User talk:Looie496/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Reference errors on 16 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Dopamine page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Talk:Chinese room". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 1 October 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 05:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Talk:Chinese room, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 05:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

My response to you

The vast majority of the material on the talk page for "Chinese Room" [[1]] is not cited. You wrote on my talk page that discussing the topic is prohibited, yet that is exactly what you did on the page -- discussed the topic. Nn9888 (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The bottom line is that you can't use talk pages to post personal opinion essays. You can struggle and thrash and make all the noise you want to, but none of it is going to change that bottom line. If you don't believe me, ask other editors. You are all alone on this. (You're right that I discussed the topic, but I was responding to a question, and the question bore on the validity of the Wikipedia article. This isn't a "zero tolerance" situation.) Looie496 (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 12, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) on behalf of L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The important topics

Hi Looie. I loved your analysis of FAC and importance at the time. I agree fully with It's better to have problematic featured articles about important topics than for all featured articles to be about trivia. I have the general view that the work on Wikipedia can and should be nudged toward the more important tasks. But these thoughts are evidently very controversial in the Wikipedia community. I would very much like to see a corner of Wikipedia where this be discussed in a positive spirit. My hope is also for SW support to provide feedback on importance and value. Such SW could consider for example number of links to articles in other languages, number of downloads the last quarter, subjective importance ranking. A a complement to editcount, a user could be able to se how much value they have added today, the last quarter. Such a figure could also be based on size of contribution, removal, reversing by others etc. Even if not perfect, such summary statistics could be much better than the current editcount. Do you know of any such discussion that you can point me to? --Ettrig (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't have much faith in automated measures. The one that is probably most meaningful is page views -- an article is important if lots of people want to read it. I don't think edit count or other editing statistics are very meaningful. Beyond that perhaps the most useful thing is WP:Vital articles, a hand-curated list of the most important articles, showing the current status of each. Looie496 (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, WP:Vital articles is a subjective importance ranking expressed by a clique. Of course page views is also subjective. But it is much more imortant because it shows the total actual interest that the readers have shown. --Ettrig (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case

You are receiving this message because you are a party to the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case. The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case:

1. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
2. Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC))

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case

Disambiguation link notification for November 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Archean, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greenstone. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

GABA Tea

Looie, do you still think GABA Tea is a good candidate for deletion? My first quick look is in agreement with you. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the sources are probably sufficient to justify the existence of an article. The Food Chemistry source shows 72 citations in Google Scholar, which means it has drawn a decent amount of attention in the literature. My main concern when I wrote that was the amount of unsourced promotional material in the article. Looie496 (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration proposed decision posted

Hi Looie496. A proposed decision has been posted for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to. Comments about the proposed decision are welcome at the proposed decision talk page. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Melanesia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sahul. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Your input needed

Hi Louie, I came across your name at the new pages patrol page. As a result of this conversation (which you don't need to read) I have created a draft of a BLP in my sandbox. The notability is marginal so I'd like a second opinion before I publish it. When you have a moment could you take a look and tell me if you think the new article meets WP:MUSICBIO? The article draft is here. Thanking you in advance. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Keithbob: I'm really the wrong person to ask. I've only written one article about a musical group, and I'm not at all familiar with the notability criteria for musicians. Looie496 (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, anyone you could refer me to? I've tried BLPN and go no response.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I think Cirt does a lot of that sort of thing. Or you could try posting at WT:MUSICIAN. Looie496 (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Contrib history

Howdy. I'm guessing that you didn't notice the oldest link was blue, in the editor-in-question's contrib history ;) GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought I had clicked the "oldest" link -- I obviously screwed up somehow. Thanks. Looie496 (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 3 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Glutamate (neurotransmitter) page, your edit caused a PMID error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

What do you think?

Wikipedia:BMJ/Reviewer tutorial

I'm hoping to walk them through the tutorial en masse in a conference call, so I can answer their questions as we go. But I've set it up for now so they can each do it on their own. Bedtime here. Any thoughts would be much appreciated. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Just a couple of thoughts. First, you could mention that the target audience is not doctors, medical students, or researchers, but rather a broader public who mostly aren't capable of using the professional literature. Second you could give an overview of what we're hoping for from a review -- an assessment of accuracy (above all!), comprehensiveness, appropriate weighting, and clarity. Looie496 (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. I'll ping you when we've indoctrinated the reviewers. Or before, if something interesting happens. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm asking some newbie friends over the next few days to go through the tutorial, so you'll see some activity in the BMJ section of Talk:Parkinson's disease. Please ignore it. I'll delete them once I've discussed the experience with them. (Anthony) 122.109.121.189 (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It's bedtime ime here. Would you mind fielding any questions that arise over the next few hours?

When I wake up, I'll add a section, with a little formatting, for any reviewer who has completed the tutorial, so they can post their review. If they're keen to start, would you please just add a subsection to the article talk page using their name as the heading?. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll field anything I see -- I won't be watching constantly. Looie496 (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Good morning! --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Anthonyhcole: You didn't miss anything :-), but it's good that you're back because I'm about to go offline. Looie496 (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea why nothing's happened yet. I'll leave it a bit longer and ask BMJ if they've heard anything sometime next week. Hopefully they're all just relaxing into wiki time. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not in any sort of hurry. Looie496 (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms case closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed.

2) Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day on any page relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to the usual exemptions.

3) Jytdog and DrChrissy are placed indefinitely under a two-way interaction ban.

7) DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

8) Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

9) Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility in relation to the locus of this case.

11) SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

12) Wuerzele is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 20:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Genetically modified organisms case closed

Octopamine (neurotransmitter)

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

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

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

Octopamine disambiguation

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

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

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

Yo Ho Ho

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.

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

GA review of Norepinephrine

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

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

typo

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

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

Happy New Year, William!

(Charles R. Knight, 1922)

William, I wish you and those dear to you golden days of love and joy in a Happy New Year 2016! Best regards, Sam Sailor Talk! 05:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Pass on! Send this greeting by adding {{subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages. Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.

(Unknown artist, Norway, 1916)

BMJ review, continued

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

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

Blausen images

I noticed you deleted some of these. please see discussion at WP:WikiProject_Medicine#Blausen_images. Jytdog (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Lester Coleman

I was trying to clean-up the page. I know the guy has made a lot of trouble (and has told outright falsehoods) on the page, including adding false-information. But that's now what I've done. Can you please be more specific in your criticisms, rather than reverting the whole thing? Thanks in advance. Sure Footed1 (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I just placed an explanation of my actions on the article's talk page. Had I realized that you were watching with such instant attention, I would have written the explanation before making the revert. Looie496 (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response - I'll check out the response. I sent you an email privately. I actually edited this on a break, and if I don't reply immediately don't think I'm not-replying. I'm doing other work today as well. Cheers, SF1.Sure Footed1 (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

ps: I don't see the explanation yet, not on my talk-page (at 7.42 California-time), nor on the article talk-page. Sure Footed1 (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

You have now replied to the message I left, so clearly at this point you have seen it. Looie496 (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I misunderstood you. I thought you were going to put-forth specific critiques. "As you will". Sure Footed1 (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Neuro Biomechanics

Have a couple of resources for your review. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro_biomechanics I am new to this so any help is appreciated. Please excuse any social faux pas and let me know how to improve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrJAOS (talk • contribs) 16:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I moved the information about sources to the article's talk page, Talk:Neuro biomechanics, and replied to it. Thanks for informing me. Looie496 (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Norepinephrine

The article Article you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Norepinephrine for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it. The Very Best of Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Good work, Looie! I feel guilty that I've been neglecting neuro stuff what with the other kinds of stuff I've become involved with, but, so it goes. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Now for dopamine...! Looie496 (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Emerods

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language

The Cure Award

In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dopamine

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dopamine you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seppi333 -- Seppi333 (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Million Award#Million Award Hall of Fame

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Dopamine (estimated annual readership: 1,300,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dopamine

The article Dopamine you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dopamine for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seppi333 -- Seppi333 (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the review. It's always great to have an article reviewed by somebody who actually understands the topic. Looie496 (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Congrats! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 04:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Issues in Cerebellum article

Hi William,
I'm editor-in-chief of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, and we're about to consider a snapshot of the Cerebellum article for publication in this journal: Wikiversity Journal of Medicine/Cerebellum. This would make it easier for external sources to use and cite this work, and after we've advanced the journal these publications will be searchable in PubMed as well. First, however, all works need to undergo peer review. As you have perhaps been the most active contributor to this article, I am now asking you to look into the peer review comments of this article, and help amending the mentioned issues before publication in the journal: /Cerebellum#Peer review. You may also check at its history if another author has already done the corrections.
Best regards,
Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The comments all seem valid, and I think it should be possible to address most if not all of them over the next few days. Looie496 (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The article is now published. Let me know if you have any further questions. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, we would like to keep you as corresponding author of the article. You should preferably have a public email address in in the article, but if you don't want that then you may use the Email this user function. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

tysm for your contributions!

	the edifying me award
	Thank you so much for your work on the page glutamate (neurotransmitter)! it's like, glutamate is so important in neuro, of course it deserves its own page :) morsontologica (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Looie496. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Publishing Hippocampus in WikiJournal

Hi William,

It seems you have been the most active contributor the Hippocampus article as well [2], and therefore, would you like to join the process of having this one as well published in the journal (which have since been renamed to WikiJournal of Medicine)? As with The Cerebellum article, it would be great if we could make it easier for external sources to cite it, and eventually bring it to PubMed.

We would now want all main authors of Wikipedia works to agree with an Agreement for having the article published in the journal (so that any conflicts of interests can be declared). After I've invited the other main authors of the article, it can then undergo peer review, and I'd appreciate if you could then help out in amending any issues raised therein.

Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

This article has now been peer reviewed by a neuroscientist, discovering several issues: Wikiversity:The Hippocampus#Peer review comments

I hope you can help out in amending these issues. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Norepinephrine (medication) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Norepinephrine (medication) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norepinephrine (medication) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Leyo 07:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Separation of octopamine

Hi,

I'm just wondering why it makes sense to have two separate articles for octopamine, Octopamine (drug) and Octopamine (neurotransmitter)? Wouldn't it make more sense to have one article about the chemical octopamine with information about it's various uses and applications both natural and derived?

Thanks a bunch Jazzlw (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) To some extent, it's a matter of the specific case, often depending on how widely the compound is or is not used as a medical drug, but there has been something of a weak consensus that splits are often useful because the reading audience is different for the two topics. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 91#Splitting articles about endogenous molecules used as drugs. Personally, I'm not wild about this particular split, with octopamine, however. I'd suggest starting a discussion at WT:MED. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The split was my (highly unsatisfactory) solution to the infobox problem. Octopamine has high importance as a neurotransmitter and virtually no importance as a drug, so the infobox associated with it ought to summarize its biological properties, but there have been a group of editors who insist on using a drug infobox for anything that is used as a drug, regardless of how unimportant. Recently however there has been an effort at unifying the drug and neurotransmitter/hormone infoboxes, so it may now be possible to solve the problem in a better way. Best regards, Looie496 (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Bad link

FYI, on your user page the link to your web site doesn't work, at least for me. Lou Sander (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

input needed in disagreement on article on "White"

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

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

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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

Phase precession

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bradka SPI

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

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

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

DLB

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

watchlist pinging

Hi. I think you should take it to village pump. A few weeks ago, i took the request for creation log there, and now it is live. Maybe we would get this much needed watchlist tool. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Dyslexia

Hi this is to inform you that Dyslexia which you edited will be submitted for WikiJournal of Medicine...The objective of this message is to invite the contributors to collaboratively submit the article for review through Wiki.J.Med, and if possible, to help in further betterment of the article in accordance to the suggestions of the reviewers. Wikipedia articles are collaboratively authored. So, it is very important to make the authors aware of such a process that the article is currently undergoing[3] thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)