage to face the circus that RFA has become. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Pain Intro'

Hi Looie. Can I ask your opinion about my proposed new intro' paragraph for Pain, please? Your input would be highly valued. Cheers Anthony (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Looie. Thanks for your comments and for archiving all that 2008 talk. I've had another go at the intro' if you have the time. Anthony (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Timewave_zero#Redirect proposal

Notice: You commented in an Article for deletion for Timewave zero / Novelty theory, an RFC has been opened on whether this article should be replaced with a Redirect. Please comment on the above link. Lumos3 (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Method of Loci: "literally 'walks'"

Hi. I'm writing because you reverted my own reversion of your edit in which you changed a quote taken verbatim from a source. The source is of course a pertinent and reputable one, as you must know, since you yourself were the one who kindly directed me to it in a talk page discussion. For some reason you indicated in the edit summary that the material you changed was not a quote. Is there some miscommunication here? I am working from a PDF file available at "". The authors appear to have placed a complete digital file of the book as it was printed. I have rechecked the quote, and my citation of it, and both were accurately indicated. If you check the site and download the PDF of the book (worth having in digital format in any case) you will see that I have accurately quoted and cited it. This being the case, it seems that your issues with the use of the word "literally" to refer to an 'act' 'occurring' in the imagination would be best taken up with the authors of the volume. I don't particularly like this phrasing either, but as far as I have been able to ascertain this is an accurate quote. Why did you indicate in your edit summary that it was not a quote? --Picatrix (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't actually look at the source, but if it's a direct quote, it should be in quotation marks. If it's in quotation marks, of course it must say exactly what the source said. If it isn't in quotation marks, there is no such requirement, and the fact that a person imagining walking through an environment is not walking through it "literally" becomes relevant. If you simply place the directly quoted part in quotation marks, my objections will evaporate. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I have reverted the edit and returned the quote to its original (and accurate) form. For the record, the quote was (and is) in quotation marks. Best, --Picatrix (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I finally understand -- the quote is so large that I missed the quotation marks. Thanks for your patience, and sorry for my mistake. (Although the phrase "literally 'walks'" still makes me cringe; I can't help it.) Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
It is a huge quote indeed. I've italicized it, for the sake of clarity. Guslacerda (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC);


Sorry for feeding the troll, I was quite tired last night. C6541 (TC) 17:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments at ANI

Please not that comments at ANI are not exempted from the policies governing comments about users. I would invite you to show how my name would have anything to do with Van Jones self describing behaviour.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

  Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. That username doesn't exempt you from assuming good faith. My userpage should make my attitude towards the 1860 traitorous secessionists clear; that doesn't change the fact that we must AGF about each other, username or no. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Comment on content, not on contributors" is excellent advice for article talk pages, but doesn't make sense for ANI, where the whole point is to examine the behavior of contributors, and content issues are usually considered out of bounds. Also, as the guideline says, AGF is a principle that should be applied with common sense. When I encounter editors with names like Die4Dixie (talk · contribs) or Born Gay (talk · contribs), I would have to shut my brain off not to form expectations about the views they will advocate. But the most important point is that long-term heavy-duty pov-warriors musn't be encouraged to turn to ANI for help in carrying out their agendas -- few things are more harmful to Wikipedia than allowing the system to be gamed in that way. If you know any way to prevent it that doesn't involve pointing out that an editor is a heavy-duty pov-warrior, I am certainly interested. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that I am trying to subvert Wikipedia for the Lost Cause or am looking for possible confederates to shell Fort Sumpter? What POV do you expect? How much editing have I done on the War of Northern Aggression pages? I think my edits have largely been a net positive in the mainspace. Feel free to disagree, but do not feel free to cast aspersions about me based on my name. I think that this has been clearly explained. If you have any more for me, please feel free to respond where ever you like.--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

response to VMHman edits


It´s OK if you remove the links from neurogenesis.Gegik (talk) 00:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Looie 496,

Hi! Thanks so much for your offer to help. I have tried to place copyright tags on my pictures in the article on Hypothalamus that I downloaded, and apparently I was successful on one of them and not successful on the other one (one picture now has a big caption saying that the image can be used by anyone as long as I am given attribution). Can you help me out at all by figuring out what I am doing wrong in placing copyright tags on my images? Thanks so much

VMHman —Preceding unsigned comment added by VMHman (talkcontribs) 18:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


The more I look at my comment at WP:WQA about your warning to Linas, the more embarrassed I become about its sheer snottiness. Thanks for responding so gracefully. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think you have anything to apologize for -- I didn't intend my comment as snarky but I can easily see how it could have been read that way. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

response to Brain–computer interface edits

Hi Looie496 I don't understand why you chopped my comments on g.tec and BCI. They are all true, you gave credit to neurosky, and emotive, which have come up with questionable BCI systems. You gave no credit to BCI2000 either, which is a huge force in BCI. The BCI world is small and the few that are carrying these movement on their shoulders should get the credit for it. And you go ahead have the nerve to showcase companies like emotive and neurosky. You allowed the mentioning of John Donoghue and fellow researchers for Cyberkinetics, but you erased the credit for the founders g.tec??? You erased my comments for wireless, and highspeed, which are features unique to g.tec, you did not edit out they other companies unique products. You are playing an unfair game and you should give credit to the BCI people g.tec, graz center, and BCI2000. Lot's of people will read this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I chopped the comments because they were written in the language of advertising rather than the language of an encyclopedia. I don't object to giving more information, but it should not be written to sound like praise. I moved the passage to the bottom as an automatic response, because adding things at the top is what spammers usually do. In short, I am open to the possibility that you are right, but you added the material in a way that looks like spamming, and that provoked a bad reaction.
According to Wikipedia policy, an article should not discuss specific products unless they have received independent coverage. If you can show publications that are independent of the company which discuss these products, I will be much more open to discussing them more extensively in the article. I'm not saying the other companies are any better -- they were in the article before I started watching it.
The best way of resolving this, as I see it, would be for you to add a section to the talk page of the article explaining the issues, and what you think the correct approach is. That way, other interested people could express opinions. In any case, I don't object to you making further changes, as long as you avoid using language that looks like advertising. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


Hey Looie is there page that explains how this template works? Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The documentation tries but doesn't do a very clear job. Basically what happens is that "cite pmid" creates a special wikipedia page to hold the citation. If a page already exists for that pmid, it is used. If not, a bot comes along after a time delay and creates the page, filling in the fields in much the way diberri's template filler does. If you don't want to wait for the bot, you can click on a link in the "preliminary citation" to cause the bot to run immediately. If something about the citation is wrong, you can click the "edit" link in it to hand-edit the contents. This doesn't produce quite as nice a result as diberri's tool but it's a good bit easier to use, in my opinion. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Attachment theory

I've made quite few changes if you would be so kind as to look them over. Fainites barleyscribs 06:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Réseau de Résistance du Québécois - Dispute

What do you think needs to be done about the Réseau de Résistance du Québécois article? It seems obvious that both Vincent and Philbox17 are bias and using sockpuppets. They are disrupting the article with their political agenda, but I'm still new to this and don't really know what to do about it.

I guess you aren't aware that both accounts have been blocked indefinitely? (Also please sign your posts by putting ~~~~ at the end.) Looie496 (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Did it happen just now?Thesniperremix (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#User:Philbox17. Looie496 (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Quantum Mysticism

Thanks for weighting in on Dennett. This conversation has been more than frustrating. Likebox realizes his argument is lacking and is using every bit of rhetoric to avoid the simple truth. Honestly I think he's just trying to "win" now, at the expense of the encyclopedia.--OMCV (talk) 01:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The really ironic thing is that this whole extended interlude is completely tangential to the actual subject of the article. Looie496 (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I would have expected most editors to own up to such a blatant piece of SYNTH and move on. In stead Likebox's first response was to tell me to go away in a questionable way. It was a pain just to figure out where he claimed the hypothetical question came from, he finally pointed me in the right direction on my talk page. At this point I'm really worried about what other SYNTH he's added to wikipedia and then defended with his bombastic approach to challenges. I was expecting to progress along the WP:dispute resolution process more quickly but I was the only editor involved so I couldn't call for a user RFC. Now that there are more people involved I expect a RFC to be called against myself or Likebox fairly soon and hopefully this situation can be resolved.--OMCV (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
My suggestion is that you open a new section on the talk page, make a specific and concrete proposal, and ask for people to express either support or opposition to it, with at most a 1-2 sentence justification. I have found that that approach cuts through the obfuscation sometimes. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, good idea. I set up a straw poll I'm not sure I did it right but it was an honest effort.--OMCV (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Uruk2008 at ANI

Regarding your post, WP:ANI#Editor continuing to add many bad refs to physics articles after repeated warnings and RFCU. A quick glance suggests to me you could be right. However, WikiProject Physics should weigh in on this question. My impression is that the physics people are slow to react to long-term content issues, and maybe they have a philosophy that many inputs should be tolerated. (I've tried to help out as an admin once or twice but my sense is that they are not as eager for admin action as you might expect). If you could get a strong reaction at WT:WikiProject Physics then maybe other admins would take an interest in the case. I notice that User:Georgewilliamherbert did issue one block of User:Uruk2008, back in February 2009. You could find out what he thinks. EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

For general background (for others who might read this) Uruk2008 was the subject of this RFC/U. The creators of the RFC/U assumed that Casimir9999 was an alternate identity of Uruk2008. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Look at all the effort that has already gone into this -- an RFCU, complaints by no fewer than eight editors, multiple warnings, multiple ANI threads -- all relating to an editor who blithely continues the objectionable behavior without having made any attempt to explain himself. And more is still needed? I'm -- I have written and then deleted five sentences here, and can't find any way to continue this reply without expressing more emotion than I want to, so I'm going to leave it there. Looie496 (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes people are blocked if they make lots of controversial changes but never respond to feedback. Is that the case here? EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, neither Casimir9999 nor any of the other Uruk2008 socks have ever responded except by deleting talk page threads. The use of multiple accounts stopped after the ANI threads, as far as I know, but that has been the only response I'm aware of. Looie496 (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The archive bot has removed this thread from ANI, since there were no further comments. Let me know if Casimir9999 resumes editing in the former style. I believe that the thread gives some basis for taking action if he does so. I do not see any contributions from him after 11 September. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Looie496 (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
We did not pursue this because Casimir9999 seemed to have stopped. However User:Three887 User:Gil987 has continued to edit (last time on 21 Sept) and does appear to be the same guy as Casimir9999. (Check the style of capitalization in his contribs). I think a one-month block of Three887 Gil987 may be justified. Do you have any comment on this idea? I will leave him a note that he is being discussed here. Another possibility is an indefinite block for abusing multiple accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Updated the above. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Do what you think is right. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 03:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


I just want to thank you for supporting to keep formal language (logic). That content will be destroyed otherwise, and it is all quite good. I have tried to cover this material in formal language, but over time I come back and find it gone. It's a lot of material too. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


  The Invisible Barnstar
For the rare kind who doesn't have to show or brag about his abilities that one only need to his tracks, This is for you. I hope you retain your modesty when you make admin. You deserve it. And thank you for improving my article. ≈ Commit charge 00:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


Looie, have you ever considered running for RfA? ceranthor 21:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I've thought about it, and I decided that the best sign that I might be ready would be if people started asking me that question. You're the second person to do so, so maybe the time is close. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I'd make such a great nominator, not being an admin myself. Is there anyone in particular whom you think might be willing to nominate, even per se? ceranthor 21:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
That's a delicate question. I have to think some more about how I want to answer it. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Looking at your edits, I'd support you. Ceranthor, also, sysops are NOT in a role of authority. Feel free to nominate him. :) --A3RO (mailbox) 06:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Looie, have you come to a decision? I'm willing, of course, though you probably want someone more... illustrious. Though I still remember this. ;) ceranthor 14:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Looie, I was just poking around your account wondering the same thing. If you're interested in doing admin work I think you should go for it. Sarah 11:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Looie, I just noticed this thread after leaving an unrelated message, and I support your becoming an admin too. I can't presume to speak for him, of course, but I wonder if Tim Vickers might be an appropriate person to nominate you? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
(P.S. and said facetiously: Just be aware that I'd personally like to trout you for this! If you do this (RfA), you should have a good answer prepared for when someone asks you why you have the user page you do (don't you like how the kibbitzing is already starting?). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC))
Well, I'm not going to hide the fact that I hate article tags; I think that with the exception of deletion, merger, and hoax tags, they ought to go on the talk page rather than disfigure the article. But thanks for the reminder to fix my user page; I'll do that right away. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify what I said, I don't think you need to change your user page unless you want to, but you can expect questions and might want to think about an answer. That's all. And about tags, you actually make a good point that I hadn't thought of, about putting them on talk. I was just reacting to a parallel "interaction" I was having about a tag with one of the interested parties. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I've put up a user page. I'm afraid I have an aversion to flashy stuff and so am not going to use any user boxes, not even your nice one which is very tempting. Looie496 (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Your page should be your page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Bloom quip

Just making sure you know the Bloom quip is already in Brain, lower down in the history section. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, forgot, I'll get rid of one, thanks. Looie496 (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I fixed it myself, just didn't want to do it right away for fear of an edit conflict, so that's why I left you the message. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Looie496: Alarmed by your attacks on other users

This happened a little while ago, and really should have resulted in a sanction against you: Your threats against another user for edits to pages that you think you own.

The changes you made to that article, besides being wrong, were stylistic, which as I understand it violates your editing restrictions per the Date Delinking case. Consider this an unfriendly warning that if you impinge on my watchlist (which mainly includes neuroscience) with such edits again, I am going to bring down the hammer. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Speechless. Adding to the other discussions about your intimidation (and penchant for baiting) of other users (often those already involved in some sort of dispute that you join to pile on pressure), it is somewhat troubling. (talk) 09:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. For the record, I probably feel more ashamed about that message than anything else I have done on Wikipedia. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

My User:Law Lord report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Thanks

Thank you for the support there, even though brief, LOL; it is good to have another editor voice the truth about what was really going on, just like most other editors saw clear through him the previous time. Flyer22 (talk) 03:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


I've made a few changes to Attachment theory along the lines suggested by you and other reviewers. Could you carry on with your review wehn you have a moment? Thanks. Fainites barleyscribs 08:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Notice of discretionary sanctions

Heavens to Betsy, Oh my! Did I post something that offended somebody? Dear me what a shock. I feel just awful :( And I'm such an easy going guy. I thought everybody liked me. Well I guess you can't please them all. BTW I'll keep posting well sourced, unbiased factual edits that only add and do not detract from any Wiki article. If this dis-pleases you, censor me, ban me, do as you wish. But I challange you to find one edit that wasn't sourced. Bear in mind The Mid-East is a touchy subject that is bound to offend--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


Ya, good point. I use the potty mouth to burn off frustration. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Send in the admins!

As Im kind of blocked for interfering with an other editors workings on Gaza_War article [8]. Feel free to assure yourself that things going well there, specially in A few remindings of wikipolicys might be handy. Myself Im kind of meh about the whole thing but same time worried. Regards. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr Unsigned Anon

Hi, I read your report earlier on Mr Unsigned Anon and how he was clearly very experienced? Well he sure is. Check out the latest by someone who has been at wiki one whole month and has edited maybe two articles both about the Gaza War : [9] Talk about gaming the system! His POV is unambiguous and he reverts constantly, even though he is not calling it a revert. He takes out anything that may be seen as derogatory re Hamas, and anything that might be exculpatory re Israel. Just thought you might be interested. Stellarkid (talk) 03:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I see Stellarkid again team up with Jiujitsuguy. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 05:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I have not teamed up with anyone. We seem to share a viewpoint, as you seem to share one with Nableezy and RomaC and have apparently "teamed up" to make sure that the lede reflects what you want it to. I do object to constantly trying to get people into trouble rather than trying to be tolerant to another view. Stellarkid (talk) 07:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello from a student from SfN

Hi Looie496, I came up to you briefly during the Wikipedia talk that you helped give at SfN today...I was wondering if you might be able to point in me in the right direction of some good resources for learning how to write better wikipedia articles. I have a bit of experience in doing this (though not much), although I love the idea of making scientific ideas understandable and available for the public, and I hope to contribute in the future! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Choldgraf (talkcontribs) 22:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


The sourcing was an error. For some reason my cut & paste in firefox doesn't work and my last cut link stayed though I went through the motions of re-copying the link: if you check the discussion page at around the same time there was posted separate variant 2D images of the cocaine molecule, along with that information I added, I attempted to transclude that information but the wrong link was cut & the re-copied (in firefox control+C) and didn't hold. I will re-add, unless you want to contest the veracity of the information in the discussion page? Regards. Nagelfar (talk) 06:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. I'd like to copy-edit the text you added to make it a bit easier to understand, but I'm having difficulty finding the places in the Drugbank page where the information comes from -- could you point me to it? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
At the cited website do a browser search for "Kappa", and under "Targets" it gives for the Kappa affinity, change that website address number for "....#target_9" & then separately "....#target_10" (for the two sodium transporters of dopamine & serotonin respectively), by coincidence they are the three last targets given, and by my opinion the three of the most unique scientific import. (look at, doing a browser search for the word "target" twice to see the targets of each chemical in the human body, the difference between Methamphetamine & Cocaine... cocaine has ten, meth has two. Quite a difference infact.) Nagelfar (talk) 09:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


I am NOT a sock of Dubbawubba or a troll, FYI. Where did you get that idea? If you tell me where you got that idea, I could explain or apologize. If I was a sock of Dubbawubba, I wouldn't say that he was a prat, would I? :-( Contact me ASAP about this so we can get it solved. BuckyBKatt (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Denialism

An article that you have been involved in editing, Denialism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denialism (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Unomi (talk) 06:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for your careful reading.
I've been trying to treat the place (based on fair treatment of available citations) primarily as an economic institution, with a rather sordid history and "interesting" current numbers. I think this is its primary significance.
Also seek (necessarily) to afford its due as "new age" hotel or whatever else it may be.
I struggle with NPOV and keeping out my purely personal opinions.
Oddly at moment, a couple of editors/administrators have impression that I'm a shill for the place.

Calamitybrook (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Pain management

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Pain management. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pain management. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Neuroscience / Vandalism

Thanks for writing back. I will keep your instructions handy for the next time I come across a similar issue.

PurrfectPeach —Preceding undated comment added 18:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC).

Pain intro'

Thank you for fixing the cognitive part. Vastly better. Anthony (talk) 07:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

More Kripalu

Agree with your revert. Place has thousands of guests and suffers from pulic health violations.
Not on par with History of Ancient Rome, but I think the point is as significant as much of what's on Wikipedia.
I've searched for updated Mass.Gov. references, without results. Thanks.

Calamitybrook (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hunger (motivational state)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Hunger (motivational state), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Hunger. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hunger split

Hi. I saw your question at WP:Administrators' noticeboard#how to properly fork an article?. I noticed that your split to Hunger (motivational state) was completely proper, including {{Copied}} templates. Were the instructions at WP:Splitting sufficient? Flatscan (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think so, but honestly I'm not 100% sure, because I was looking at other things too, and another editor distracted me by reverting in the middle of the process, due to not understanding what I was doing. Looie496 (talk) 05:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. If you remember any difficulties or think of any improvements, feel free to mention them at WT:Splitting. Flatscan (talk) 04:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


Thanks. I own the copyright to my web page I think it is important for this information to be available on Wikipedia and therefore also wrote the article based on my own website. Please re-add the article. feel free to contact me if you still have questions. David M Notrica, MD FACS FAAP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnotrica (talkcontribs) 05:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Stress (Biology)

"hormonal changes caused by fat accumulation are not mediated by HPA axis activation as far as I know" - You have it the wrong way around. Stress causes hormonal changes via the HPA-axis which then leads to the accumulation of visceral fat. Cortisol is usually released under stress via the HPA-axis which then breaks down muscle bulk and deposits fat in the visceral area. This is actually not your fault, since the article states this same confusion as well. (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Human brain

When you have some time, please take a look at the most recent edit to the lead of Human brain. I'm just not sure what to do with it. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it; also not sure. I think it doesn't integrate well with the rest of the lead, but does fill a gap in the presentation -- I'm inclined to leave it there on the theory that it can probably be turned into something good by incremental improvements. Looie496 (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Glutamate receptor

Thank you for reviewing the Glutamate receptor page. we have made quite a few revisions and it would be great if you could look over it again. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Sydenham's Chorea or St Vitus Dance

I caught the duplicate article Sydenham's Chorea or St Vitus Dance on uncategorized pages today and proposed a selective merge of it to the existing article Sydenham's chorea. I notified the article's initial creator and started a merge proposal discussion thread on the duplicate article's talk page. After a week if there are no compelling arguments against the merge, I'll perform a selective merge into the older article. --Oddharmonic (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive Talk:Pain

Hi Looie496 Last year you were kind enough to archive Talk:Pain and offered to set up automatic archiving. I was wondering if that offer is still open and, if so, whether you could set it up to archive itself 1 January every year? And I hope you're having a joyous festive season! Anthony (talk) 09:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll set up six-month archiving via MiszaBot, if that's all right. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
When I looked at it, it didn't seem to me that the traffic level justifies auto-archiving, so I just set up a new archive for 2009 and moved the threads ending before October 1 into it -- the remaining threads should probably be left in place for a little while. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ta. Anthony (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

grid cell

Hey. Good work on the grid cell page! I would like your opinion on the section that I wrote a while back that was removed on 4 June 2009 by Bjarnerosjo. I thought it relevant to mention that electrophysiological result which was predicted by a grid cell model and which correlates to the spatial firing of the grid cells, but that user removed it without any explanation. I don't want to re-add it without input from a third party: do you think that it was irrelevant to the topic or is it something worth putting back in? Thanks for your time and effort! digfarenough (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say it is definitely valid and relevant -- this is a major theme of current work. It might be better to reference the material differently, though -- PMID 18670635 looks like probably the best currently available review of these ideas. Looie496 (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Pages on sleep research/disorders

Hi, Looie496. I am a Mexican psychologist and certified Eng/Sp translator. I've been wikicontributing mainly with the translation of some pages. Among others, now I'm working at the Eng-Sp translation of the page about sleep research. Also, I'll be adding some of the information to the English page about insomnia: information I obtained for my thesis job about the risk factors of chronic insomnia. Best regards and happy new year from Mexico City!! Gustavo Sandoval Kingwergs. --correogsk (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

External link on Pain management

Hi. Can I ask your opinion about this site being linked to from Pain management#External links? Is there a guideline about linking to commercially sponsored sites? Cheers. Anthony (talk) 08:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The guideline, as I see it, is basically "benefit to readers". Is a reader who has gone through the Wikipedia article, and wants to know more, likely to benefit from visiting that site? The answer isn't clear to me -- it does contain a number of expert-written articles, but I didn't look at any of them. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I'll leave it there. Anthony (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi, Looie 496. I am a psychiatrist with a focus on neuropsychiatry and the neurological aspects of human behavior, both normal and abnormal. The information about the role of the cerebellum on cognitive and affective function is not as "famous" as is its motoric modulatory functions. I did take your adivce, however, and put in two references. If you want to see more of what I did in this area, check the section I added to the entry Affective neuroscience. Romddal (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Looie; Happy New Year. I'll start to look through Cerebellum today; I do see a lot of MoS cleanup needs, which I will work on, and then I will ask Colin, Eubulides and Tim Vickers to look at the prose. I don't know how to fix the images in the "Cellular components" section; there is text sandwiched between two images resulting in a very poor layout. Could you change that setup? Also, book sources need page numbers. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Referencing a specific chapter of a book is not sufficient? Regarding the layout, I did that on purpose to optimize usage of space, but I can change it -- I was already concerned that it would show up badly in certain browser setups. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly looking much better than before, and the amount of work you put into the article shows! A few areas still need some work, though, and I'm not sure I can do it all. I've been chipping away at little pieces here and there, leaving inline comments. Minor issues (throughout) are some missing WP:NBSPs, WP:MOSNUM and WP:DASH issues (which I can fix as I find them), but there is also an overuse of quotes and WP:ITALICS throughout. I got some of them, but by no means all. I'm also finding some unencyclopedic use of language, and some WP:MOSDATE#Precise language issues (see my edits). A greater issue is the WP:LEAD; the lead should summarize the article, probably three to four paragraphs for an article this size, and not introduce too much detail; there is a lot of detail in the lead that probably belongs in the article body. If you can get to any of these things, I can continue to chip away at the minor things. Nice job so far! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've shortened the lead -- let me know if it still needs work. I've also addressed (and removed) your inline comments. I removed the table at your suggestion. My experience, though, is that readers find tables like that extremely valuable, and I may continue to work on improving it. I'm also not thrilled with the current layout of images in the structure section -- those two pictures of the cellular components really would work best if positioned side-by-side. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I've got to get to work on FAC today, so will peek in more there later ... I couldn't figure out how to solve the image layout issue best, since each browser displays differently ... perhaps Eubulides or Tim Vickers will help out there. At any rate, the article is in much better shape now, thanks to your hard work ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hi Looie, I just thought that I would take the time to wish you and your loved ones a Happy New year. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

And an excellent new year to you as well! Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


Hello, Looie496. You have new messages at Doc Quintana's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Doc Quintana (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Looie496. You have new messages at Doc Quintana's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Doc Quintana (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Fish nervous system

I have nominated Category:Fish nervous system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

List-defined references and Gray's Anatomy

Hi Looie. I note two things if I may. Firstly, in July 2009, you voted for the creation of an option for what has been called list-defined references. I stumbled onto this system in November 2009, and immediately recognised its utility. Having introduced another editor to it, we fleshed out our own understanding and templates for this style. I then created my user page to place useful material in one place.

I recently acknowledged the editor from whom I picked up the style, and subsequently learned the history of the innovation, which dates back to the discussion and straw poll in July 2009 which you participated in. I also learned that the implementation was flagged on Wiki Signpost on 21 September 2009. One of the things I saw as useful on my user page was to list some examples of the various referencing styles to illustrate what is possible and allay concerns about incompatibility etc. Having found some examples, I decided to check the supporting voters from July 2009, to see if I could find implementation examples. I haven't checked all 41 'yes' voters, but of those I have checked, I've found no examples of the innovation being implemented.

This leads me to wonder if the voters were made aware of the implementation. My guess is you were not, and that perhaps there is no standard method by which such notification is delivered. So in case you weren't aware before, you are now. I have tried to put all relevant information, including history, links, examples, caveats for converts etc, into the one place on my user page. I know at least one editor has found this useful.

On the topic of references, I note in the Nervous system article that the citation for Gray's Anatomy looks incorrect. I own a copy of the 35th edition, which was published in 1973 by Longmans, and which I have cited in the article on Gray's Anatomy. I also happen to own the 30th edition (1985) of Lea & Febiger's American publication, which turns out to be the last, although I had no idea of that until contributing to the Wikipedia article. The citation for the 35th edition in that article is correct, as is the Clemente (1985) citation, as I wrote them with the books in front of me.

The 2005 edition referred to in the Nervous system article is most likely the 39th Churchill Livingston edition, edited by Susan Standring. Henry Gray would not be in the authorship. He is long dead, and Gray's Anatomy is like say, Kaplan and Sadocks Synopsis of Psychiatry, and the related series of publications. Kaplan is now dead, and the authors are Sadock and Sadock, with no mention of Kaplan in the authorship. But Kaplan and Sadock is a brand name, and continues to be used in a range of publications, just as Gray's Anatomy is a brand name. Similarly, Arthur C. Guyton's Textbook of Medical Physiology is a sort of brand name. More a household name at this stage. But Guyton is now dead, and the latest edition is called Guyton and Hall's Textbook of Medical Physiology. Whether Guyton's name remains as part of the title, like Gray's Anatomy, and the Kaplan and Sadock series, remains to be seen, but is likely, unless another text takes over Guyton's mantle (big shoes though). Wotnow (talk) 12:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Concerning reflist, I noticed something about that but haven't taken the time to look into it -- the Nervous System article would actually be a great place to try out something like that; I'll look into converting it. Concerning Gray's, I don't have a copy on hand and my recollection is that I tried to locate the page using Google Books -- I may well have gotten it wrong. If you could possibly give me a correct cite for the information, or even just change it yourself, I'd be very grateful. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  Done I have amended the 2005 Gray's Anatomy ref. On the list-defined references, if perchance you check my user page, I hope you find the information and links there useful. I've covered the main issues as best I could, including the history and links to pages with templates Wotnow (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

GoofyG's message

That was revision, not vandalism!

I believe you, but if you are going to remove massive amounts of material, including references, from a very important article without any explanation except "revision", the chances of misunderstanding are pretty high. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

External link in Danish

You were right to remove it, even if it had been good. It's lousy, sketchy, maybe just being built. In addition I got a good laugh. It says:

  • [Innholdet i dette website] må under ingen omstændinger sammenlignes (og/eller erstattes) med fagkyndig rådgivning eller lægelig behandling af sygdom.
  • The content in this website must never be compared (and/or be replaced) with professional counsel or medical treatment of illness. !!!

- Hordaland (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


Hi, I deleted the hoax-sign that you placed on the strumus article. It is not a hoax, read the reference if you are ignorant regarding this structure. Although you can't find it with google (before I made the article), it is mentioned at Nolte's glossary. Probios (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You haven't deleted it yet, and if you do, it will earn you a trip to WP:ANI. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


You were helping me with a question I had about neurons (Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2010_January_21#very_small_question) and I responded, but it's archived now, so I'll copy the summary of my understanding here, and then I'll check back later to see what you think. Thanks. --Neptunerover (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"Okay, if I'm understanding this better, some neurons inside the brain have axons extending throughout the body, and this is what accounts for most of the nervous system outside of the brain.(?) I was thinking there was a whole additional batch of nervous system cells with their own nuclei located throughout the body. --Neptunerover (talk) 10:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)"
There is a whole additional batch, but in terms of numbers they are only a tiny fraction of the number in the brain -- not more than a few hundred million, even if you count the photoreceptors in the retina as neurons. They aren't located throughout the body though -- if you exclude the brain and spinal cord, most of the remaining neurons are either in ganglia right next to the spinal cord, or in the guts. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Cloning and Memory

Hi Looie496,
A question in your area of specialisation (memory) has come up on the Science Reference desk (Cloning question(memory)). (@ 00:20, 26 January, shortly after you, apparently, went off-line) You might be interested, though the question seems to relate to genetic memory or similar.

  • Interesting sub plot to this, I thought there was a neuroscientist around, and I appear to have found you 'accidentally' by inadvertantly clicking on your user name, but right when I wanted to find you. Strange!. Regards -- (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


Hi Looie, apart from the AFD closure, what other admin actions do you feel that I've done inappropriately? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 20:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The unblock is the biggest thing. Since you aren't yet fully up to speed, you should have been very hesitant to counter the actions of another admin without either first getting agreement from that admin or else discussing the matter on AN. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
That was discussed already on WP:AN. It was agreed that my action was not really harmful and was done in good faith. The admin that first refused the unblock request, incidentally, did it with rudeness and disrespect. As for not being up to full speed, you are making the asssumption that I am not aware of current processes. I rather think that I am, but thank you for your feedback.
What I'm curious about is what you think of the Todd's incivility towards a number of editors. Have you reviewed the edits I highlighted? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 01:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Light effects on circadian rhythm

FYI: You're mentioned. - Hordaland (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


Hi, nice to see the information you have added to the article. Maybe I'm jumping the gun on something that you're actively editing, but can I suggest that the current form of the lead overweights the gastrointestinal functions? The brain functions get far more attention in the literature, but the lead as written would give a naive reader the idea that the brain functions are a minor footnote to something whose most important role is in the gut. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

(PS, can I also suggest that you archive your talk page? Looie496 (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC))

Sorry about the talk page. It is getting long and I'll have to decide where to break it soon.

It's hard to say how much of the LEAD should talk about the gut vs. CNS. I suppose it should reflect the article. Or, you could argue that since most of the serotonin neurons are in the gut, most of the article should be about non-CNS things. ;) The CNS gets lots of attention elsewhere, such as the SSRI articles, but where are the corresponding non-CNS things? They're almost all left to be swept up here, sort of like extra-CNS serotonin itself! Subconsciously, I was trying to get in some of the lesser known effects, like a serotonin DYK, and so on. But feel free to be BOLD and re-balance; I won't be offended. It truly is a matter of taste. All I'm sure of is that the LEDE/LEAD needs to be longer than it WAS. SBHarris 16:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a shot at it, and then you can revise or revert my revision if you like. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Nice job. Your version is an improvement on mine. Lede is now rather breathtaking, don't you think? This is why encyclopedias are so addictive. SBHarris 09:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I wish I could take credit, but I haven't touched the article. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hippocampal formation

Hi Looie496. I have made some changes to Hippocampal formation over the last few weeks and don't think I'll be going back there. I would be delighted if you could look at it some time, as it is strange territory for me. Anthony (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. For some reason that article wasn't even on my Watchlist. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

??? - your message??

I have no idea what your message was about - care to elaborate? Kind regards. (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It was about the Wikiquette alert pointed to directly above my message. Sorry, I thought that adding my message to the same section would make the reference clear. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


you're the right person, or can contact the right person, Looie. This eye evolution edit troubles me, but I don't know where to start on it. Take a look? Thanks. - Hordaland (talk) 09:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What troubles you about it? Looie496 (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
These changes. Are they true?
  1. "This reduction in efficiency may be countered, like it is in humans, by the formation of a reflective layer..."
  2. "... the nerve fibers in front of vertebrate retinas diminish eyesight by 5%."
  3. "Rod cells in the retina have the shortest life span of all cells in the vertebrate body, lasting only 4 hours and burning out like light bulbs."
  4. "...and thus render the bird of prey "backward system" more efficient than the cephalopod "forward system"."
Should I just put in a series of {citation needed}, or is all this stuff common knowledge, or?? - Hordaland (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
They're all plausible, but I don't know whether any or all of them are true, and I can't see any counterargument to adding cn tags. I take it you realize that the diff you gave me didn't actually add any of those things, only tweaked the wording? -- that's why I wasn't clear on what troubled you. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought I'd given a diff that spanned several edits. Maybe that doesn't work; maybe I wasn't careful. - Hordaland (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

List-defined references

Hi Looie. Well, I don't know about you, but I didn't envisage technical problems caused by the use of the ((r)) template. My own purpose was simply to declutter article text and make it easier to edit the text and the references. This is the same for GyroMagician. We explored a couple of ways of doing this, before settling on what we now know are list-defined references.

Because my introduction to list-defined references was via the ((r)) template, and the current technical issues had not yet surfaced, I naturally assumed that the ((r)) template was the way one achieved list-defined references. You can see from my user page, that I came to realise the Harvard templates could also serve the purpose of decluttering articles and grouping the references at the bottom. The Harvard templates can impose a degree of cumbersomeness over and above that of the list-defined reference method, meaning the latter is a more streamlined method. No problem so far.

What we have since learned is that yes the ((r)) template can facilitate list-defined references. However, the pre-existing <ref> templates do the job just as easily, but don't at the same time cause bots or scripts to not work properly. I wasn't aware of this beforehand. But now that I am aware, I have no difficulty acknowledging it and amending the ((r)) templates to <ref> templates. My reason of course is that I was not in the business of promoting any particular any particular template, but using a suitable Wikitext to achieve the goal of creating list-defined references in some articles, insofar as list-defined references are a benefit to those articles and seen as a benefit.

The irony in all this is that it was our naive use of the ((r)) template which brought to the fore some technical issues which hitherto weren't salient, but which you can be certain some programmers are working on even as I write. But that's another matter, for another arena, for a future time. It is separate to our current editing purposes. That is, it doesn't have to affect us unless we want it to, or unless we allow ourselves to be baited into an argument that derails us from editing. And I don't see any benefit to anyone from that. I'm inclined to let those who have expertise in the programming issues work through them, and just get on with editing.

For my purposes, I think it prudent to acknowledge that <ref> templates will provide the result I want, and to replace the ((r)) templates accordingly. I've done that with a number of articles already, and if you like, I would be quite happy to do the same with articles which you're working on. Regards Wotnow (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I really don't care one way or the other. I believe the templates are harmless (in spite of the counterarguments), but I also don't believe they make a major improvement. Whatever you feel like doing is fine with me. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 01:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Cheers Looie496. I figured as much. Nor do I care one way or another. But I think it prudent not to fuel an argument, and getting derailled in the process. Kind Regards. Wotnow (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  Done As you may be aware, I have replaced the ((r)) template with the <ref> template in theNervous system. I think that's the only one involving your good self, but I'm happy to help with any others. Regards Wotnow (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


The complaint on WP:WQT#Malik Shabazz was NOT resolved, and certainly not by a consensus that Malik's behavior was reasonable. --Jonund (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


Hello, Looie496. You have new messages at Osarius's talk page.
Message added 21:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Osarius That's me! : Naggin' again? : What did I do?! 21:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


Hello, Looie496. You have new messages at Osarius's talk page.
Message added 21:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Osarius That's me! : Naggin' again? : What did I do?! 21:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Archiving AN/I

Thanks Looie496. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

  1. Proposal to Close This RfC
  2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Experimental design

Thank you for your response to my question at the Science Reference Desk. I've posted a clarification of what I am trying to do, and I'd appreciate any further input you have based on that. ike9898 (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


The Refdesk Barnstar

I was so impressed with your outstanding response to California snakes, even though I didn't ask the question! DRosenbach (Talk


Hi, I saw your answers on the science reference desk and I thought maybe I could ask you a question directly seeing that this is your field of expertise. What are the key principles of psychobiological theory in relation to human problem solving capabilities? Thanks in advance. -Reconsider! 01:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't know the answer to that even if I didn't instantly peg it as a homework question. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 03:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I guess I'll have to read the journal. Argh.-Reconsider! 11:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Looie496. I thank you fore your response unto my query concernin' {Lapland sesame}. Sincerely, Stig_weard

sole important content stated in subject-line —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stig weard (talkcontribs) 03:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Looie496. You have new messages at JamesBWatson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

19:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for Mentoring

Thanks for the great attitude! You're so right. I wasn't as upset by the fact that EENG deleted an article we put a lot of work into (Joaquin Fuster) including many emails to the subject, as much as the fact that he then targeted ALL our articles for templates, even those that had been through a lot of comments already. I started an article asking for admin help on the admin board, as he seems to have a vendetta-- he's specifically adding templates only to our articles. I don't know any of these people and am just trying to improve Wiki (as you know as a Neuro guy, Doc Fuster is a legend! In fact, he even added Wiki GNU language to his site so we could reference it, yet EENG still deleted the whole article). Many of the references were from SCIENCE and NATURE, and were pretty impressive. As you know from Prefrontal Cortex, Doc Fuster has over 2,000 references in that book alone! Thanks again for your advice, and if you're working on any articles I can help with, let me know, as long as EENG doesn't figure out its me and trash your work too!!! Phoenixthebird (talk) 04:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Brain cell illustration

Have you seen this? Anthony (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Tryptofish and I have pretty much settled on the details of the new oligodendrocyte/myelin sheath image for Brain. Do you want to add anything before we insert it? Anthony (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Neat presentation

This is about the basil ganglia vs. the hippocampus in learning. Just thought you might be interested if you haven't already seen:

Xurtio (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks !

I just saw your user page, and that you and your association is willing to boost wikipedia on the Neurosicence side. Thanks a lot ! Yug (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

just a note on your post-- Proper use of the English subjunctive? (example)

There are of course few good explanations. And to narrow this down to OP, as for the question on subjunctive (I'm wondering what form of the verb "to continue" would fill in the following blanks: "I hope that it ___." and "I hope it ___."), i would say that the answer is a subjunctive form + ‘verb’ (would + continue) in both cases and the ellipsis as an understood form like 'i hope that it would continue' or 'i hope it would continue').

I.e., in a limited set of syntactic contexts, the descriptive grammar of native speakers is that the subjunctive mode asserts a thing as conditional or as still exceptable action or event to which the subtle constituencies can exhibit an ellipsis that is usually understood to include an if clause conveying meaning in subjunctive.

Does this seem more correct now? Mr.Bitpart (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. I was more concerned about the first paragraph of what I wrote than the second paragraph, which was basically made up on the spot. I'm not sure that "I hope it would continue" is a sentence anybody would say, but at least it's better than "I hope it continue". Regards, Looie496 (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a note on dismissing ideas and concepts

Surely a neuroscientist such as yourself, would be at least open to the idea that an organization is attempting to gather funding, to provide incentive, to make this process a reality? Immediately dismissing something as a scam is libel,and you do this without proof. You have not attempted to verify the integrity of this data, nor to contact the website owners, you simply base your assumption on a gut reaction to a price point for a waiting list, which in reality reflects the economic investment required by participants for this to become a viable and function process in our lifetime. So just for your information, the company that owns this website is the largest medical ratings and research organization in Australasia of its kind, this project has just been launched and is already attracting interest for investment and funding, this particular arm of the company is a not for profit organization. I hope this clarifies some of your concerns and suggest in future a little decorum would not go astray.Medrate (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's obvious to me that this is a scam, but I'll play the game anyway. To make a case that this link belongs in a Wikipedia article, you'll have to show that it is validated by reputable sources, such as articles in scientific publications, or at the very least positive coverage in a major newspaper or magazine. If you can't show that, you aren't going to get anywhere with this. Looie496 (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


What is your problem with me asking a user for reliable citations? Off2riorob (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. I don't have a problem with that. It's just that it looks like over the past few weeks you've gotten sucked in and are trying to figure out the true facts that underlie all this. I know how seductive the urge to do that can be, but I'm saying that for purposes of this article we don't need to know the true facts, we only need to know what has been published. If I have misinterpreted, I apologize. Looie496 (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

If a user comes along, any user I am going to ask for reliable citations that is what I want, I want to find a reliable citation if he is alive or dead, I asked the user straight away..have you got any reliable citations..that is all I am interested in, not the gossip and conspiracy details. The BLP that we have is really rubbish as it stands it is really a book review and the court case that all we have, actually I am considering moving it to the book title but that is another story, we have nothing concrete about his actual life apart from that, we don't even know if he is alive. Off2riorob (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


Considering this move, I created the article under the old name because I had read the book by Weinberg and Bealer and they used that name. Clearly that was wrong. JFW | T@lk 21:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Forum shopping

I have asked you a question on WQA. Is it remotely possible you meant to respond to a different section? -- Avi (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#gov.

FWIW while I have no complaints about you deleting Tomjohnson357's question it probably would have been best to just leave the question be. While it's not exactly a great RD question it isn't clearly against the rules and importantly even if RD/Misc may arguably be better they've finally moved on from asking all questions on WP:RD/S (with an occasional question on RD/E) Nil Einne (talk) 07:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I accept that. Looie496 (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Palenque Island

Thank you for helping with the Palenque Island page! If you have any advice for me on how to further prevent defamatory efforts by this very smart and resourceful vandal, please let me know. My guess is that he'll come back with a new user name soon - but until then I'm a happy user! Thanks again. Flimoncelli (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Looie496/Archive 1".