![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Hi, again. Sorry to bother you, but our vandal, Factorx1983, now is sockpuppeting as MRAgentOrange. That's not a problem here on English Wikipedia, because of your protection of our page, but he has posted all the same vandalism on the Spanish Wikipedia page here: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isla_Palenque Do you know how I can get him blocked there? Do you have any admin powers on the Spanish site, or any advice for me? And we should be on the lookout for MRAgentOrange on this site as well. Should I post about him on the administrator's page? Thanks for any help you can give me, Flimoncelli ( talk) 17:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Looie496. Luckily, and with some help from Google Translate, his edits have been removed for now. Flimoncelli ( talk) 22:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I only did that once. I just didn't know whether the OP wanted to actually create the article. -- Chemicalinterest ( talk) 00:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Why did you remove my question? I wasn't being sarcastic or rhetorical, it was a serious question. Please restore it back. 24.189.87.160 ( talk) 02:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
If you don't object I would like to add your signature to this list. Regular doesn't mean frequent on a daily basis, nor does it mean with a fixed pattern (in other words, it doesn't mean regular). It just means editors who, time and again, help out at the desks. Please comment here If you object or not to being on that list. If you want to be on the list but prefer to add yourself please feel free to do so. The presence of your signature on the list does not put you into any category. hydnjo ( talk) 02:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I read your comments. Would you mind looking at User:WhisperToMe/Coleman and give some feedback on it? Thanks WhisperToMe ( talk) 03:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll put this here instead of on your RfA, as it's not directly related to your candidacy, but I'm curious - what do you dislike about the FAC process? And do you dislike it from the perspective of a nominator or reviewer? Cheers, Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I've seen your message here
[1].
Štambuk's message
[2] was from September 3.
Here's the history of edits in Talk:Croatian language
[3].
My messages after his message were these
[4] (Sep 18) and (restoring of deleted message)
[5] (Sep 28).
Where did I used the phrases like "sod off" "nazi-pedia" (Štambuk used that term before, not in this particular case) and equalized opponents' sources with Stormfront?
I was polite, he was rude.
Please, don't equalize me with him "but your own response was so belligerent that you have equalized the sin.".
Man, you've hurted me with this. "I've equalized the sin"???? Are you serious?
I never use the expressions he uses. This is not the first time he used very heavy words.
What does it mean "be less calm" in that case? To not to react at all?
Looie496, not reacting to violence means approving it. Non reacting encourages the bully.
BTW, I see that you're not an admin (
[6]). How come that you've appeared on that WQA? Bye,
Kubura (
talk)
03:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I disagree.
The page
WP:ANI has the line "
here to start a new discussion thread".
When the window opens, there's a box above the editbox. It says: "If your request falls in one of the following categories, please click to go to the appropriate noticeboard.". And there, there's a link
Civility problems. Final box at the right says "Other incidents that need administrator intervention."
Therefore, admins were supposed to sanction that "sod off" (strangely, page WQA says "this is non-binding..."). So, don't blame me. Someone else wrote those boxes and established the procedures. I've just tried to follow the procedure. I intended to post that directly to WP:ANI, but the links turned me to the other path.
That means that WQA must discourage any "sod off" and etiquetting the opponents with Stormfront.
But anyway, how can you equalize the "sod off" with
this?
And you're candidating for adminship?
Man, you've failed. Instead of discouraging attacks like "sod off", you're encouraging it with that.
As far as I see,
[7], currently it's 59:2 for you. Congratulations if you become an admin. Please, have my notification in mind.
Please, please, please. I'm begging you. Don't allow the behaviour like Štambuk's (case "sod off") and don't equalize his attacks with the reports of the opponents' that were insulted with such messages. Equalizing the attacker with the victim is not good as an way of approaching this problem, it is like saying that a victim deserves his/her treatment from the bully.
Bullies never get satisfied with one victim, they always want more, their "greed" grows with every victim. Don't give in to a bully. Only proper sanction stops them.
Otherwise, you're putting a nail in the Wikipedia's coffin.
I hope that my message helped you to understand me.
If you find my message "too angry", always have in mind "how would I feel if someone told me or to my "side" "sod off".
Wikipedia is an encyclopedic project. It requires scientific approach and dialogue.
I believe that in the neuroscientists' conventions opponents never say "sod off" to each other, nor they criticize the works of others in the magazines with the "Yada, yada. Your shaming language doesn't work here. Either provide evidence for your numerous statements which have been repeatedly refuted, or sod off back to Acta (your science), Stormfront (Your Homeland) or wherever your ilk congregates. BTW, I suggest that you read ..., which dispels many of the myths that you believe in."
[8].
Thank You for your previous quick reply and for your patience for reading my long message. Greetings,
Kubura (
talk)
02:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
So, I noticed that an editor brought up this edit of yours from a month ago. You may wish to take a look at a few sentences from Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Education and warnings: "However, note that warnings are not a prerequisite for blocking....On the other hand, users acting in bad faith, whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sockpuppetry, vandalism, and so on), do not require any warning and may be blocked immediately." Just as an FYI for when you pass RFA (hopefully :)) Best, NW ( Talk) 21:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Looie,
Thank you for the response. I would certainly like to contribute to the articles you mentioned (after I have researched and grasped the basics), if you think such a visual aid would help in understanding the subject matter. Please give a brief (and - at least at the moment - simple) outline of the ideas / concepts you want to visualise (aka visualize) in these clips.
--
Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (
talk)
23:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
In scientific journals, authors and speakers (at meetings) make disclosures, like if they are on the speaker's bureau of a company or if they received grant money.
I made a similar suggestion that editors disclose conflict of interests, perhaps on the talk page of an article. This was violently opposed.
Your opinion? I don't like the fact that I can write about my employer and engage in conflicts of interest. Therefore, I don't but could easily do so.
I think the reason is that people do want to have conflicts of interest (some people) and others don't want Wikipedia to be ugly and have anything that comes close to a disclaimer. However, those who are completely honest and have transparency are the better ones and Wikipedia would be better if this were the case. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 01:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Looie, sorry I didn't vote in your RfA. Thought I'll leave the reasons here than mention it in the RfA section. Actually, I would have loved a comprehensive answer to my question and as you couldn't provide an answer - after having made a statement in your nom section - I was in two minds what to write as a reply to your answer. In short, all in all, I thought that as you anyway would get your administrator flag soon, there was particularly nothing useful in my following up my question :) So in advance to you, congrats on your impending adminship - it'll be wonderful to have you around. Best. Wifione ....... Leave a message 13:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Looie496/Archive 2 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) My admin log
Congratulations! |
---|
It is my great pleasure to inform you that your
Request for Adminship has |
Useful Links: |
Your admin logs: |
Congratulations! ( X! · talk) · @241 · 04:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Again, congratulations on your Adminship, Looie! :)
May I ask you to comment on something, though, that has me a bit perplexed?
It's about
this edit you made, "hiding" a question in apparent support of Roux. May I ask why you did that? It seems TOAT has also now blocked the RD visitor indefinitely. Please see
my question to him concerning this at his talk page, which includes diffs as to this alleged trouble-maker's activities leading up to the block. Briefly, there was one instance of very mild vandalism, and then a very harsh warning by Roux, and then the block for some reason. Equally unclear to me is why you would want to "hide" a question about magnetism. Could you please explain to me the justification for that in this case? Was it just on Roux's say-so? Because... there was no "trolling" going on in that question, nor anything wrong with the responses, so it seems very curious to me why you would suggest that "we" listen to Roux about something and "hide" this quite valid question (as "non-serious" as the questioner may indeed have asked it, but nevertheless asked it in a perfectly acceptable way). Thanks! :)
WikiDao ☯
(talk)
06:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect, this has nothing to do with my "preferred version." If you will see the talk page discussion, you will see that this has been discussed, and the anon. user who has repeatedly removed the information has been at this for years. Page protection was requested to prevent his vandalism, not to preserve my notion of how the article should read. I have been at this long enough to know better than to make such a request. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 03:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Quote: "Here's the deal. We've had enormous disruption caused by combative editing on articles related to The Troubles, from both sides. The only way to keep things under control has been to follow a zero tolerance policy, rigorously enforced. Your edit was combative, regardless of whether you think so, and reverting to put it back violated the letter of the policy. We've been down this road dozens of times, and there isn't going to be any argument about the issues: either follow the restrictions, or your IP address will be blocked. Looie496 (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)"
I feel your explanation was rather curt. Please explain to me how my edit was combative. I stated facts. I did not use any inflammatory language, I simply stated the truth.
One particular contributor, O'Fenian, has an obvious agenda and ensures that articles reflect his political ideologies and views on all things Irish. I myself am Irish and take issue with articles that portray Unionists as evil and omit relevant information regarding Irish events.
I have on a few occasions edited and he has immediately reversed them based on his opinions, not fact. An example of this is the Michael Stone article. I stated that mourners included known terrorists, this is fact. I stated names of individuals that have admitted to being members of the IRA. He does not believe the IRA are terrorists, this is his opinion, but surely anyone with a modicum of common sense would not object to this.
Let me again state my intention is not to cause any disruption, I simply want to add value and relevant information where it is missing.
GlorRev Cill Dara
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.147.186.140 ( talk) 12:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello Looie496. I notice you hardblocked Al-RaShit ( talk · contribs) for creating a grossly inappropriate username. Could you watch out for names like this where a) it could easily be a real name or a fan of the band, and b) there is no evidence it was created in bad faith. If in any doubt about the user's intentions of violating Wikipedia policy, which you usually can't tell from usernames containing profanity, please softblock or don't block. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Looie, kindly see my input here [9] Anastasia Bukhantseva 04:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. Replied it here. -- Nazar ( talk) 10:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
There are other editors making substantial changes to NPOV policy without consensus. I think editors are complaining about my improvements not behaviour to NPOV policy. Do you think this is appropriate admin behaviour by you Looie496 to claim I am being disruptive when other editors are causing the problems with drastic changes to NPOV policy.
What do you mean by " you need to pull back here". I think you could look a little more closely at the edits all editors have made and undestand who is doing a great job of improving NPOV and who is making unproductive edits to the page. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
For that [15] I was unsure if i ought to copy it in or leave it to an admin mark ( talk) 19:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
TFA's are commonly protected because of a high level of vandalism. I don't see a reason to leave it unprotected, it would just waste the vandal fighters time. In some cases TFA's are protected for a few hours. -- Inka888 Contribs Talk 21:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
You didn't sign it... Peridon ( talk) 21:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey, just wanted to say congratulations on becoming an administrator Looie, :-) and survived the request for adminship process; it looks like a stressful process having to undergo all those questions and public scrutiny. It is nice to see you are taking an interest in ArbCom enforcement, an area which requires neutral as well as firm but fair admins (something that I know you are and will be). Good job.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
First, congrats on your successful RFA. :) Now for an exercise, can you look at the 90 page backlog of CSD requested pages? Thanks-- Talktome( Intelati) 01:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI - See WP:SILVERLOCK. In reference to the protection on the DZMB article, in cases of a content dispute, full protection should generally be used. Semi-protection should only be used if all parties are IPs or non-autoconfirmed users. Congratulations on your new mop. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/ contrib 01:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Timeline doesnt play a factor, unsourced and vandalism determin if an article should be protected or not. And FYI, the deletion is 8-0 for keep. Can you protect it? :) -
(CK)Lakeshade -
talk2me -
03:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, could you check the blurb I wrote about you? Tony (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Looie496. Sorry for the trouble but could you possibly remind user:Nazar to be civil in his comments. Please see my reply to them here. There has been a long pattern of incivility by this user directed mainly toward me in discussions involving Prahlad Jani and Inedia. I simply cannot participate in discussions when the well is poisoned by such remarks. I believe this is harmful to Wikipedia because it stifles properly framed discussions based on ideas and not on personal attacks. Nazar has been warned in the past repeatedly about personal attacks against me by user:McGeddon as well. Thank you for your time. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 19:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Just a v quick, brief 'thanks' - I hate protection, sadly it was necessary. Ta. Chzz ► 20:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Please see that I have requested an explanation for your comments at AN/I. Regards, Mackan79 ( talk) 01:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I have not repeated any of the conduct that lead to my topic ban, I have been at great pains to avoid a repeat of that. I have attempted to discuss the matter in the talk page, I have not attempted to force content into the article, I have attempted to obtain consensus on the talk page. I do not believe my conduct was disruptive.
However, I have discovered that one editor is seriously misrepresenting his sources, which you will note was mentioned in the case. My edit proposals are also being seriously misrepresented, then that used to discredit them. The editor I attempted to issue a WQA against is continuing with the same battleground mentality that lead to the dispute in the first place. There is a presumption that because they escaped sanction their hands are clean, the sanctions also apply to them.
I have proposed content that is relevant, well written, sourced and written to conform to NPOV. Even though acknowledging that Richard is vetoing its inclusion and the arguments for doing so don't stack up.
I would request that you please take the time to actually look at the talk page. From my perspective it appears that you've simply looked at the arbcom case and in 30s decided I'd returned to my old form. This really isn't the case I have made a real effort to avoid a repeat of that. Your message is tantamount to banning me from contributing to areas of wikipedia where I do have knowledge and would like to contribute. Justin talk 19:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Just to say he may have an argument (maybe, there are other similar issues, this may not be as notable as he thinks) for 2012 (although he did post to the talk page and got no support), but definitely not for September 18 where he was reverted 17 times. Dougweller ( talk) 05:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Please undo page protection. Your action prevents a valid article from appearing. Some could say that a paid political activist who want to eliminate the article would do exactly as you. However, I don't say you are paid, only that the payment status is unknown. I do say that your action is unhelpful. Please unpage protect. I pledge that I will not re-create the article myself for 100 days.
I think you will refuse so I, hereby, give you notice of arbitration. Presidentmalia ( talk) 21:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I hereby ask you to mediate to agree to unpage protect the Malia page and restore the article. NuclearWarefare says he reverted it to a redirect but can't do anything because of your action.
If you do not agree, mediation has failed and arbitration goes on. Presidentmalia ( talk) 21:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
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. -- Talktome( Intelati) 21:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Does this count? Celestra ( talk) 23:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! I will return if the user continues to be trouble. Carmaker1 ( talk) 23:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments about 128.104.truth at ANI [16], and the warning on their page about stalking the edits of another user. I see your point about his edits not being actual vandalism. However, when he returned to Wikipedia and saw your warning, his next three edits were all to articles that had been edited immediately prior by Off2RioRob [17] [18] [19]. These are all minor edits, true, but they also seem to be very pointy choices of articles. Since your comment and warning pretty much ended the previous discussion, I figured I'd come to you first, rather than start a new discussion at ANI. Thanks again for your help. Dayewalker ( talk) 02:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
In regards to the article on "Rape", rape can also be committed by higher animals like the orangutan. There are documented cases of humans being raped by animals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.193.155.159 ( talk) 20:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Is this the case? Your message implies it, but I was under the impression that consensus is driven by discussion. Did you by any chance not notice the opposition's inability to formulate a cogent (or even valid) argument to defend their viewpoint in the discussion page? I've been basing my attitude towards consensus on wp:cons, and I'm not convinced I should be blocked from the MSG page in this case. I understand that the discussion has grown quite long, and there is an understandable tendency to distrust the edits of IP addresses. I'm hopeful that the verdict of your arbitration may have been somehow influenced by this and possibly something Sciencewatcher or his company said to condemn me while pleading for administrative assistance, and that you would be willing to review the situation with impartial consideration. 174.126.200.228 ( talk) 02:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello Looie496. If I should take this to AE or ANI again I apologize, but you are familiar with the issue here. You warned Typesupper2 ( talk · contribs) about calling living people Nazis when they are not Nazis (in fact, the person this user is calling a Nazi is a Jewish son of Holocaust survivors). The first edit they made since that warning was to reinsert the BLP violating remarks ( here) with the edit summary "Stop defending Nazis". nableezy - 14:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
User talk:Braingym1 See his talk page. I think a hard block is necessary since he made a sock account User:BrainGym Webmaster and is continuing his legal threats. Momo san Gespräch 20:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The Pawnee Bill Ranch page is for a museum that is owned and operated by the Oklahoma Historical Society. I am asking that the page be edited because the invididual involved is using personal opinion to write the page. There is absolutely no evidence to show that the Ranch was built using slave labor. The ranch was constructed in 1910 using professional builders and it was not a Sears Home. It was designed and built by the architect James Hamilton from Chester, Pennsylvania. The building is not experiencing structural damage as is suggested and is certainly not riddled with mold. Please check out www.pawneebillranch.org for the official site on the Ranch to make your own decision if you wish. The hours of operations listed on the wiki page are completely innacurate. Historicalidentity ( talk) 19:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Looie: We had the same trouble with the Miller Bros 101 Ranch locals. The 101 Ranch was bull-dozed by HUD decades ago but the people out there still put on shows in the dirt. They want to pretend, they are actors who travel around Oklahoma Fairs playing parts (Annie Oakley, Buffalo Bill, et al). Can you lock the "Pawnee Bill" page while we check on the other pages related to Oklahoma History. Please and thank you. Tintle ( talk) 20:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Dear Administrator, I would like to address the allegation [27] and would like to send you a screenshot with a colleague- scholar permission to use text [28] at WP - please respond on my e-mail – so I’ve send you an image – please note - all private or confidential information was blanked. Thanks Jo0doe ( talk) 09:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, I have now written 3 paragraphs in the 2012 Discussion Page on the subject of the 2012 Bullfighting Ban in Catalonia. The only argument that anyone has offered for removing the data is the claim that only data of global world-wide extent can be included in Wikipedia. This is an absurd claim. Has any other information in Wikipedia ben removed because it is not about a matter that affects everybody in the whole world? Please stop the malicious vandal from his or her vandalistic removals. Thanks. Das Baz, aka Erudil 18:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello Looie496, I think 1 month block is overly harsh. Chesdovi has not had a block or topic ban anywhere near that length. nableezy - 18:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you care to respond to the questions posed here? [32] I think that I have raised valid points that warrant a response-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 21:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Dude deserves at least a good article, no? I have the highest edit count on the article, mostly because of cleaning it up; I can't write much on the fellow. But I did plop in a ton of full-text sources, so someone more familiar with Charcot and neurology can take it to the next level. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your support, Looie496. I know I am supposed to "assume good faith," but it is hard to do so when a malicious vandal keeps removing true and important information, for no good reason. I cannot help thinking that the malicious vandal just hates animals and wants the bull-torture to continue. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at my new comment in the arbitration enforcement thread I posted recently, and the diffs linked there? I'm not violating the sanctions against my account by posting there, because the admin who topic banned me made a specific exception for allowing me to do this. I was also told by one of the arbitrators that posting there would be acceptable while I was topic banned. - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk) 22:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I consider vandalism the removal of content without a single explanation. At least you Looie496 are now giving a reason, the fact that the TV transmission in question is in french. I suppose you don't disagree with the main merit of question, hunger as a weapon, and the importance of references to that by internal or external links. Thank you Marasmus ( talk) 01:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Dear Looie496, I would like to thank you for my account to be unblock and have a great day. :) クリッシーサングスタークリッシーサングスター ♥ 04:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcassionchan ( talk • contribs)
Looie: I hate to bring you into another issue, but there is a problem with self citation on the Pawnee Bill page now. The bibliography is being continually edited to contain sources that have nothing to do with the subject and Tintle, R. "The Great Far East in the Historic Wild West" (2010) as well as Tintle, R. "Pawnee Bill Lives!" 2007 are unpublished papers done by Tintle. 152.132.9.73 is making the same changes on these pages as well: May Lillie and Mexican Joe. I did place a warning about self citation twice on the Pawnee Bill discussion page but the changes are continued to be made. The website on the Pawnee Bill Ranch links www.pawneebill.org is also directing people to the original Wikipedia edit of Tintle. Historicalidentity ( talk) 19:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 22:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
While completely uninvolved in the original editing dispute that was brought up at RFPP, I am so surprised by your reasoning that I would like to discuss the subject in greater detail.
You, rather aggressively, denied a request for page protection because a user was trying to use a template you consider to be "ugly". First off, using your subjective opinion of how attractive something is to direct your actions as an administrator seems a bit inappropriate, but more importantly you're arbitrarily slapping the face of all kinds of Wikipedia conventions.
Some cleanup templates are inherently ugly. They don't exist to make the article look better, they exist to notify users that there is a problem that needs correction. Bright orange road construction/hazard signs are ugly but you'd be foolish to argue they shouldn't be used for that reason. Secondly, this template has existed since 2006 and been used since then; it currently used on a variety of articles as unobscure as toaster.
As an administrator, you should be aware that the removal of maintainence templates is often considered vandalism and there are four levels of user talk warnings for the removal of these templates; the fourth level indicates "The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, you may be blocked from editing without further notice" which conveys the seriousness of this behavior.
You're flying in the face of longstanding conventions and suggesting administrators should hold their personal standards of attractiveness higher than established wiki guidelines and procedures. Furthermore, removing properly-used templates because they are "ugly" undermines the entire maintainence template system and suggests we should value style over substance.
Please reconsider this inappropriate approach to editing and administrative duties. Some guy ( talk) 03:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you blocked this editor for warring on Fred Singer, which is in the climate change topic. Looking at his edits it looks like he's been around for a while on the same IP and his principal interests are climate change. Perhaps we should treat him as we would treat a registered editor, in which case it would be as well to warn him about the climate change discretionary sanctions. -- TS 22:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Almost the minute the protection expired on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, 24.253.41.64 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (who JUST got off a six month block for persistant vandalism involving WP:OR new characters, blog sourcing and generalized fancruft) and a couple of others are right back in there messing it up. I have been trying under my username, but also my IP address at work, fighting vandals and those who refuse to edit Wikipedia by the rules in the CSI, Law and Order and NCIS shows - so that some of them might eventually reach GA status. Unfortunately, the IP I've listed above and others like them are wearing me down, and I've about had it as an editor whose work seems to be for nothing. Sorry, this isn't your fault, so I apologise for bitching. Anyway...would you be so kind as to check & see if you agree that CSI:Crime Scene Investigation does need protecting again? I tried appealing to the person who blocked the above IP user, but they say this is just someone who 'doesn't understand the rules' (my paraphrase) very well - but if you look at their talk page - it's fairly obvious they do not care to learn either, as it's all the same stuff in the same articles that got them blocked in the first place after much counseling and warnings. Thanks for listening to the rant. I appreciate any time you might be able to devote to this, as I understand how busy Admins are. I thought about applying, but I know my Irish temper would get my adminship revoked within the first hour or so. As I guess you can tell, I'm one of those that "doesn't suffer fools gladly"! Thanks very much! Cheers, Trista Triste Tierra ( talk) 03:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For your hard work not even a month into your adminship, especially at WP:AN/3 I award you the admin's barnstar. Secret account 00:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC) |
Hello, thank you for contacting me. The issue has arisen because in the previous intro edit, my facts were questioned. I was in the process of meticulously citing this material with references and then the section was not only drastically altered but the editor provided zero references and moved my previously entered cites around without thought to connectedness or relevancy. Then malik told me citations are "probably not needed" by str1977 via HIS work.
Here is the passage in question:
"U.S. Congressional records and FBI files reveal the reasoning behind his persecution centered not only on Robeson's beliefs in socialism but also his consistent work towards the liberation of the colonised peoples of Africa, the Caribbean, Asia and the Australian aborigines, his support of the International Brigades, [1] his efforts to push for anti- lynching legislation and the racial integration of major league baseball among many other causes that openly challenged white supremacy on six continents. [2]"
Str1977 and Malik Shabazz have implied that the persecution points that I cited for Paul Robeson's persecution by the US power structure of the 1940's to 1960's are without historical merit or simply over exaggerated. I have gone through countless FBI files to prove them both incorrect with citations while str1977 has provided no cites or references for ANY of his edits. I acnnot edit in cites and references if my work is being reverted in real time.
I'm amazed now at the high standards that I was held to when first repairing and rebuilding the Paul Robeson article and sub-articles when I did the major revisions/creations on it. These rules are not be applied to Str1977. I never could have gotten away with such uncited material in the intro or elsewhere. I had editors breathing done my neck and tagging stuff as I was writing. Which is fine but why not others?
Writing a very large controversial article cannot be a flawless job and I have always maintained that I've made mistakes. But I DO cite my work and I make modifications as I did yesterday. I thought content on wikipedia research and references were cornerstone not editors ganging up on users. When str1977 comes through he deletes research citations and replaces it with zero cites please tell me why is that acceptable? Because he is an editor? I cannot find these answers in the rules. Thanks very much for your time. Catherine Huebscher ( talk) 05:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Looie496.
It worries me that previous WQA was closed after involved admin said that the case was already reported, but no diff. Things cannot be solved here on "honorable scouts word".
I've been looking through
pages that link to "user:Ivan Štambuk" in namespace Wikipedia,
search ANI archives, searchword="Štambuk".
My eyes "fell out" why I was searching through all those ANI's, but I haven't seen the case of Štambuk's "sod off".
Anyway, denigrating of opponents and opponents' sources (authors) continued
[34] ("nationalist fluff")
[35] "your own clique",
[36] "this nutjob + (name of scientist)" (violation of
WP:BLP)....
Kubura (
talk)
03:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Looie496.
You asked me here
[37] that if you have missed to notifiy anybody here
Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Log_of_warnings, to bring his/hers name to your intention.
I wrote a message to Kwamikagami
[38]. He's involved on several articles that are under the scope of WP:ARBMAC: Croatian language, Serbo-Croatian language, Croatian grammar, South Slavic languages, Differences between standard Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian, {{South Slavic languages sidebar)...
E.g., here
[39] are inline citations needed; various topics are covered on various pages. Kwamikagami blatantly removed "citation needed" .
Kwamikagami also must be notified by you and his name also must be here
Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Log_of_warnings. The rules are equal for everyone. Bye,
Kubura (
talk)
03:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
See also this:
here all of his insults. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
78.1.116.102 (
talk)
06:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you reconsider full protection of Men who have sex with men until we reach a consensus? There was an edit war going on a little while ago. CTJF83 chat 04:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Dont know if this is still relevant but: There are heterosexual actors who appear in gay porn ... some men are pretty flexible. Gay-for-pay. Beyond that, though, there's the intricacy that "men who have sex with men" is not always taken literally either, as it's more of an identity than an orientation. — Soap — 00:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you blocked User talk:68.167.83.210 for a week re vandalism of Toni Braxton. Having come off the block he/she has continued the vandalism. Please consider a longer/permanent block. Thanks Span ( talk) 10:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Span ( talk) 02:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I read it a couple of times. My response is...
Looie, I have to admit I'm a bit perplexed by your follow-up myself, though not outraged like some others apparently are. What I take issue with is the idea that the response Ronz gave to you on his talk page shows that "he is very chastened and fully understands that his behavior in this affair is decisively rejected by the community." I agree with those who do not think a punitive block of Ronz should be made because remedies ought to be preventative and not punitive, but I fail to see your question and his response as evidence of a remedy that will prevent these situations in the future. Can you help me understand your rationale here. As I noted at AN/I, all I see is the very tiny first step of accepting the community's consensus that there was no BLP concern after all, but perhaps I'm missing the part where he admits to violating WP:TALK and editing tendentiously while not hearing what others are saying. As I mentioned at AN/I, I see three viable remedies that would be more reassuring and they are not mutually exclusive - 1) specific statements by Ronz that acknowledge the actual disruptions he has made and promises not to repeat them, 2) mentorship so that Ronz can have access to resources to help him understand when he is being disruptive if understanding that is a problem for him, and/or 3) a topic ban from Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch related articles. What do you think about these ideas? Like I said, I'm not interested in whipping the guy, but I am interested in preventing another situation like this. Thanks for your further input on this. Griswaldo ( talk) 03:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Looie. Thanks again for your quick response. I like to avoid AN/I and dramahz as much as possible, and you not only stepped in to help out, but you did it so quickly that I am already out of the arena. I really, really appreciate it. Awickert ( talk) 00:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your intervention at ANI in the thread about Heim Theory. Kind of reminded me of that old western movie where the bad guys are coming to town and no one wants to be the sherriff: everyone knows something has to be done, but no one is willing to do it, except that you were willing. I appreciate that. Also, I saw your user page. I was wondering whether you've ever taken any interest in the OpenEEG project, or active electrodes (pasteless) for EEG, at all? This is very off-topic, of course, so don't reply if you'd prefer not to, or feel free to reply via e-mail, if you'd prefer that. Thanks again for stepping up at ANI. Best regards, – OhioStandard ( talk) 05:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Regarding "truly intelligent": I've found considering the source a handy approach. You might want to lay low on this one and let a better informed and more civil admin not so prone to hurling insults step in. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous ( talk) 07:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused. I gave a link at AIV to that long report I filed. Why only block one day? It's clear that this is a long-term troublemaker. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi since you took care of this case today. Please see here: [40] and specially the last comment about "bombing" a certain country, and hateful WP:soapbox WP:BATTLE WP:NPA comments. Thanks -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 04:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC). Please read my comments on the noticeboard. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 16:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
How many chances does he get? Two, Three, four, five? Are three warnings not enough? Well, it is easy to be calm, but sometimes when you have family in a certain country, and another user hopes that they are bombed, it is sort of disturbing. It creates a bad atmosphere. What allows him to get away with such a comments? Wikipedia is not a forum or WP:BATTLE. He was been warned by you, another admin, me and Nishkid64 and his account is free. His ip should be blocked as well for a period, since he edited with that as well. Wikipedia should not tolerate such users more than three times. Thanks -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 16:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
See my comments here: [41]. I almost feel like there is a discrimination on the upper level. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 16:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Just a reminder per previous dicussions: "Because this editor has very little history and the warning from Nishkid came last year, I felt it was more reasonable to give a clear and explicit warning that battleground behavior is not acceptable than to block immediately. However any repetition of this very aggressive behavior should lead to an immediate response. Looie496 (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC) "
After that he commented like previous time, I warned him once. Then he commented again, then nothing. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 17:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I fixed the template - hope you don't mind :> Good call on the block, but Mackfan345 is possibly coming around the corner! Veeeeeerrrrryyyyy slowly and steadily... ;P Doc talk 00:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
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. The thread is Pumpie's talk page. Thank you.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 01:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
In this section you collapsed a bunch of comments under WP:RBI. Although I largely agree with this I thought the comments on JaGa's tool should be left outside the collapse as it may help people catch more socks (it's allowed me to find an extremely suspicious looking user) and so have removed it from the collapse. Hope this is OK with you. Dpmuk ( talk) 01:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Good call with Shannon Brown. That article attracts so much garbage. Zagalejo ^^^ 02:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at AN regarding your block of Triton Rocker. The thread is " Appeal by Triton Rocker".Thank you. -- Sandstein 12:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Can you take a look at this? There has been a very long discussion here: 7 people support the inclusion of proposal 2 while only one objects, I believe the consensus is to have the sentence in all settlement articles. Can you take a look at this and confirm if you see there is consensus for it? -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 09:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Thread moved from my Talk page.
Cuddlyable3 (
talk)
Hi -- I just gave you "reviewer" status to simplify things on the Ref Desk. I don't see any serious risk that you will misuse it. Regards,
Looie496 (
talk)
18:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Do you feel the article protection you applied at Cyprus, and your suggestion that Stephen G. Brown ( talk · contribs) was as guilty of 3RR as was Austria12 ( talk · contribs), might merit revisiting in light of Austria12's identification and blocking as a banned sock? Richwales ( talk · contribs) 19:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Can Gillabrand's recent edits to Psagot be reverted now? I tried to begin a dialogue at Talk:Psagot, but now hear from your intervention that s/he has "stepped away." Can you make the changes since the page is now protected?-- Carwil ( talk) 21:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey there. I came across User talk:24.60.116.133, who is appealing their edit warring block (I'm about to decline it, btw), but I'm a little confused why you didn't block User:Wtshymanski as well. They've been edit warring just as much as the IP has. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 21:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Looie: You're a new-er administrator who I've been observing and whose actions and comments (e.g., at ANI) I've come to respect. Was wondering if you'd be willing to give me a "first opinion" on whether or not I would succeed in requesting the Rollbacker permission at this point in time? Just looking for an outside view; don't want to be made foolish with the big red Not done. I don't use TW, HG, GLOO, or other automated tools, so I'm not sure it's an absolute need. Your thoughts or reaction would be welcome. Thanks.
Saebvn (
talk)
01:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
hi looie, it was pointed out to me i "insultingly" called you "loonie496" here. i've corrected the name and wanted to apologize to you personally, this was an honest mistake, i misread your name (should of copy-pasted) when i was writing my post. cheers WookieInHeat ( talk) 12:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your feedback on my page...
I've made a number of edits that I hope make the page more consistent with spirit of Wiki.
Am interested to know your thoughts.
Much appreciated, Jack —Preceding unsigned comment added by A341672 ( talk • contribs) 16:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Dear Looie496, would you be so kind and present difflinks with my unacceptable behavior why my name is put on Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Log_of_warnings and message is on my talk page. Also, why Kwamikagami is also not there? Kind regards. -- Roberta F. ( talk) 21:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Looie, can you explain to me what I should have done differently? I still can't possibly understand how I ended up getting blocked and Xenophrenic did not. Thanks. SpecialKCL66 ( talk) 22:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Looie496! Since the Brazilian elections has already finished, I think it's now safe to unprotect the article Brazilian Social Democratic Party. Thanks. -- Laciportbus ( talk) 23:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Looie496, following the recent deterioration in editing of the Israel-Palestine set of articles, I've set up a page to discuss the problem and possible solutions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles. Your input would be appreciated. PhilKnight ( talk) 15:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Based on this guy's contributions, and this edit, I'm pretty sure he's the same guy I've been dealing with for the last few months, and the basis for your protection of the Owens & Minor article.
Here were his contributions under a previous sock puppet. I think you'll see a recognizable editing pattern. That user made the exact same edit to the Owens & Minor article here.
I'm posting this here, rather than the notice board, because the evidence is largely circumstantial, and it calls for someone who's dealt with the guy before and knows his M.O.
Thanks.
John2510 ( talk) 16:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
... you blocked User:Jrkso and his "opponent" for accusing each other of ethnic POV. Perhaps you could defuse the "ethnic COI" situation at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hamas_and_the_Taliban_analogy, hopefully without blocks. Search for "COI" there; it's at the end of the page right now. Tijfo098 ( talk) 02:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, sorry to bother you but since you're a little familiar with User:Tajik I just wanted you to know that he is attacking me while I discuss something with other editors. Tajik states: "Jrkso: first of all, it would be very helpful if you stopped putting your answers in the middle of the discussion, ignoring the chronology. Just write your answers at the bottom of each discussion. Readers and participants are not dumb! ... I do not blame you for not understanding the simple fact... You do not understand this because (and that is very obvious) you lack basic mathematical knowledge and understanding. In this case, I do not think that you are the best person to judge that..." Tajik removes sourced information that he doesn't like to see. [44]. He violated the 3rr rule yesterday. [45], [46], [47]. He completely disregarded your warning. As for me, I understood your warning and kept away from him but he decided to follow me and my edits, deleting my contributions. [48]-- Jrkso ( talk) 18:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Looie496.
Please, see this
[49] . User Ivan Štambuk wrote that (28 Oct 2010, 21:51 CET, that's 6 hours ago).
"Yes (1) is commonly repeated BS that ... That BS is believe it or not even ....".
What is "BS"?
Does that "BS" falls under "I am giving you and everybody else involved in the Croatian disputes notice that I intend to crack down on the incivility that fills the current disputes. Any comment that attributes bad motives to an editor or otherwise insults an editor is going to draw a block" , as you wrote here
[50]?
Bye,
Kubura (
talk)
03:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
And here we go again [51]: he keeps insulting every Croatian that is against his POV. Fascistoid ,Serphobic and other terms.-- 78.3.94.49 ( talk) 07:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I've asked my question to admin Looie, since he engaged in the topic. Not to user RobertMfromLI.
I repeat:Looie496, what does "BS" means? Ivan Štambuk used that phrase
[52].
Looie, you've written here
[53] ""I am giving you and everybody else involved in the Croatian disputes notice that I intend to crack down on the incivility that fills the current disputes. Any comment that attributes bad motives to an editor or otherwise insults an editor is going to draw a block". Does that BS belong there? This is the question for you, Looie496. Please, don't ignore my question.
Looie, you've been informed on the time about this incident. 6 hours after the incident. And I'm also still waiting to see where was Štambuk's "sod off"
[54] processed on WP:ANI. I don't trust to honorable scout's word, I'd like to see the diffs.
Looie, please. Don't give in to bully. Bullies never get satisfied with one victim, they always want more, their "greed" grows with every victim. Don't give in to a bully. Only proper sanction stops them. Do you remember what I've written here to you
[55]?
Please, don't tolerate the injustice done to someone. Don't tolerate the cover up of misbehaviour. Don't tolerate the segregation of users (one side's appeals are ignored and sins are fabricated or magnified beyond the limits of truth, while the other side is protected and its requests (no matter how unfounded) are executed per wish). Don't close your eyes. Injustice won't disappear by herself. It doesn't happen to someone else.
Always remember this
[56]. "When they came for me, there was no-one left to speak out."
Kubura (
talk)
01:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
And here we go again
[57]: he keeps insulting every Croatian that is against his POV. Fascistoid ,Serphobic and other terms.
And Again the word "BS"
“ | Your comment above is an equal pile of BS | ” |
-- 78.3.94.49 ( talk) 07:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Looie496.
Have you forgotten this? Any news?
Kubura (
talk)
01:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Looie496. As is usual with this article, the long-term edit-war has started again against long-established consensus. Please assist if you can. Thank you. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 22:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Please see WP:AE#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Jo0doe. Thanks. T. Canens ( talk) 22:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi again. Here Nazar responds to other users warning him about civility by attacking me even though I have not spoken to him for weeks and for sure even when I did it was in a very civilised manner. I would appreciate your assistance in this. Thank you. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 16:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Since you asked to ping you the next time it happen... well here it is. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request concerning Brews ohare. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Looie496. This editor continues to add good-faith but clumsy and poorly cited content to mental health articles, and is ignoring/not noticing messages. Is there some way we could block their IP so that when they attempt to edit they're confronted with a friendly message explaining they need to improve their citing, with maybe a link to a talk page they can edit where I'll tutor them? Or can you think of some way we can channel their prodigious enthusiasm into productive work? Anthony ( talk) 17:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. That was getting tiresome. Anthony ( talk) 18:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've suggested at WT:MED that, given the situation, they should probably be unblocked. I'm going to email the Dublin City University to see which courses are using the textbooks they're citing, and see if I can contact the coordinator with a little advice about sourcing and citing. Thanks for your help. I'll watch them in the meantime. Anthony ( talk) 13:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed you said at WT:MED "I'm trying to get a fix on whether this group can be brought into line." If I'm stepping on your toes here, or duplicating your efforts, please tell me. There's no point in both of us handling this. Anthony ( talk) 12:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I posted a question here, could you please look at it? It seems that you are the predominant author of the brain article, so you might know where to find information on the topic. Thank you, -- Vojtech.dostal ( talk) 13:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
name has been added to this list [58] but I'm not sure whether they are part of it or not. Lumanog.n Cheers Earlypsychosis ( talk) 00:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
For your kind intervention at WQA. It is appreciated. Take care. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 20:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your page protection. But not blocking Namiba is totally unacceptable. I don't understand why no adm. can simply take a look at the evidence and block Namiba for 3RR.-- Jerzeykydd ( talk) 21:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Looie, The link was dead (cause I receive a "File not found" message when I click on it, is it my problem?!) and I just found & replaced another URL pointing to that paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A.joudaki ( talk • contribs) 17:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
The Good Doctor Fry after the expiry of the block you placed on him for edit warring on Sunset, has promptly started inserting the same material he was chain adding here. Talk page consensus seems to be that the version he is adding is not correct, and it doesn't appear that he is adding any sources that verify his claims. Could you take a look at it please? Falcon8765 (TALK) 19:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Checked on your protege lately? You're the one that let him off the hook; go check out your masterpiece. -- THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 15:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
This anon IP appeared soon after User:Jo0doe's block and has been doing similar things: [59] in similar subject areas. Could someone check that out? Faustian ( talk) 13:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
You blocked F Simon Grant for 48 hours due to incivility. He's created a sock puppet (and admitted it - he's not bright) in order to continue to taunt other editors (handle: " TaoIsTheEssenceOfMeaninglessness") on the Beat Generation talk page. Can you just ban this guy? If it was ever warranted, this would be the case. Also I notice he re-instituted disputed edits without discussion (as requested) on talk page - using his sock puppet. Tao2911 ( talk) 16:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC).
Never mind. Mission accomplished. IP use blocked for 30 days. Tao2911 ( talk) 19:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution. I think a block for a week or so might be an exccellent idea as it would appear that this discussion is presently generating more heat than light. DrMicro ( talk) 17:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#A bit of a POV pushing problem. Thanks, Tijfo098 ( talk) 21:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Looie: I know that an editor has a right to remove a warning from their talk page. The warning that you removed was a different warning for his vandalising my page another time (by himself reinserting a previously removed warning). Dbpjmuf ( talk) 00:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Kindly view the diffs here [60], followed rapidly by [61], and [62] with an edit war threat to "revert ti the DAB page". As predicted. And no one who wants the deletion is willing to even broach an RfC (heck, they outright refuse [63] as one of the examples ) - as I also predicted. Thanks. Collect ( talk) 13:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Petri Krohn here flouts your words at
[64] where he deliberately goes back to the DAB page as soon as he could. I note you stated you would vigorously enforce WP procedures on this page, and ask you do so. Note also his personal attack at
[65] as well as personal attacks by Siebert at
[66], and TFD at
[67]. Thanks.
Collect (
talk)
16:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Looie. As you know I mainly writte in neuroscience articles, however I have in my watchlist an Spanish model and actress which I liked when I was a teenager. The thing is that there is some sort of urban legend that she has brown eyes, and 3 more years than she says. I came to have the article in my watchlist when she denied it, specifically citing wikipedia as giving wrong info on her in a tv programm. Almost every ip editor in the last months who has edited the article has done it to change to the "brown eyes" version without providing any sources. Could you partially protect the article indifenitely for vandalism? I am tired of being the only one reverting an article I do not really care much about... Thanks. -- Garrondo ( talk) 16:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive73#Result concerning Collect. This request was archived by the bot before formal closing. I went ahead and imposed an article 1RR at Communist terrorism, and added a comment to the archive file. If the 1RR is not enough to hold down the edit warring, perhaps an indefinite full protection might be considered. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 22:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello. In Talk:Sunset, I believe, you once noted the senseless waste of time when inexperienced editors try to edit science topics against editors with better understanding of matters. This situation in this article is now aggravated to a point that is mind-boggling. I intentionally stayed away from that article during the whole episode of war editing about those diagrams, which were not only visually unacceptably poor, but also insufficient and wrong in content. Once that settled, I replaced the text with a version that is sustainable by the references I introduced originally before all of this transpired. Yet, User:Spiel496 keeps reverting to a mediocre version that is wrong in major points, not supportable by references and poor in writing style. My versions are the only once supported by references, no-one else has cited any for their versions that distort the presentation, cherry pick items that fit their view, and delete parts that are correctly cited from my references. This whole behavior is unacceptable and an insult to science and scientific integrity of correctly reflecting and quoting sources. Please help to stop this behavior there. There isn't a single editor other than me, who has provided any references for their ideas. I am fed up with this stuff and will likely not edit these articles anymore. It's a waste of time. Spiel496 has a history of this kind of arguing about science, that (s)he doesn't understand, obviously not having the foundation and knowledge to get it right. Kbrose ( talk) 07:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I think I need your help to resolve a dispute. You provided your third opinion here about five weeks ago. According to the opinion and to the discussion I made some changes explaining them at the talk page. A newly registered User:Xebulon reverted my changes six times: [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73]. I also asked him to explain his opinion a week ago but he ignores the discussion. As I see no Xebulon's intention to edit constructively I ask you to provide your opinion once more and to explain your position to Xebulon. Thanks in advance. -- Quantum666 ( talk) 19:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for giving me a second chance on being a Wikipedia editor. I will not abuse the privlage that you gave me to be able to edit and to work on Wikipedia. I know that as the person who unblocked me that if I mess around then it will reflect badly on you as well as me so thank you for your trust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beenrunman ( talk • contribs) 19:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
You hve recently blocked User:The Good Doctor Fry for edit warring on Sunset. It is happening again, this time with the collaboration of User:.Wanbli-g53 and User:189.148.60.123, which I believe are all the same editor. I have started a thread on this subject at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Could you please help? Regards, Alvesgaspar ( talk) 23:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Would you like to explain how it happens that you can make a decision on a situation when you have prior involvement with another part of that situation? ie, do you seriously believe yourself to be WP:UNINVOLVED? I don't.
Assuming that you believe yourself to be uninvolved, and that you merely misunderstood the situation...
You passed right over the fact that he attacked my character in Materialscientist's canvassing. The difference between:
Materialscientist said
here, as as author does not understand basic WP policies of notability and WP:RS, and I am not in the mood for 3RR. In short, Amnov has already been criticized in 2008 for his "discoveries" of new elements, and here comes another one. Materialscientist (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Emphasis mine, bold is a personal attack, underline is a deliberate misrepresentation of what I had been trying to put forward.
...and this:
You are invited to join the discussion at Template:...
From Template:Please_see
...is enormous, would you not agree? WP:CANVASS clearly states that canvassing, where permissible, must be neutral (ie, not biased, ie, not accompanied by personal attacks) and non-partisan (ie, not representative of the editor's position, ie, not predisposing people towards one perspective by presenting a strawman in the place of the other side's position).
Furthermore, you accuse me of gaming the system, to what gain? The discussion is continuing without any further input from Materialscientist whatsoever. What would I gain from acting spuriously against someone who is apparently uninvolved? This is a simple matter of an admin doing the wrong thing.
Is this not admins circling the wagons? Explain. - Danjel ( talk) 11:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I notice you have protected Newington College but if you read what has been happening on this site you will see that you have protected paragraphs that have dead links. The contentious material should have references that are "live" or at least "citation needed" after them. If not the material should be removed. At the moment both reference 19 and 20 go to "page not found". If you want the material to be there please verify that it is correct before protecting it and the writer. Castlemate ( talk) 05:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that but there is no point getting involved in an edit war - one is already going on - it needs someone removed from the issue to make sense of it and make a judgement call. I hope you can have a look at it and make a judgement. Thanks Castlemate ( talk) 00:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to ask for a redirect. We have wikipage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Institute_of_Technology. The institutes name should always appear in Italian, a bit like British Airways for instance. The redirect should got to this wikipage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istituto_Italiano_di_Tecnologia Thanks Webmaster_iit ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC).
Template:Brain neuron map has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
Mhiji (
talk)
12:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:Brain neuron map requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. Mhiji ( talk) 16:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Looie! I noticed your activity as a Good Article reviewer, and wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.
If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!
You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).
I hope to hear from you soon.-- Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 23:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
While it has been some time I feel I have addressed all your concerns at GAN. I was hoping you could continue your great review soon enough. Bests.-- Garrondo ( talk) 10:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I saw the tremendous effort that you have put into reviewing that article for GA. I am concerned because I don't think it is a good article. It's a difficult thing. Not good enough for medical uses, too wordy for laymen use. TeacherA ( talk) 00:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Looie496. You originally blocked Terra Novus ( talk · contribs) back on 29 October 2010 for one week due to disruptive editing. [74] He appears to have improved since that time, however, I've noticed a return to his earlier problematic editing in the last week. [75] I'm not sure where to go from here, but it would be nice to have some more eyes on this. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 11:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed that you said editing on the Titanic Thompson page will lead to a ban. I was going to make some changes to the page (and I do have citations for the information), but now I don't know if I should put them up. I was working with another admin on this page, and they said that since I know a lot about Titanic, I could change the information if I have 3rd party sources. Is it ok? Thanks so much for all your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Booklover85 ( talk • contribs) 02:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I was mistaken when I thought that changing the template colors would be more appropriate for that situation. I acted in Good Faith but did not consult consensus.-- Novus Orator 04:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
What are the "3r rules"? And why is the article blocked for 3 days? the "warring" had stopped before you decided to blocked it. Intoronto1125 ( talk) 02:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I reverted 3 of his edits, but I did put all of his info back except the information that was not consistent with other multi sporting event articles on wikipedia. For ex. Aleenf1 removes the pictograms from the sports on the article, and every major multi sporting event (Commonwealth Games, Winter and Summer Olympics) have them. Also he removes the countries that participate from the article, when in every multi sporting event article on wikipedia does list it. Intoronto1125 ( talk) 15:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks for the review. I believe it was very useful, not to mention all the ce yor performeded while carrying it out. I'll try to improve it a bit more and probably take it to FAC soon enough. -- Garrondo ( talk) 21:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Please reblock ActuallyRationalThinker ( talk · contribs) or resign your adminship. Corvus cornix talk 05:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
There's currently an AN3 report based on an article which you protected (and unprotected) because of a content dispute. User:Intoronto1125, the user who promised not to edit war, is still warring on the article. The report can be found here. Minima c ( talk) 19:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Looie496, you appear to be deliberately avoiding the discussion on AN/I about your actions. The consensus there is that you have abused your tools. You really need to undo your action, and allow a proper consensus to develop; I think this is the only way we can avoid having the issue turn into one of abuse of admin tools, rather than the issue of whether or not to unblock this editor. Please re-block, and then return to the discussion. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I have initiated recall of your sysop flag according to your recall instructions here. Dusti *poke* 20:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Of my observations of your actions at ANI you often act when no one else will and Also always with the in The Spirt rather than the letter of the rules. I stand by you in this. This is something deserving of a Trout at most not De-syopsing The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 22:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
While it's refreshing to see admins attempt, even if misguided, to "police their own", I can't help but notice the continuing double standard. When eight admins opined that another admin had misused tools against me, nothing was done about it. I guess Looie496 just crossed the wrong group of admins. And as far as I can tell, there was no "mistake" to acknowledge; that is, not a clear breach of policy as occurred with me, rather some gray territory over which many others disagree, so this is a sad state of affairs to have initiated a recall over. Take home message: abuse of and malign a "regular editor" with charges of vandalism that no admin supports and every admin weighing in agrees is a clear policy violation of a clearly stated policy, never retract or apologize, and get away with it, but come up against the wrong group of admins on a marginal call, expect to pay. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I am very grateful for all this support, but I can't see any serious likelihood that a reconfirmation would get 80% support, or even 70%, and I'm really not interested in creating all that drama unless there is a reasonable chance of success. Quite honestly, in my rather short tenure as an admin I have found that the level of anarchy makes it almost impossible for me to function effectively in the areas that interest me the most, so I doubt that my resignation of the bit will be a major loss to Wikipedia. Best regards to all of you, Looie496 ( talk) 01:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey Looie, I just want to give you my best wishes, and leave it at that! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
This is the first second (ok, there was one another one, years ago, with a happier ending) time I've witnessed a recall process handled with grace and without a fuss by the admin in recall. So of course it has to be an admin for whom I saw absolutely no reason to have to hand in the tools. Sarek is probably right about you being made an example. Thank you for the administrative help you provided at the reference desk. I hope we continue seeing you there as a contributor. ---
Sluzzelin
talk
20:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if it seems callous to point out, but your userpage still suggests that you are an admin. Best regards, Step hen 05:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
[77] (Sigh) I didn't follow your every move but wherever I saw you acting as an admin, except for your resignation, I approved. You were a good admin. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 05:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
If you wish to recreate the page that`s fine- I didn`t delete it... andycjp ( talk) 00:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Howdy,
I've replaced that thread in an anoymised form. Is this ok? Link: [78]?
Egg Centric ( talk) 19:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Thank you for moving it :) WhisperToMe ( talk) 01:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Can you please explain your reasoning and evidence for the block of User:John Calvin Moore? -- Avi ( talk) 17:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 18:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Just to let you know that I took the liberty of interpreting what you intended to say here (WP:RD/C). Same problem ("Talk" instead of "User_talk") in this edit summary. -- NorwegianBlue talk 10:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Looie496, thanks for answering a question of mine on the science desk, where I said that I did not understand why going faster than the speed of light means going back in time. You included a diagram and your answer was very concise and made sense Myles325a ( talk) 08:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Looie496. What do you think of my suggestion that we look at the rest of the review, and then return to the lede. -- Philcha ( talk) 20:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The proposed split appears to be appropriate. However, this is a specialised topic so the work should be done by somebody who understand the topic. I am also notifying User:Captain-n00dle who proposed the split, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience and Wikipedia:WikiProject Primates. I am removing the split tag, as the request has now been responded to, and it is up to those closest to the topic to carry out the split. SilkTork * YES! 21:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Merit was not only mine. Your marvellous GA review was of great help. Just for curiosity: I hope Parkinson's disease appears in Main page in a month (April 11: world's PD day). Bests.-- Garrondo ( talk) 07:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Rastamouse-ting ( talk · contribs · logs) has been indefinitely blocked for " Personal attacks or harassment". Cheers, Chzz ► 20:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I've withdrawn the complaint as the user applogised to me. KnowIG ( talk) 21:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear Looie496 Thank you for your comments! There is not a single sign of "advertisement" in the paragraph I have added. You may need to redefine "advertisement" and "information". To me, advertisement means "to campaign for correctness of an idea". That is far from what is reported in the paragraph I have added. The paragraph is talking about a hypothesis that can be tested, accepted or rejected, but not removed without proper reasons. You may of course conduct a series of experiments in your lab, reject one or more points of the hypothesis, report them in a paper of your own, and then add (not remove) some text after my paragraph saying that the hypothesis has been questioned, rejected or accepted by your results. Otherwise, removing an informative statement about a new functional hypothesis seems more like "censorship", which is way far from Wikipedia mission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iman Kamali Sarvestani ( talk • contribs) 17:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear all who commented, Thank you for your comments!
1_ The comment about word-to-word copy/paste are really reasonable. I am going to write a new version that is not copy/pasted. Thank you for reminding me.
2_ The comment about quarters and cancers does not make any sense to me. Linking cancers to quarters in your pocket is a matter of acceptability of the idea developed in the paper. I have not read that article (I don't really have time for crap), and do not know who has reviewed it. Our paper has qualified reviewers. Of course you may be more qualified than them (I do not really know you in person), but if you have any comments on the idea developed in our paper, you may openly discuss it. I am most pleased to discuss science. The rest is nonsense to me. I can not find a logical link between that paper and ours. Feel free to give me the link or apologize for nonsense linking.
3_ The comment about source reliability is strange. Is it the similarity of the Wikipedia user name and first author's name that makes in unreliable? If someone appears with a nickname in Wikipedia and cites his/her own paper is it considered "reliable" because he/she has cited another name? As for me, I have written the paper and I am reporting it proudly. I am up for scientific discussions about it, but at the same time I will stand against any non-scientific comments given. I hope you will start the academic way of discussing things. That is simple: stick to science, science and science. I hope you will read the paper, find the flaws (I m sure there are some just like any other text) and discuss them. Removing the text blindly is not a real academic practice. It sounds "censorship" to me.
4_ If you read the paper and notice that some main stream ideas are left out in our article, or are not mentioned, I will of course be more than happy to add. My impression is that in our paper we have well cited all previous work appropriately. Citing oneself is not prohibited once the paper well covers all other relevant ideas. Please read the paper first. I hope you will enjoy it. Iman Kamali Sarvestani ( talk) 22:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear Looie496, Thank you for your comment! The Wikipedia article on the basal ganglia is embarrasingly poor. It does not even include text book information. It does not say anything for example about hyperdirect pathway. It does not say anything about dimensionality reduction, it does not say anything about "hold your horses" hypothesis and many more. Ironically, it contains so many details such as existance of the basal ganglia in lamprey which is definitely not a text book fact. In fact, as we have also reported in our paper, the existance of full basal ganglia connectivity in lamprey has just been recently (2011) verified. When we were publishing our article, we contacted our friends who proved it, they have not et even published it. In fact, six references in the current version of the Wikipedia article on basal ganglia are 2010 papers, one is 2009, three are 2008. You can barely find anything before 2000 in it. Therefore, I am afraid I can not accept your logic. Your logic seems correct, but that logic is not implemented in the basal ganglia article. I am sure it is not implemented elsewhere in Wikipedia either. You may check the article on "Basal Ganglia System in Primates" where you can find tens of "non-text book" level points. I would love of course to contribute to a more comprehensive article, once we have an actually implemented rule. Before that, I guess removing the paragraphs I add is unfair, and certainly not professional. Our paper is indeed a novel hypothesis discussing a "big picture" of the basal ganglia. The paper is about what basal ganglia is on a macro level. In other words, it is certainly a text book level paper. Read it and you will find a sweet story that is understandable for people in hippocampus or migrain research as well. It is readable and understandable for anyone who knows basic neuroscience. It is not a detailed analysis of the synapses between two nuclei in a specific thread of rats. It is a generic story of the basal ganglia that best fits text books. On the other hand, it has fully covered almost any other big picture demonstrated by others since 1970s. The fact that the wikipedia article on basal ganglia is so poor to have missed for example Mink's ideas or Graybiel's matrisome concept that are 70s and 80s ideas does not justify removing our novel idea. Iman Kamali Sarvestani ( talk) 00:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear Looie, Thank you for your comments! I will be more than glad to contribute to writing an article on current state of art in how decisions are made in the BG. That takes some days. I will be back to you with a draft. Cheers Iman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iman Kamali Sarvestani ( talk • contribs) 00:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually I do not think they get less points by interacting with others, and nevertheless most of my edits have been as examples of what has to be done. Have you notice the talk page I have created for making general comments to the students? -- Garrondo ( talk) 18:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to re-add any content, I am not sure on what is truly relevant and what is simply synthesis and miscellanea. Anyway article is one of the least active of the class project. -- Garrondo ( talk) 06:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Looie496. I had an excellent holiday - so now need I another to recover. Shall we resume with the GA review. -- Philcha ( talk) 20:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Looie496. We seem to have such different priorities that I'm asking at WT:GAN for a 2nd opinion. Please summarise your view at Talk:Nemertea/GA1#Philcha_asking_for_a_2nd_opinion. -- Philcha ( talk) 13:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Looie496! I am one of the students working on NeuroJoe's Wikipedia neuroscience assignment for the semester. My group is working on the Satellite cell (glial) page and we have yet to receive any feedback from other editors and/or experts. If you could offer any advice for improvements, it would be much appreciated! Thanks, LaurenMalishchak ( talk) 03:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I see that on 2 October 2010, you blocked Abcassionchan ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for disruption. However, that user returned today as Crushedtiggy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
I don't know the full story on the original account, other than seeing the sockpuppetry issues on the talk page. On the one hand, it's been six months. On the other hand, it has not been a year yet. The user has not violated any other guideline, so the only reason to block right now would be creating a new account before the old block expired. How do you want to proceed? — C.Fred ( talk) 04:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Given your knowledge about some of the involved topic areas, wouldn't you like to look at the article and contribute to it? I am sure neuroscientific knowledge and understandings of intelligence could be better represented in the article. Happy editing. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Do you know when the class project on improving memory will end? I want to tag it as a class project on the talk page, but it appears I need that information. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I would like to help the students with their review so that it is successful, but obviously, I don't want to do their homework for them. I'm trying to confine myself to minor fixes and changes (such as correcting the date and adding sources). If needed, I can help with major changes. I'll try and get their attention on their talk page. I would hope you would leave this review open long enough for them to make a major effort. Thanks, and keep me in the loop. Viriditas ( talk) 02:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Do you think it would be possible for you to check out our group's article on athetosis and reconsider it for a good article nomination. Our semester is almost up and if it has earned a good article status, it would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, BrianJLike ( talk) 19:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi -- I'm completely open to the idea that the article's lead needs clarification, but it seems to me that the text you added does the opposite. The lead should be understandable to somebody who has not yet read the article, but you have introduced without definition terms like "sodium-potassium pump", "resting membrane potential", and "membrane permeability", which a reader unfamiliar with the topic will find completely incomprehensible; however the wording of the sentences carries an implicit message that the reader is expected to understand them. Can we work on this? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC) I Understand your point, but a lot of articles that are like this..cant we just add internal links on the hard words. So can people read about the things they do not understand. The reason I added this part is because there is a HUGE MISCONCEPTION that the ion channels are responsible for the creation of the resting membrane potential..btw..this therm is the same as membrane potential in this case. I think the article was keeping the the misconception alive, but if you feel it is necessary. You can remove the name of the specific pump (na/k); and also change also remove "resting" from "resting membrane potential". However, i thing the whole article is about the resting membrane potential. Tahmmo ( talk) 18:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC) I will take a 2nd look now to see if I can simplify.
You seem to have deleted 3 questions, attributing them the Light Current, when they are not. Please be careful to only delete posts if you have evidence that they are actually from a troll, not just based on a common (and huge) IP range. See the Ref Desk talk page for the discussion. StuRat ( talk) 16:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to ping you about Talk:Neurolaw/GA1. It looks like you'd meant to get back to it, but just haven't had the time to finish up. If you need help, drop me a note. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I think this comment was unwarranted and unwanted on the Reference Desk, and that you should delete it. Comet Tuttle ( talk) 17:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, this is cspj123. I noticed you haven't responded to my request for a citation... is this because you haven't been on wikipedia recently? Anyway, I hope that you will respond eventually. I think that there is no evidence beyond environmental commonality, and if there is then it should be cited there. Thanks cspj123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.31.131 ( talk) 00:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I'm a first-year PhD student working on a system to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles on scientific topics by providing easier access to relevant scientific publications. I was hoping to speak with some editors who work on scientific articles in order to solicit requirements for my system in order to better satisfy the needs of the Wikipedia community. I noticed that you have been a caretaker for a number of pages on topics concerning neuroscience, and I would really appreciate your input. If you are interested, please let me know on my talk page ( talk). Thanks! —Preceding undated comment added 23:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC).
Thanks for your comments on Talk:Rhabdomyolysis, which I hope I have addressed sufficiently. I was wondering if you could comment further on the FAC page, particularly whether you think it now meets WP:WIAFA. JFW | T@lk 02:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I just deleted one of your comments over at WP:FT/N and asked to have it oversighted. I know you were just responding to the other user's speculation, but please be more careful of the outing policy. Thanks, and happy editing, - 2/0 ( cont.) 13:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you for giving ratings for the article on William McDougall. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 09:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Looie, Could I get your input on the Vilayanur S. Ramachandran page. There seem to be a couple of single-purpose editors (perhaps meat-puppets of each other) who are determined to simply enforce their POV an all things related to Ramachandran, and who really do not seem to be into things like talk page use. See Talk:Vilayanur S. Ramachandran and Special:Contributions/Neurorel, Special:Contributions/Edgeform and Special:Contributions/Pfstarrs. I might be out of my head, as I've been involved in a slow battle with them, but as a fellow neuroscience contributor, I thought I'd ask for some outside input. I'm also asking Tesseract2 for some input. Thanks, Edhubbard ( talk) 23:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The talk page of Caffeine has a lot of people posting anecdotes about supposed sedative or relaxant effects of caffeine, particularly in people with ADHD. I couldn't find any solid studies to support this claim on Google Scholar, but it can't be a coincidence. I really want to get to the bottom of this mystery so I can include something about it in the article. I have a few working theories; it's a known fact that Adderal and Ritalin are stimulants (nearly chemically identical to crystal meth) that are used to treat ADHD by means of increasing concentration. It could be that after the caffeine wears off they are left with a brain that is much more sensitive to adenosine, which would certainly make a hyperactive kid sleepier. Maybe children metabolize and get rid of caffeine faster, while at the same time adapting to it by creating new adenosine receptors faster? Caffeine definitely enables me to concentrate on my homework better, but I have a hard time seeing how this could be confused with sleepiness. I will continue searching. What are your thoughts on this?
-- SuperEditor ( talk) 17:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, ADHD meds are reuptake inhibitors of dopamine and norepinephrine. Maybe there's actually something adenosine-related going on in the brains of kids with ADHD already that causes them to react differently to caffeine. It should be noted that sleeplessness is not a primary symptom of ADHD.
-- SuperEditor ( talk) 17:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, hey, do a Google Scholar search for "adenosine adhd" and "adenosine adhd sleep". I think I've got it. A widely accepted theory of the nature of ADHD is that sufferers exist in a perpetual state of abnormally low arousal, so they are driven to seek intellectual and emotional stimuli more strongly than people without the disorder. Adenosine is know to suppress arousal, so when adenosine is inhibited by caffeine, a subject's arousal levels return to normal and they are less driven to seek stimuli from the surrounding environment.
http://The_ADHD_and_Sleep_Conundrum__A_Review.11.aspx http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17981738
and others.
-- SuperEditor ( talk) 18:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey there, thanks for your comments on neuroplasticity. Over time hopefully some of the pop science stuff can be addressed (not eliminated without comment, because it is a central feature of a lot of the pop science views on neuroscience.) I'd also like to see better use of sources and references to multiple studies.
I'm also not sure how strong the statement is that non-neuroplasticity was the main consensus view throughout the 20th century. I'm no science historian, but this does imply that the large number of papers touching neuroplasticity made no impact. Perhaps that's exactly what happened?
I'm vitally interested in these topics, in practical applications of the empirical evidence as well as doing what I can to contribute here. Drop me a line sometime in email, I'm easy to find.
Dan Shearer ( talk) 18:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
What an interesting object -- I wanted to create an article about it today but I saw you beat me to it! This is exactly the kind of interesting science that makes a great front-page feature at Did you know ...? so I would like to help get it expanded up to the right size and shape to be featured. Thanks for creating this and thanks also to the mysterious IP who added so much good techy information. Sharktopus talk 17:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for posting the link to Hofstadter's satirical piece. I'd never seen that before, and am very glad to have read it now. Ladyof Shalott 04:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
hi! I definately agree that the music that Scotty sings isn't all Christian although he is a Christian. Thank you so much =) Now I get it because I'm really new to this whole wikipedia thing :) So are you saying not to say that Scotty is a christian american singer... and just instead and american singer because then people will think that he only sings Christian songs? okay thanks! I'll do what u say! sorry cause I didn't really understand thats what it means when you say Christian american country singer. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22046024769264ev ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Philosophy of mind
I am letting you know that I am just about to undo the edits you have made. In my opinion the purpose of those edits was to advertise a book rather than to support the material in the article. Note that Philosophy of mind is a Featured Article, the highest level of article quality in Wikipedia, and we put substantial effort into reviewing and maintaining the sources for articles at that level. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Looie496 Im a little new at this so perhaps you can help, it was my thought that the info posted was important to Nagels thoughts on how to proceed in furthering the epistemology of the issue of qualia in a physical manner
I put the book reference becasue all the notes I see on Wiki suggest strongly that things should be well referenced. Please help if you can to show or teach me how to rewrite it so that it is listed properly best Copernics01 Copernicus01 ( talk) 04:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copernicus01 ( talk • contribs) 03:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Copernicus01 ( talk) 04:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Duberman Preface
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Hi, again. Sorry to bother you, but our vandal, Factorx1983, now is sockpuppeting as MRAgentOrange. That's not a problem here on English Wikipedia, because of your protection of our page, but he has posted all the same vandalism on the Spanish Wikipedia page here: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isla_Palenque Do you know how I can get him blocked there? Do you have any admin powers on the Spanish site, or any advice for me? And we should be on the lookout for MRAgentOrange on this site as well. Should I post about him on the administrator's page? Thanks for any help you can give me, Flimoncelli ( talk) 17:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Looie496. Luckily, and with some help from Google Translate, his edits have been removed for now. Flimoncelli ( talk) 22:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I only did that once. I just didn't know whether the OP wanted to actually create the article. -- Chemicalinterest ( talk) 00:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Why did you remove my question? I wasn't being sarcastic or rhetorical, it was a serious question. Please restore it back. 24.189.87.160 ( talk) 02:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
If you don't object I would like to add your signature to this list. Regular doesn't mean frequent on a daily basis, nor does it mean with a fixed pattern (in other words, it doesn't mean regular). It just means editors who, time and again, help out at the desks. Please comment here If you object or not to being on that list. If you want to be on the list but prefer to add yourself please feel free to do so. The presence of your signature on the list does not put you into any category. hydnjo ( talk) 02:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I read your comments. Would you mind looking at User:WhisperToMe/Coleman and give some feedback on it? Thanks WhisperToMe ( talk) 03:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll put this here instead of on your RfA, as it's not directly related to your candidacy, but I'm curious - what do you dislike about the FAC process? And do you dislike it from the perspective of a nominator or reviewer? Cheers, Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I've seen your message here
[1].
Štambuk's message
[2] was from September 3.
Here's the history of edits in Talk:Croatian language
[3].
My messages after his message were these
[4] (Sep 18) and (restoring of deleted message)
[5] (Sep 28).
Where did I used the phrases like "sod off" "nazi-pedia" (Štambuk used that term before, not in this particular case) and equalized opponents' sources with Stormfront?
I was polite, he was rude.
Please, don't equalize me with him "but your own response was so belligerent that you have equalized the sin.".
Man, you've hurted me with this. "I've equalized the sin"???? Are you serious?
I never use the expressions he uses. This is not the first time he used very heavy words.
What does it mean "be less calm" in that case? To not to react at all?
Looie496, not reacting to violence means approving it. Non reacting encourages the bully.
BTW, I see that you're not an admin (
[6]). How come that you've appeared on that WQA? Bye,
Kubura (
talk)
03:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I disagree.
The page
WP:ANI has the line "
here to start a new discussion thread".
When the window opens, there's a box above the editbox. It says: "If your request falls in one of the following categories, please click to go to the appropriate noticeboard.". And there, there's a link
Civility problems. Final box at the right says "Other incidents that need administrator intervention."
Therefore, admins were supposed to sanction that "sod off" (strangely, page WQA says "this is non-binding..."). So, don't blame me. Someone else wrote those boxes and established the procedures. I've just tried to follow the procedure. I intended to post that directly to WP:ANI, but the links turned me to the other path.
That means that WQA must discourage any "sod off" and etiquetting the opponents with Stormfront.
But anyway, how can you equalize the "sod off" with
this?
And you're candidating for adminship?
Man, you've failed. Instead of discouraging attacks like "sod off", you're encouraging it with that.
As far as I see,
[7], currently it's 59:2 for you. Congratulations if you become an admin. Please, have my notification in mind.
Please, please, please. I'm begging you. Don't allow the behaviour like Štambuk's (case "sod off") and don't equalize his attacks with the reports of the opponents' that were insulted with such messages. Equalizing the attacker with the victim is not good as an way of approaching this problem, it is like saying that a victim deserves his/her treatment from the bully.
Bullies never get satisfied with one victim, they always want more, their "greed" grows with every victim. Don't give in to a bully. Only proper sanction stops them.
Otherwise, you're putting a nail in the Wikipedia's coffin.
I hope that my message helped you to understand me.
If you find my message "too angry", always have in mind "how would I feel if someone told me or to my "side" "sod off".
Wikipedia is an encyclopedic project. It requires scientific approach and dialogue.
I believe that in the neuroscientists' conventions opponents never say "sod off" to each other, nor they criticize the works of others in the magazines with the "Yada, yada. Your shaming language doesn't work here. Either provide evidence for your numerous statements which have been repeatedly refuted, or sod off back to Acta (your science), Stormfront (Your Homeland) or wherever your ilk congregates. BTW, I suggest that you read ..., which dispels many of the myths that you believe in."
[8].
Thank You for your previous quick reply and for your patience for reading my long message. Greetings,
Kubura (
talk)
02:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
So, I noticed that an editor brought up this edit of yours from a month ago. You may wish to take a look at a few sentences from Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Education and warnings: "However, note that warnings are not a prerequisite for blocking....On the other hand, users acting in bad faith, whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sockpuppetry, vandalism, and so on), do not require any warning and may be blocked immediately." Just as an FYI for when you pass RFA (hopefully :)) Best, NW ( Talk) 21:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Looie,
Thank you for the response. I would certainly like to contribute to the articles you mentioned (after I have researched and grasped the basics), if you think such a visual aid would help in understanding the subject matter. Please give a brief (and - at least at the moment - simple) outline of the ideas / concepts you want to visualise (aka visualize) in these clips.
--
Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (
talk)
23:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
In scientific journals, authors and speakers (at meetings) make disclosures, like if they are on the speaker's bureau of a company or if they received grant money.
I made a similar suggestion that editors disclose conflict of interests, perhaps on the talk page of an article. This was violently opposed.
Your opinion? I don't like the fact that I can write about my employer and engage in conflicts of interest. Therefore, I don't but could easily do so.
I think the reason is that people do want to have conflicts of interest (some people) and others don't want Wikipedia to be ugly and have anything that comes close to a disclaimer. However, those who are completely honest and have transparency are the better ones and Wikipedia would be better if this were the case. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 01:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Looie, sorry I didn't vote in your RfA. Thought I'll leave the reasons here than mention it in the RfA section. Actually, I would have loved a comprehensive answer to my question and as you couldn't provide an answer - after having made a statement in your nom section - I was in two minds what to write as a reply to your answer. In short, all in all, I thought that as you anyway would get your administrator flag soon, there was particularly nothing useful in my following up my question :) So in advance to you, congrats on your impending adminship - it'll be wonderful to have you around. Best. Wifione ....... Leave a message 13:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Looie496/Archive 2 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) My admin log
Congratulations! |
---|
It is my great pleasure to inform you that your
Request for Adminship has |
Useful Links: |
Your admin logs: |
Congratulations! ( X! · talk) · @241 · 04:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Again, congratulations on your Adminship, Looie! :)
May I ask you to comment on something, though, that has me a bit perplexed?
It's about
this edit you made, "hiding" a question in apparent support of Roux. May I ask why you did that? It seems TOAT has also now blocked the RD visitor indefinitely. Please see
my question to him concerning this at his talk page, which includes diffs as to this alleged trouble-maker's activities leading up to the block. Briefly, there was one instance of very mild vandalism, and then a very harsh warning by Roux, and then the block for some reason. Equally unclear to me is why you would want to "hide" a question about magnetism. Could you please explain to me the justification for that in this case? Was it just on Roux's say-so? Because... there was no "trolling" going on in that question, nor anything wrong with the responses, so it seems very curious to me why you would suggest that "we" listen to Roux about something and "hide" this quite valid question (as "non-serious" as the questioner may indeed have asked it, but nevertheless asked it in a perfectly acceptable way). Thanks! :)
WikiDao ☯
(talk)
06:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect, this has nothing to do with my "preferred version." If you will see the talk page discussion, you will see that this has been discussed, and the anon. user who has repeatedly removed the information has been at this for years. Page protection was requested to prevent his vandalism, not to preserve my notion of how the article should read. I have been at this long enough to know better than to make such a request. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 03:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Quote: "Here's the deal. We've had enormous disruption caused by combative editing on articles related to The Troubles, from both sides. The only way to keep things under control has been to follow a zero tolerance policy, rigorously enforced. Your edit was combative, regardless of whether you think so, and reverting to put it back violated the letter of the policy. We've been down this road dozens of times, and there isn't going to be any argument about the issues: either follow the restrictions, or your IP address will be blocked. Looie496 (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)"
I feel your explanation was rather curt. Please explain to me how my edit was combative. I stated facts. I did not use any inflammatory language, I simply stated the truth.
One particular contributor, O'Fenian, has an obvious agenda and ensures that articles reflect his political ideologies and views on all things Irish. I myself am Irish and take issue with articles that portray Unionists as evil and omit relevant information regarding Irish events.
I have on a few occasions edited and he has immediately reversed them based on his opinions, not fact. An example of this is the Michael Stone article. I stated that mourners included known terrorists, this is fact. I stated names of individuals that have admitted to being members of the IRA. He does not believe the IRA are terrorists, this is his opinion, but surely anyone with a modicum of common sense would not object to this.
Let me again state my intention is not to cause any disruption, I simply want to add value and relevant information where it is missing.
GlorRev Cill Dara
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.147.186.140 ( talk) 12:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello Looie496. I notice you hardblocked Al-RaShit ( talk · contribs) for creating a grossly inappropriate username. Could you watch out for names like this where a) it could easily be a real name or a fan of the band, and b) there is no evidence it was created in bad faith. If in any doubt about the user's intentions of violating Wikipedia policy, which you usually can't tell from usernames containing profanity, please softblock or don't block. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Looie, kindly see my input here [9] Anastasia Bukhantseva 04:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. Replied it here. -- Nazar ( talk) 10:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
There are other editors making substantial changes to NPOV policy without consensus. I think editors are complaining about my improvements not behaviour to NPOV policy. Do you think this is appropriate admin behaviour by you Looie496 to claim I am being disruptive when other editors are causing the problems with drastic changes to NPOV policy.
What do you mean by " you need to pull back here". I think you could look a little more closely at the edits all editors have made and undestand who is doing a great job of improving NPOV and who is making unproductive edits to the page. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
For that [15] I was unsure if i ought to copy it in or leave it to an admin mark ( talk) 19:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
TFA's are commonly protected because of a high level of vandalism. I don't see a reason to leave it unprotected, it would just waste the vandal fighters time. In some cases TFA's are protected for a few hours. -- Inka888 Contribs Talk 21:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
You didn't sign it... Peridon ( talk) 21:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey, just wanted to say congratulations on becoming an administrator Looie, :-) and survived the request for adminship process; it looks like a stressful process having to undergo all those questions and public scrutiny. It is nice to see you are taking an interest in ArbCom enforcement, an area which requires neutral as well as firm but fair admins (something that I know you are and will be). Good job.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
First, congrats on your successful RFA. :) Now for an exercise, can you look at the 90 page backlog of CSD requested pages? Thanks-- Talktome( Intelati) 01:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI - See WP:SILVERLOCK. In reference to the protection on the DZMB article, in cases of a content dispute, full protection should generally be used. Semi-protection should only be used if all parties are IPs or non-autoconfirmed users. Congratulations on your new mop. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/ contrib 01:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Timeline doesnt play a factor, unsourced and vandalism determin if an article should be protected or not. And FYI, the deletion is 8-0 for keep. Can you protect it? :) -
(CK)Lakeshade -
talk2me -
03:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, could you check the blurb I wrote about you? Tony (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Looie496. Sorry for the trouble but could you possibly remind user:Nazar to be civil in his comments. Please see my reply to them here. There has been a long pattern of incivility by this user directed mainly toward me in discussions involving Prahlad Jani and Inedia. I simply cannot participate in discussions when the well is poisoned by such remarks. I believe this is harmful to Wikipedia because it stifles properly framed discussions based on ideas and not on personal attacks. Nazar has been warned in the past repeatedly about personal attacks against me by user:McGeddon as well. Thank you for your time. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 19:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Just a v quick, brief 'thanks' - I hate protection, sadly it was necessary. Ta. Chzz ► 20:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Please see that I have requested an explanation for your comments at AN/I. Regards, Mackan79 ( talk) 01:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I have not repeated any of the conduct that lead to my topic ban, I have been at great pains to avoid a repeat of that. I have attempted to discuss the matter in the talk page, I have not attempted to force content into the article, I have attempted to obtain consensus on the talk page. I do not believe my conduct was disruptive.
However, I have discovered that one editor is seriously misrepresenting his sources, which you will note was mentioned in the case. My edit proposals are also being seriously misrepresented, then that used to discredit them. The editor I attempted to issue a WQA against is continuing with the same battleground mentality that lead to the dispute in the first place. There is a presumption that because they escaped sanction their hands are clean, the sanctions also apply to them.
I have proposed content that is relevant, well written, sourced and written to conform to NPOV. Even though acknowledging that Richard is vetoing its inclusion and the arguments for doing so don't stack up.
I would request that you please take the time to actually look at the talk page. From my perspective it appears that you've simply looked at the arbcom case and in 30s decided I'd returned to my old form. This really isn't the case I have made a real effort to avoid a repeat of that. Your message is tantamount to banning me from contributing to areas of wikipedia where I do have knowledge and would like to contribute. Justin talk 19:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Just to say he may have an argument (maybe, there are other similar issues, this may not be as notable as he thinks) for 2012 (although he did post to the talk page and got no support), but definitely not for September 18 where he was reverted 17 times. Dougweller ( talk) 05:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Please undo page protection. Your action prevents a valid article from appearing. Some could say that a paid political activist who want to eliminate the article would do exactly as you. However, I don't say you are paid, only that the payment status is unknown. I do say that your action is unhelpful. Please unpage protect. I pledge that I will not re-create the article myself for 100 days.
I think you will refuse so I, hereby, give you notice of arbitration. Presidentmalia ( talk) 21:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I hereby ask you to mediate to agree to unpage protect the Malia page and restore the article. NuclearWarefare says he reverted it to a redirect but can't do anything because of your action.
If you do not agree, mediation has failed and arbitration goes on. Presidentmalia ( talk) 21:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
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. -- Talktome( Intelati) 21:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Does this count? Celestra ( talk) 23:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! I will return if the user continues to be trouble. Carmaker1 ( talk) 23:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments about 128.104.truth at ANI [16], and the warning on their page about stalking the edits of another user. I see your point about his edits not being actual vandalism. However, when he returned to Wikipedia and saw your warning, his next three edits were all to articles that had been edited immediately prior by Off2RioRob [17] [18] [19]. These are all minor edits, true, but they also seem to be very pointy choices of articles. Since your comment and warning pretty much ended the previous discussion, I figured I'd come to you first, rather than start a new discussion at ANI. Thanks again for your help. Dayewalker ( talk) 02:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
In regards to the article on "Rape", rape can also be committed by higher animals like the orangutan. There are documented cases of humans being raped by animals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.193.155.159 ( talk) 20:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Is this the case? Your message implies it, but I was under the impression that consensus is driven by discussion. Did you by any chance not notice the opposition's inability to formulate a cogent (or even valid) argument to defend their viewpoint in the discussion page? I've been basing my attitude towards consensus on wp:cons, and I'm not convinced I should be blocked from the MSG page in this case. I understand that the discussion has grown quite long, and there is an understandable tendency to distrust the edits of IP addresses. I'm hopeful that the verdict of your arbitration may have been somehow influenced by this and possibly something Sciencewatcher or his company said to condemn me while pleading for administrative assistance, and that you would be willing to review the situation with impartial consideration. 174.126.200.228 ( talk) 02:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello Looie496. If I should take this to AE or ANI again I apologize, but you are familiar with the issue here. You warned Typesupper2 ( talk · contribs) about calling living people Nazis when they are not Nazis (in fact, the person this user is calling a Nazi is a Jewish son of Holocaust survivors). The first edit they made since that warning was to reinsert the BLP violating remarks ( here) with the edit summary "Stop defending Nazis". nableezy - 14:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
User talk:Braingym1 See his talk page. I think a hard block is necessary since he made a sock account User:BrainGym Webmaster and is continuing his legal threats. Momo san Gespräch 20:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The Pawnee Bill Ranch page is for a museum that is owned and operated by the Oklahoma Historical Society. I am asking that the page be edited because the invididual involved is using personal opinion to write the page. There is absolutely no evidence to show that the Ranch was built using slave labor. The ranch was constructed in 1910 using professional builders and it was not a Sears Home. It was designed and built by the architect James Hamilton from Chester, Pennsylvania. The building is not experiencing structural damage as is suggested and is certainly not riddled with mold. Please check out www.pawneebillranch.org for the official site on the Ranch to make your own decision if you wish. The hours of operations listed on the wiki page are completely innacurate. Historicalidentity ( talk) 19:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Looie: We had the same trouble with the Miller Bros 101 Ranch locals. The 101 Ranch was bull-dozed by HUD decades ago but the people out there still put on shows in the dirt. They want to pretend, they are actors who travel around Oklahoma Fairs playing parts (Annie Oakley, Buffalo Bill, et al). Can you lock the "Pawnee Bill" page while we check on the other pages related to Oklahoma History. Please and thank you. Tintle ( talk) 20:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Dear Administrator, I would like to address the allegation [27] and would like to send you a screenshot with a colleague- scholar permission to use text [28] at WP - please respond on my e-mail – so I’ve send you an image – please note - all private or confidential information was blanked. Thanks Jo0doe ( talk) 09:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, I have now written 3 paragraphs in the 2012 Discussion Page on the subject of the 2012 Bullfighting Ban in Catalonia. The only argument that anyone has offered for removing the data is the claim that only data of global world-wide extent can be included in Wikipedia. This is an absurd claim. Has any other information in Wikipedia ben removed because it is not about a matter that affects everybody in the whole world? Please stop the malicious vandal from his or her vandalistic removals. Thanks. Das Baz, aka Erudil 18:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello Looie496, I think 1 month block is overly harsh. Chesdovi has not had a block or topic ban anywhere near that length. nableezy - 18:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you care to respond to the questions posed here? [32] I think that I have raised valid points that warrant a response-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 21:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Dude deserves at least a good article, no? I have the highest edit count on the article, mostly because of cleaning it up; I can't write much on the fellow. But I did plop in a ton of full-text sources, so someone more familiar with Charcot and neurology can take it to the next level. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your support, Looie496. I know I am supposed to "assume good faith," but it is hard to do so when a malicious vandal keeps removing true and important information, for no good reason. I cannot help thinking that the malicious vandal just hates animals and wants the bull-torture to continue. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at my new comment in the arbitration enforcement thread I posted recently, and the diffs linked there? I'm not violating the sanctions against my account by posting there, because the admin who topic banned me made a specific exception for allowing me to do this. I was also told by one of the arbitrators that posting there would be acceptable while I was topic banned. - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk) 22:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I consider vandalism the removal of content without a single explanation. At least you Looie496 are now giving a reason, the fact that the TV transmission in question is in french. I suppose you don't disagree with the main merit of question, hunger as a weapon, and the importance of references to that by internal or external links. Thank you Marasmus ( talk) 01:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Dear Looie496, I would like to thank you for my account to be unblock and have a great day. :) クリッシーサングスタークリッシーサングスター ♥ 04:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcassionchan ( talk • contribs)
Looie: I hate to bring you into another issue, but there is a problem with self citation on the Pawnee Bill page now. The bibliography is being continually edited to contain sources that have nothing to do with the subject and Tintle, R. "The Great Far East in the Historic Wild West" (2010) as well as Tintle, R. "Pawnee Bill Lives!" 2007 are unpublished papers done by Tintle. 152.132.9.73 is making the same changes on these pages as well: May Lillie and Mexican Joe. I did place a warning about self citation twice on the Pawnee Bill discussion page but the changes are continued to be made. The website on the Pawnee Bill Ranch links www.pawneebill.org is also directing people to the original Wikipedia edit of Tintle. Historicalidentity ( talk) 19:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 22:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
While completely uninvolved in the original editing dispute that was brought up at RFPP, I am so surprised by your reasoning that I would like to discuss the subject in greater detail.
You, rather aggressively, denied a request for page protection because a user was trying to use a template you consider to be "ugly". First off, using your subjective opinion of how attractive something is to direct your actions as an administrator seems a bit inappropriate, but more importantly you're arbitrarily slapping the face of all kinds of Wikipedia conventions.
Some cleanup templates are inherently ugly. They don't exist to make the article look better, they exist to notify users that there is a problem that needs correction. Bright orange road construction/hazard signs are ugly but you'd be foolish to argue they shouldn't be used for that reason. Secondly, this template has existed since 2006 and been used since then; it currently used on a variety of articles as unobscure as toaster.
As an administrator, you should be aware that the removal of maintainence templates is often considered vandalism and there are four levels of user talk warnings for the removal of these templates; the fourth level indicates "The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, you may be blocked from editing without further notice" which conveys the seriousness of this behavior.
You're flying in the face of longstanding conventions and suggesting administrators should hold their personal standards of attractiveness higher than established wiki guidelines and procedures. Furthermore, removing properly-used templates because they are "ugly" undermines the entire maintainence template system and suggests we should value style over substance.
Please reconsider this inappropriate approach to editing and administrative duties. Some guy ( talk) 03:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you blocked this editor for warring on Fred Singer, which is in the climate change topic. Looking at his edits it looks like he's been around for a while on the same IP and his principal interests are climate change. Perhaps we should treat him as we would treat a registered editor, in which case it would be as well to warn him about the climate change discretionary sanctions. -- TS 22:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Almost the minute the protection expired on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, 24.253.41.64 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (who JUST got off a six month block for persistant vandalism involving WP:OR new characters, blog sourcing and generalized fancruft) and a couple of others are right back in there messing it up. I have been trying under my username, but also my IP address at work, fighting vandals and those who refuse to edit Wikipedia by the rules in the CSI, Law and Order and NCIS shows - so that some of them might eventually reach GA status. Unfortunately, the IP I've listed above and others like them are wearing me down, and I've about had it as an editor whose work seems to be for nothing. Sorry, this isn't your fault, so I apologise for bitching. Anyway...would you be so kind as to check & see if you agree that CSI:Crime Scene Investigation does need protecting again? I tried appealing to the person who blocked the above IP user, but they say this is just someone who 'doesn't understand the rules' (my paraphrase) very well - but if you look at their talk page - it's fairly obvious they do not care to learn either, as it's all the same stuff in the same articles that got them blocked in the first place after much counseling and warnings. Thanks for listening to the rant. I appreciate any time you might be able to devote to this, as I understand how busy Admins are. I thought about applying, but I know my Irish temper would get my adminship revoked within the first hour or so. As I guess you can tell, I'm one of those that "doesn't suffer fools gladly"! Thanks very much! Cheers, Trista Triste Tierra ( talk) 03:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For your hard work not even a month into your adminship, especially at WP:AN/3 I award you the admin's barnstar. Secret account 00:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC) |
Hello, thank you for contacting me. The issue has arisen because in the previous intro edit, my facts were questioned. I was in the process of meticulously citing this material with references and then the section was not only drastically altered but the editor provided zero references and moved my previously entered cites around without thought to connectedness or relevancy. Then malik told me citations are "probably not needed" by str1977 via HIS work.
Here is the passage in question:
"U.S. Congressional records and FBI files reveal the reasoning behind his persecution centered not only on Robeson's beliefs in socialism but also his consistent work towards the liberation of the colonised peoples of Africa, the Caribbean, Asia and the Australian aborigines, his support of the International Brigades, [1] his efforts to push for anti- lynching legislation and the racial integration of major league baseball among many other causes that openly challenged white supremacy on six continents. [2]"
Str1977 and Malik Shabazz have implied that the persecution points that I cited for Paul Robeson's persecution by the US power structure of the 1940's to 1960's are without historical merit or simply over exaggerated. I have gone through countless FBI files to prove them both incorrect with citations while str1977 has provided no cites or references for ANY of his edits. I acnnot edit in cites and references if my work is being reverted in real time.
I'm amazed now at the high standards that I was held to when first repairing and rebuilding the Paul Robeson article and sub-articles when I did the major revisions/creations on it. These rules are not be applied to Str1977. I never could have gotten away with such uncited material in the intro or elsewhere. I had editors breathing done my neck and tagging stuff as I was writing. Which is fine but why not others?
Writing a very large controversial article cannot be a flawless job and I have always maintained that I've made mistakes. But I DO cite my work and I make modifications as I did yesterday. I thought content on wikipedia research and references were cornerstone not editors ganging up on users. When str1977 comes through he deletes research citations and replaces it with zero cites please tell me why is that acceptable? Because he is an editor? I cannot find these answers in the rules. Thanks very much for your time. Catherine Huebscher ( talk) 05:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Looie496.
It worries me that previous WQA was closed after involved admin said that the case was already reported, but no diff. Things cannot be solved here on "honorable scouts word".
I've been looking through
pages that link to "user:Ivan Štambuk" in namespace Wikipedia,
search ANI archives, searchword="Štambuk".
My eyes "fell out" why I was searching through all those ANI's, but I haven't seen the case of Štambuk's "sod off".
Anyway, denigrating of opponents and opponents' sources (authors) continued
[34] ("nationalist fluff")
[35] "your own clique",
[36] "this nutjob + (name of scientist)" (violation of
WP:BLP)....
Kubura (
talk)
03:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Looie496.
You asked me here
[37] that if you have missed to notifiy anybody here
Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Log_of_warnings, to bring his/hers name to your intention.
I wrote a message to Kwamikagami
[38]. He's involved on several articles that are under the scope of WP:ARBMAC: Croatian language, Serbo-Croatian language, Croatian grammar, South Slavic languages, Differences between standard Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian, {{South Slavic languages sidebar)...
E.g., here
[39] are inline citations needed; various topics are covered on various pages. Kwamikagami blatantly removed "citation needed" .
Kwamikagami also must be notified by you and his name also must be here
Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Log_of_warnings. The rules are equal for everyone. Bye,
Kubura (
talk)
03:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
See also this:
here all of his insults. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
78.1.116.102 (
talk)
06:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you reconsider full protection of Men who have sex with men until we reach a consensus? There was an edit war going on a little while ago. CTJF83 chat 04:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Dont know if this is still relevant but: There are heterosexual actors who appear in gay porn ... some men are pretty flexible. Gay-for-pay. Beyond that, though, there's the intricacy that "men who have sex with men" is not always taken literally either, as it's more of an identity than an orientation. — Soap — 00:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you blocked User talk:68.167.83.210 for a week re vandalism of Toni Braxton. Having come off the block he/she has continued the vandalism. Please consider a longer/permanent block. Thanks Span ( talk) 10:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Span ( talk) 02:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I read it a couple of times. My response is...
Looie, I have to admit I'm a bit perplexed by your follow-up myself, though not outraged like some others apparently are. What I take issue with is the idea that the response Ronz gave to you on his talk page shows that "he is very chastened and fully understands that his behavior in this affair is decisively rejected by the community." I agree with those who do not think a punitive block of Ronz should be made because remedies ought to be preventative and not punitive, but I fail to see your question and his response as evidence of a remedy that will prevent these situations in the future. Can you help me understand your rationale here. As I noted at AN/I, all I see is the very tiny first step of accepting the community's consensus that there was no BLP concern after all, but perhaps I'm missing the part where he admits to violating WP:TALK and editing tendentiously while not hearing what others are saying. As I mentioned at AN/I, I see three viable remedies that would be more reassuring and they are not mutually exclusive - 1) specific statements by Ronz that acknowledge the actual disruptions he has made and promises not to repeat them, 2) mentorship so that Ronz can have access to resources to help him understand when he is being disruptive if understanding that is a problem for him, and/or 3) a topic ban from Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch related articles. What do you think about these ideas? Like I said, I'm not interested in whipping the guy, but I am interested in preventing another situation like this. Thanks for your further input on this. Griswaldo ( talk) 03:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Looie. Thanks again for your quick response. I like to avoid AN/I and dramahz as much as possible, and you not only stepped in to help out, but you did it so quickly that I am already out of the arena. I really, really appreciate it. Awickert ( talk) 00:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your intervention at ANI in the thread about Heim Theory. Kind of reminded me of that old western movie where the bad guys are coming to town and no one wants to be the sherriff: everyone knows something has to be done, but no one is willing to do it, except that you were willing. I appreciate that. Also, I saw your user page. I was wondering whether you've ever taken any interest in the OpenEEG project, or active electrodes (pasteless) for EEG, at all? This is very off-topic, of course, so don't reply if you'd prefer not to, or feel free to reply via e-mail, if you'd prefer that. Thanks again for stepping up at ANI. Best regards, – OhioStandard ( talk) 05:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Regarding "truly intelligent": I've found considering the source a handy approach. You might want to lay low on this one and let a better informed and more civil admin not so prone to hurling insults step in. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous ( talk) 07:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused. I gave a link at AIV to that long report I filed. Why only block one day? It's clear that this is a long-term troublemaker. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi since you took care of this case today. Please see here: [40] and specially the last comment about "bombing" a certain country, and hateful WP:soapbox WP:BATTLE WP:NPA comments. Thanks -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 04:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC). Please read my comments on the noticeboard. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 16:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
How many chances does he get? Two, Three, four, five? Are three warnings not enough? Well, it is easy to be calm, but sometimes when you have family in a certain country, and another user hopes that they are bombed, it is sort of disturbing. It creates a bad atmosphere. What allows him to get away with such a comments? Wikipedia is not a forum or WP:BATTLE. He was been warned by you, another admin, me and Nishkid64 and his account is free. His ip should be blocked as well for a period, since he edited with that as well. Wikipedia should not tolerate such users more than three times. Thanks -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 16:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
See my comments here: [41]. I almost feel like there is a discrimination on the upper level. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 16:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Just a reminder per previous dicussions: "Because this editor has very little history and the warning from Nishkid came last year, I felt it was more reasonable to give a clear and explicit warning that battleground behavior is not acceptable than to block immediately. However any repetition of this very aggressive behavior should lead to an immediate response. Looie496 (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC) "
After that he commented like previous time, I warned him once. Then he commented again, then nothing. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 17:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I fixed the template - hope you don't mind :> Good call on the block, but Mackfan345 is possibly coming around the corner! Veeeeeerrrrryyyyy slowly and steadily... ;P Doc talk 00:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
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. The thread is Pumpie's talk page. Thank you.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 01:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
In this section you collapsed a bunch of comments under WP:RBI. Although I largely agree with this I thought the comments on JaGa's tool should be left outside the collapse as it may help people catch more socks (it's allowed me to find an extremely suspicious looking user) and so have removed it from the collapse. Hope this is OK with you. Dpmuk ( talk) 01:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Good call with Shannon Brown. That article attracts so much garbage. Zagalejo ^^^ 02:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at AN regarding your block of Triton Rocker. The thread is " Appeal by Triton Rocker".Thank you. -- Sandstein 12:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Can you take a look at this? There has been a very long discussion here: 7 people support the inclusion of proposal 2 while only one objects, I believe the consensus is to have the sentence in all settlement articles. Can you take a look at this and confirm if you see there is consensus for it? -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 09:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Thread moved from my Talk page.
Cuddlyable3 (
talk)
Hi -- I just gave you "reviewer" status to simplify things on the Ref Desk. I don't see any serious risk that you will misuse it. Regards,
Looie496 (
talk)
18:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Do you feel the article protection you applied at Cyprus, and your suggestion that Stephen G. Brown ( talk · contribs) was as guilty of 3RR as was Austria12 ( talk · contribs), might merit revisiting in light of Austria12's identification and blocking as a banned sock? Richwales ( talk · contribs) 19:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Can Gillabrand's recent edits to Psagot be reverted now? I tried to begin a dialogue at Talk:Psagot, but now hear from your intervention that s/he has "stepped away." Can you make the changes since the page is now protected?-- Carwil ( talk) 21:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey there. I came across User talk:24.60.116.133, who is appealing their edit warring block (I'm about to decline it, btw), but I'm a little confused why you didn't block User:Wtshymanski as well. They've been edit warring just as much as the IP has. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 21:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Looie: You're a new-er administrator who I've been observing and whose actions and comments (e.g., at ANI) I've come to respect. Was wondering if you'd be willing to give me a "first opinion" on whether or not I would succeed in requesting the Rollbacker permission at this point in time? Just looking for an outside view; don't want to be made foolish with the big red Not done. I don't use TW, HG, GLOO, or other automated tools, so I'm not sure it's an absolute need. Your thoughts or reaction would be welcome. Thanks.
Saebvn (
talk)
01:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
hi looie, it was pointed out to me i "insultingly" called you "loonie496" here. i've corrected the name and wanted to apologize to you personally, this was an honest mistake, i misread your name (should of copy-pasted) when i was writing my post. cheers WookieInHeat ( talk) 12:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your feedback on my page...
I've made a number of edits that I hope make the page more consistent with spirit of Wiki.
Am interested to know your thoughts.
Much appreciated, Jack —Preceding unsigned comment added by A341672 ( talk • contribs) 16:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Dear Looie496, would you be so kind and present difflinks with my unacceptable behavior why my name is put on Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Log_of_warnings and message is on my talk page. Also, why Kwamikagami is also not there? Kind regards. -- Roberta F. ( talk) 21:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Looie, can you explain to me what I should have done differently? I still can't possibly understand how I ended up getting blocked and Xenophrenic did not. Thanks. SpecialKCL66 ( talk) 22:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Looie496! Since the Brazilian elections has already finished, I think it's now safe to unprotect the article Brazilian Social Democratic Party. Thanks. -- Laciportbus ( talk) 23:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Looie496, following the recent deterioration in editing of the Israel-Palestine set of articles, I've set up a page to discuss the problem and possible solutions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles. Your input would be appreciated. PhilKnight ( talk) 15:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Based on this guy's contributions, and this edit, I'm pretty sure he's the same guy I've been dealing with for the last few months, and the basis for your protection of the Owens & Minor article.
Here were his contributions under a previous sock puppet. I think you'll see a recognizable editing pattern. That user made the exact same edit to the Owens & Minor article here.
I'm posting this here, rather than the notice board, because the evidence is largely circumstantial, and it calls for someone who's dealt with the guy before and knows his M.O.
Thanks.
John2510 ( talk) 16:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
... you blocked User:Jrkso and his "opponent" for accusing each other of ethnic POV. Perhaps you could defuse the "ethnic COI" situation at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hamas_and_the_Taliban_analogy, hopefully without blocks. Search for "COI" there; it's at the end of the page right now. Tijfo098 ( talk) 02:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, sorry to bother you but since you're a little familiar with User:Tajik I just wanted you to know that he is attacking me while I discuss something with other editors. Tajik states: "Jrkso: first of all, it would be very helpful if you stopped putting your answers in the middle of the discussion, ignoring the chronology. Just write your answers at the bottom of each discussion. Readers and participants are not dumb! ... I do not blame you for not understanding the simple fact... You do not understand this because (and that is very obvious) you lack basic mathematical knowledge and understanding. In this case, I do not think that you are the best person to judge that..." Tajik removes sourced information that he doesn't like to see. [44]. He violated the 3rr rule yesterday. [45], [46], [47]. He completely disregarded your warning. As for me, I understood your warning and kept away from him but he decided to follow me and my edits, deleting my contributions. [48]-- Jrkso ( talk) 18:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Looie496.
Please, see this
[49] . User Ivan Štambuk wrote that (28 Oct 2010, 21:51 CET, that's 6 hours ago).
"Yes (1) is commonly repeated BS that ... That BS is believe it or not even ....".
What is "BS"?
Does that "BS" falls under "I am giving you and everybody else involved in the Croatian disputes notice that I intend to crack down on the incivility that fills the current disputes. Any comment that attributes bad motives to an editor or otherwise insults an editor is going to draw a block" , as you wrote here
[50]?
Bye,
Kubura (
talk)
03:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
And here we go again [51]: he keeps insulting every Croatian that is against his POV. Fascistoid ,Serphobic and other terms.-- 78.3.94.49 ( talk) 07:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I've asked my question to admin Looie, since he engaged in the topic. Not to user RobertMfromLI.
I repeat:Looie496, what does "BS" means? Ivan Štambuk used that phrase
[52].
Looie, you've written here
[53] ""I am giving you and everybody else involved in the Croatian disputes notice that I intend to crack down on the incivility that fills the current disputes. Any comment that attributes bad motives to an editor or otherwise insults an editor is going to draw a block". Does that BS belong there? This is the question for you, Looie496. Please, don't ignore my question.
Looie, you've been informed on the time about this incident. 6 hours after the incident. And I'm also still waiting to see where was Štambuk's "sod off"
[54] processed on WP:ANI. I don't trust to honorable scout's word, I'd like to see the diffs.
Looie, please. Don't give in to bully. Bullies never get satisfied with one victim, they always want more, their "greed" grows with every victim. Don't give in to a bully. Only proper sanction stops them. Do you remember what I've written here to you
[55]?
Please, don't tolerate the injustice done to someone. Don't tolerate the cover up of misbehaviour. Don't tolerate the segregation of users (one side's appeals are ignored and sins are fabricated or magnified beyond the limits of truth, while the other side is protected and its requests (no matter how unfounded) are executed per wish). Don't close your eyes. Injustice won't disappear by herself. It doesn't happen to someone else.
Always remember this
[56]. "When they came for me, there was no-one left to speak out."
Kubura (
talk)
01:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
And here we go again
[57]: he keeps insulting every Croatian that is against his POV. Fascistoid ,Serphobic and other terms.
And Again the word "BS"
“ | Your comment above is an equal pile of BS | ” |
-- 78.3.94.49 ( talk) 07:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Looie496.
Have you forgotten this? Any news?
Kubura (
talk)
01:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Looie496. As is usual with this article, the long-term edit-war has started again against long-established consensus. Please assist if you can. Thank you. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 22:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Please see WP:AE#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Jo0doe. Thanks. T. Canens ( talk) 22:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi again. Here Nazar responds to other users warning him about civility by attacking me even though I have not spoken to him for weeks and for sure even when I did it was in a very civilised manner. I would appreciate your assistance in this. Thank you. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 16:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Since you asked to ping you the next time it happen... well here it is. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request concerning Brews ohare. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Looie496. This editor continues to add good-faith but clumsy and poorly cited content to mental health articles, and is ignoring/not noticing messages. Is there some way we could block their IP so that when they attempt to edit they're confronted with a friendly message explaining they need to improve their citing, with maybe a link to a talk page they can edit where I'll tutor them? Or can you think of some way we can channel their prodigious enthusiasm into productive work? Anthony ( talk) 17:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. That was getting tiresome. Anthony ( talk) 18:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've suggested at WT:MED that, given the situation, they should probably be unblocked. I'm going to email the Dublin City University to see which courses are using the textbooks they're citing, and see if I can contact the coordinator with a little advice about sourcing and citing. Thanks for your help. I'll watch them in the meantime. Anthony ( talk) 13:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed you said at WT:MED "I'm trying to get a fix on whether this group can be brought into line." If I'm stepping on your toes here, or duplicating your efforts, please tell me. There's no point in both of us handling this. Anthony ( talk) 12:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I posted a question here, could you please look at it? It seems that you are the predominant author of the brain article, so you might know where to find information on the topic. Thank you, -- Vojtech.dostal ( talk) 13:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
name has been added to this list [58] but I'm not sure whether they are part of it or not. Lumanog.n Cheers Earlypsychosis ( talk) 00:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
For your kind intervention at WQA. It is appreciated. Take care. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 20:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your page protection. But not blocking Namiba is totally unacceptable. I don't understand why no adm. can simply take a look at the evidence and block Namiba for 3RR.-- Jerzeykydd ( talk) 21:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Looie, The link was dead (cause I receive a "File not found" message when I click on it, is it my problem?!) and I just found & replaced another URL pointing to that paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A.joudaki ( talk • contribs) 17:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
The Good Doctor Fry after the expiry of the block you placed on him for edit warring on Sunset, has promptly started inserting the same material he was chain adding here. Talk page consensus seems to be that the version he is adding is not correct, and it doesn't appear that he is adding any sources that verify his claims. Could you take a look at it please? Falcon8765 (TALK) 19:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Checked on your protege lately? You're the one that let him off the hook; go check out your masterpiece. -- THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 15:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
This anon IP appeared soon after User:Jo0doe's block and has been doing similar things: [59] in similar subject areas. Could someone check that out? Faustian ( talk) 13:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
You blocked F Simon Grant for 48 hours due to incivility. He's created a sock puppet (and admitted it - he's not bright) in order to continue to taunt other editors (handle: " TaoIsTheEssenceOfMeaninglessness") on the Beat Generation talk page. Can you just ban this guy? If it was ever warranted, this would be the case. Also I notice he re-instituted disputed edits without discussion (as requested) on talk page - using his sock puppet. Tao2911 ( talk) 16:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC).
Never mind. Mission accomplished. IP use blocked for 30 days. Tao2911 ( talk) 19:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution. I think a block for a week or so might be an exccellent idea as it would appear that this discussion is presently generating more heat than light. DrMicro ( talk) 17:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#A bit of a POV pushing problem. Thanks, Tijfo098 ( talk) 21:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Looie: I know that an editor has a right to remove a warning from their talk page. The warning that you removed was a different warning for his vandalising my page another time (by himself reinserting a previously removed warning). Dbpjmuf ( talk) 00:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Kindly view the diffs here [60], followed rapidly by [61], and [62] with an edit war threat to "revert ti the DAB page". As predicted. And no one who wants the deletion is willing to even broach an RfC (heck, they outright refuse [63] as one of the examples ) - as I also predicted. Thanks. Collect ( talk) 13:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Petri Krohn here flouts your words at
[64] where he deliberately goes back to the DAB page as soon as he could. I note you stated you would vigorously enforce WP procedures on this page, and ask you do so. Note also his personal attack at
[65] as well as personal attacks by Siebert at
[66], and TFD at
[67]. Thanks.
Collect (
talk)
16:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Looie. As you know I mainly writte in neuroscience articles, however I have in my watchlist an Spanish model and actress which I liked when I was a teenager. The thing is that there is some sort of urban legend that she has brown eyes, and 3 more years than she says. I came to have the article in my watchlist when she denied it, specifically citing wikipedia as giving wrong info on her in a tv programm. Almost every ip editor in the last months who has edited the article has done it to change to the "brown eyes" version without providing any sources. Could you partially protect the article indifenitely for vandalism? I am tired of being the only one reverting an article I do not really care much about... Thanks. -- Garrondo ( talk) 16:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive73#Result concerning Collect. This request was archived by the bot before formal closing. I went ahead and imposed an article 1RR at Communist terrorism, and added a comment to the archive file. If the 1RR is not enough to hold down the edit warring, perhaps an indefinite full protection might be considered. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 22:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello. In Talk:Sunset, I believe, you once noted the senseless waste of time when inexperienced editors try to edit science topics against editors with better understanding of matters. This situation in this article is now aggravated to a point that is mind-boggling. I intentionally stayed away from that article during the whole episode of war editing about those diagrams, which were not only visually unacceptably poor, but also insufficient and wrong in content. Once that settled, I replaced the text with a version that is sustainable by the references I introduced originally before all of this transpired. Yet, User:Spiel496 keeps reverting to a mediocre version that is wrong in major points, not supportable by references and poor in writing style. My versions are the only once supported by references, no-one else has cited any for their versions that distort the presentation, cherry pick items that fit their view, and delete parts that are correctly cited from my references. This whole behavior is unacceptable and an insult to science and scientific integrity of correctly reflecting and quoting sources. Please help to stop this behavior there. There isn't a single editor other than me, who has provided any references for their ideas. I am fed up with this stuff and will likely not edit these articles anymore. It's a waste of time. Spiel496 has a history of this kind of arguing about science, that (s)he doesn't understand, obviously not having the foundation and knowledge to get it right. Kbrose ( talk) 07:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I think I need your help to resolve a dispute. You provided your third opinion here about five weeks ago. According to the opinion and to the discussion I made some changes explaining them at the talk page. A newly registered User:Xebulon reverted my changes six times: [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73]. I also asked him to explain his opinion a week ago but he ignores the discussion. As I see no Xebulon's intention to edit constructively I ask you to provide your opinion once more and to explain your position to Xebulon. Thanks in advance. -- Quantum666 ( talk) 19:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for giving me a second chance on being a Wikipedia editor. I will not abuse the privlage that you gave me to be able to edit and to work on Wikipedia. I know that as the person who unblocked me that if I mess around then it will reflect badly on you as well as me so thank you for your trust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beenrunman ( talk • contribs) 19:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
You hve recently blocked User:The Good Doctor Fry for edit warring on Sunset. It is happening again, this time with the collaboration of User:.Wanbli-g53 and User:189.148.60.123, which I believe are all the same editor. I have started a thread on this subject at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Could you please help? Regards, Alvesgaspar ( talk) 23:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Would you like to explain how it happens that you can make a decision on a situation when you have prior involvement with another part of that situation? ie, do you seriously believe yourself to be WP:UNINVOLVED? I don't.
Assuming that you believe yourself to be uninvolved, and that you merely misunderstood the situation...
You passed right over the fact that he attacked my character in Materialscientist's canvassing. The difference between:
Materialscientist said
here, as as author does not understand basic WP policies of notability and WP:RS, and I am not in the mood for 3RR. In short, Amnov has already been criticized in 2008 for his "discoveries" of new elements, and here comes another one. Materialscientist (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Emphasis mine, bold is a personal attack, underline is a deliberate misrepresentation of what I had been trying to put forward.
...and this:
You are invited to join the discussion at Template:...
From Template:Please_see
...is enormous, would you not agree? WP:CANVASS clearly states that canvassing, where permissible, must be neutral (ie, not biased, ie, not accompanied by personal attacks) and non-partisan (ie, not representative of the editor's position, ie, not predisposing people towards one perspective by presenting a strawman in the place of the other side's position).
Furthermore, you accuse me of gaming the system, to what gain? The discussion is continuing without any further input from Materialscientist whatsoever. What would I gain from acting spuriously against someone who is apparently uninvolved? This is a simple matter of an admin doing the wrong thing.
Is this not admins circling the wagons? Explain. - Danjel ( talk) 11:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I notice you have protected Newington College but if you read what has been happening on this site you will see that you have protected paragraphs that have dead links. The contentious material should have references that are "live" or at least "citation needed" after them. If not the material should be removed. At the moment both reference 19 and 20 go to "page not found". If you want the material to be there please verify that it is correct before protecting it and the writer. Castlemate ( talk) 05:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that but there is no point getting involved in an edit war - one is already going on - it needs someone removed from the issue to make sense of it and make a judgement call. I hope you can have a look at it and make a judgement. Thanks Castlemate ( talk) 00:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to ask for a redirect. We have wikipage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Institute_of_Technology. The institutes name should always appear in Italian, a bit like British Airways for instance. The redirect should got to this wikipage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istituto_Italiano_di_Tecnologia Thanks Webmaster_iit ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC).
Template:Brain neuron map has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
Mhiji (
talk)
12:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:Brain neuron map requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. Mhiji ( talk) 16:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Looie! I noticed your activity as a Good Article reviewer, and wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.
If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!
You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).
I hope to hear from you soon.-- Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 23:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
While it has been some time I feel I have addressed all your concerns at GAN. I was hoping you could continue your great review soon enough. Bests.-- Garrondo ( talk) 10:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I saw the tremendous effort that you have put into reviewing that article for GA. I am concerned because I don't think it is a good article. It's a difficult thing. Not good enough for medical uses, too wordy for laymen use. TeacherA ( talk) 00:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Looie496. You originally blocked Terra Novus ( talk · contribs) back on 29 October 2010 for one week due to disruptive editing. [74] He appears to have improved since that time, however, I've noticed a return to his earlier problematic editing in the last week. [75] I'm not sure where to go from here, but it would be nice to have some more eyes on this. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 11:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed that you said editing on the Titanic Thompson page will lead to a ban. I was going to make some changes to the page (and I do have citations for the information), but now I don't know if I should put them up. I was working with another admin on this page, and they said that since I know a lot about Titanic, I could change the information if I have 3rd party sources. Is it ok? Thanks so much for all your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Booklover85 ( talk • contribs) 02:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I was mistaken when I thought that changing the template colors would be more appropriate for that situation. I acted in Good Faith but did not consult consensus.-- Novus Orator 04:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
What are the "3r rules"? And why is the article blocked for 3 days? the "warring" had stopped before you decided to blocked it. Intoronto1125 ( talk) 02:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I reverted 3 of his edits, but I did put all of his info back except the information that was not consistent with other multi sporting event articles on wikipedia. For ex. Aleenf1 removes the pictograms from the sports on the article, and every major multi sporting event (Commonwealth Games, Winter and Summer Olympics) have them. Also he removes the countries that participate from the article, when in every multi sporting event article on wikipedia does list it. Intoronto1125 ( talk) 15:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks for the review. I believe it was very useful, not to mention all the ce yor performeded while carrying it out. I'll try to improve it a bit more and probably take it to FAC soon enough. -- Garrondo ( talk) 21:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Please reblock ActuallyRationalThinker ( talk · contribs) or resign your adminship. Corvus cornix talk 05:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
There's currently an AN3 report based on an article which you protected (and unprotected) because of a content dispute. User:Intoronto1125, the user who promised not to edit war, is still warring on the article. The report can be found here. Minima c ( talk) 19:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Looie496, you appear to be deliberately avoiding the discussion on AN/I about your actions. The consensus there is that you have abused your tools. You really need to undo your action, and allow a proper consensus to develop; I think this is the only way we can avoid having the issue turn into one of abuse of admin tools, rather than the issue of whether or not to unblock this editor. Please re-block, and then return to the discussion. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I have initiated recall of your sysop flag according to your recall instructions here. Dusti *poke* 20:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Of my observations of your actions at ANI you often act when no one else will and Also always with the in The Spirt rather than the letter of the rules. I stand by you in this. This is something deserving of a Trout at most not De-syopsing The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 22:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
While it's refreshing to see admins attempt, even if misguided, to "police their own", I can't help but notice the continuing double standard. When eight admins opined that another admin had misused tools against me, nothing was done about it. I guess Looie496 just crossed the wrong group of admins. And as far as I can tell, there was no "mistake" to acknowledge; that is, not a clear breach of policy as occurred with me, rather some gray territory over which many others disagree, so this is a sad state of affairs to have initiated a recall over. Take home message: abuse of and malign a "regular editor" with charges of vandalism that no admin supports and every admin weighing in agrees is a clear policy violation of a clearly stated policy, never retract or apologize, and get away with it, but come up against the wrong group of admins on a marginal call, expect to pay. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I am very grateful for all this support, but I can't see any serious likelihood that a reconfirmation would get 80% support, or even 70%, and I'm really not interested in creating all that drama unless there is a reasonable chance of success. Quite honestly, in my rather short tenure as an admin I have found that the level of anarchy makes it almost impossible for me to function effectively in the areas that interest me the most, so I doubt that my resignation of the bit will be a major loss to Wikipedia. Best regards to all of you, Looie496 ( talk) 01:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey Looie, I just want to give you my best wishes, and leave it at that! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
This is the first second (ok, there was one another one, years ago, with a happier ending) time I've witnessed a recall process handled with grace and without a fuss by the admin in recall. So of course it has to be an admin for whom I saw absolutely no reason to have to hand in the tools. Sarek is probably right about you being made an example. Thank you for the administrative help you provided at the reference desk. I hope we continue seeing you there as a contributor. ---
Sluzzelin
talk
20:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if it seems callous to point out, but your userpage still suggests that you are an admin. Best regards, Step hen 05:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
[77] (Sigh) I didn't follow your every move but wherever I saw you acting as an admin, except for your resignation, I approved. You were a good admin. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 05:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
If you wish to recreate the page that`s fine- I didn`t delete it... andycjp ( talk) 00:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Howdy,
I've replaced that thread in an anoymised form. Is this ok? Link: [78]?
Egg Centric ( talk) 19:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Thank you for moving it :) WhisperToMe ( talk) 01:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Can you please explain your reasoning and evidence for the block of User:John Calvin Moore? -- Avi ( talk) 17:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 18:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Just to let you know that I took the liberty of interpreting what you intended to say here (WP:RD/C). Same problem ("Talk" instead of "User_talk") in this edit summary. -- NorwegianBlue talk 10:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Looie496, thanks for answering a question of mine on the science desk, where I said that I did not understand why going faster than the speed of light means going back in time. You included a diagram and your answer was very concise and made sense Myles325a ( talk) 08:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Looie496. What do you think of my suggestion that we look at the rest of the review, and then return to the lede. -- Philcha ( talk) 20:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The proposed split appears to be appropriate. However, this is a specialised topic so the work should be done by somebody who understand the topic. I am also notifying User:Captain-n00dle who proposed the split, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience and Wikipedia:WikiProject Primates. I am removing the split tag, as the request has now been responded to, and it is up to those closest to the topic to carry out the split. SilkTork * YES! 21:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Merit was not only mine. Your marvellous GA review was of great help. Just for curiosity: I hope Parkinson's disease appears in Main page in a month (April 11: world's PD day). Bests.-- Garrondo ( talk) 07:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Rastamouse-ting ( talk · contribs · logs) has been indefinitely blocked for " Personal attacks or harassment". Cheers, Chzz ► 20:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I've withdrawn the complaint as the user applogised to me. KnowIG ( talk) 21:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear Looie496 Thank you for your comments! There is not a single sign of "advertisement" in the paragraph I have added. You may need to redefine "advertisement" and "information". To me, advertisement means "to campaign for correctness of an idea". That is far from what is reported in the paragraph I have added. The paragraph is talking about a hypothesis that can be tested, accepted or rejected, but not removed without proper reasons. You may of course conduct a series of experiments in your lab, reject one or more points of the hypothesis, report them in a paper of your own, and then add (not remove) some text after my paragraph saying that the hypothesis has been questioned, rejected or accepted by your results. Otherwise, removing an informative statement about a new functional hypothesis seems more like "censorship", which is way far from Wikipedia mission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iman Kamali Sarvestani ( talk • contribs) 17:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear all who commented, Thank you for your comments!
1_ The comment about word-to-word copy/paste are really reasonable. I am going to write a new version that is not copy/pasted. Thank you for reminding me.
2_ The comment about quarters and cancers does not make any sense to me. Linking cancers to quarters in your pocket is a matter of acceptability of the idea developed in the paper. I have not read that article (I don't really have time for crap), and do not know who has reviewed it. Our paper has qualified reviewers. Of course you may be more qualified than them (I do not really know you in person), but if you have any comments on the idea developed in our paper, you may openly discuss it. I am most pleased to discuss science. The rest is nonsense to me. I can not find a logical link between that paper and ours. Feel free to give me the link or apologize for nonsense linking.
3_ The comment about source reliability is strange. Is it the similarity of the Wikipedia user name and first author's name that makes in unreliable? If someone appears with a nickname in Wikipedia and cites his/her own paper is it considered "reliable" because he/she has cited another name? As for me, I have written the paper and I am reporting it proudly. I am up for scientific discussions about it, but at the same time I will stand against any non-scientific comments given. I hope you will start the academic way of discussing things. That is simple: stick to science, science and science. I hope you will read the paper, find the flaws (I m sure there are some just like any other text) and discuss them. Removing the text blindly is not a real academic practice. It sounds "censorship" to me.
4_ If you read the paper and notice that some main stream ideas are left out in our article, or are not mentioned, I will of course be more than happy to add. My impression is that in our paper we have well cited all previous work appropriately. Citing oneself is not prohibited once the paper well covers all other relevant ideas. Please read the paper first. I hope you will enjoy it. Iman Kamali Sarvestani ( talk) 22:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear Looie496, Thank you for your comment! The Wikipedia article on the basal ganglia is embarrasingly poor. It does not even include text book information. It does not say anything for example about hyperdirect pathway. It does not say anything about dimensionality reduction, it does not say anything about "hold your horses" hypothesis and many more. Ironically, it contains so many details such as existance of the basal ganglia in lamprey which is definitely not a text book fact. In fact, as we have also reported in our paper, the existance of full basal ganglia connectivity in lamprey has just been recently (2011) verified. When we were publishing our article, we contacted our friends who proved it, they have not et even published it. In fact, six references in the current version of the Wikipedia article on basal ganglia are 2010 papers, one is 2009, three are 2008. You can barely find anything before 2000 in it. Therefore, I am afraid I can not accept your logic. Your logic seems correct, but that logic is not implemented in the basal ganglia article. I am sure it is not implemented elsewhere in Wikipedia either. You may check the article on "Basal Ganglia System in Primates" where you can find tens of "non-text book" level points. I would love of course to contribute to a more comprehensive article, once we have an actually implemented rule. Before that, I guess removing the paragraphs I add is unfair, and certainly not professional. Our paper is indeed a novel hypothesis discussing a "big picture" of the basal ganglia. The paper is about what basal ganglia is on a macro level. In other words, it is certainly a text book level paper. Read it and you will find a sweet story that is understandable for people in hippocampus or migrain research as well. It is readable and understandable for anyone who knows basic neuroscience. It is not a detailed analysis of the synapses between two nuclei in a specific thread of rats. It is a generic story of the basal ganglia that best fits text books. On the other hand, it has fully covered almost any other big picture demonstrated by others since 1970s. The fact that the wikipedia article on basal ganglia is so poor to have missed for example Mink's ideas or Graybiel's matrisome concept that are 70s and 80s ideas does not justify removing our novel idea. Iman Kamali Sarvestani ( talk) 00:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear Looie, Thank you for your comments! I will be more than glad to contribute to writing an article on current state of art in how decisions are made in the BG. That takes some days. I will be back to you with a draft. Cheers Iman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iman Kamali Sarvestani ( talk • contribs) 00:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually I do not think they get less points by interacting with others, and nevertheless most of my edits have been as examples of what has to be done. Have you notice the talk page I have created for making general comments to the students? -- Garrondo ( talk) 18:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to re-add any content, I am not sure on what is truly relevant and what is simply synthesis and miscellanea. Anyway article is one of the least active of the class project. -- Garrondo ( talk) 06:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Looie496. I had an excellent holiday - so now need I another to recover. Shall we resume with the GA review. -- Philcha ( talk) 20:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Looie496. We seem to have such different priorities that I'm asking at WT:GAN for a 2nd opinion. Please summarise your view at Talk:Nemertea/GA1#Philcha_asking_for_a_2nd_opinion. -- Philcha ( talk) 13:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Looie496! I am one of the students working on NeuroJoe's Wikipedia neuroscience assignment for the semester. My group is working on the Satellite cell (glial) page and we have yet to receive any feedback from other editors and/or experts. If you could offer any advice for improvements, it would be much appreciated! Thanks, LaurenMalishchak ( talk) 03:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I see that on 2 October 2010, you blocked Abcassionchan ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for disruption. However, that user returned today as Crushedtiggy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
I don't know the full story on the original account, other than seeing the sockpuppetry issues on the talk page. On the one hand, it's been six months. On the other hand, it has not been a year yet. The user has not violated any other guideline, so the only reason to block right now would be creating a new account before the old block expired. How do you want to proceed? — C.Fred ( talk) 04:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Given your knowledge about some of the involved topic areas, wouldn't you like to look at the article and contribute to it? I am sure neuroscientific knowledge and understandings of intelligence could be better represented in the article. Happy editing. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Do you know when the class project on improving memory will end? I want to tag it as a class project on the talk page, but it appears I need that information. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I would like to help the students with their review so that it is successful, but obviously, I don't want to do their homework for them. I'm trying to confine myself to minor fixes and changes (such as correcting the date and adding sources). If needed, I can help with major changes. I'll try and get their attention on their talk page. I would hope you would leave this review open long enough for them to make a major effort. Thanks, and keep me in the loop. Viriditas ( talk) 02:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Do you think it would be possible for you to check out our group's article on athetosis and reconsider it for a good article nomination. Our semester is almost up and if it has earned a good article status, it would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, BrianJLike ( talk) 19:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi -- I'm completely open to the idea that the article's lead needs clarification, but it seems to me that the text you added does the opposite. The lead should be understandable to somebody who has not yet read the article, but you have introduced without definition terms like "sodium-potassium pump", "resting membrane potential", and "membrane permeability", which a reader unfamiliar with the topic will find completely incomprehensible; however the wording of the sentences carries an implicit message that the reader is expected to understand them. Can we work on this? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC) I Understand your point, but a lot of articles that are like this..cant we just add internal links on the hard words. So can people read about the things they do not understand. The reason I added this part is because there is a HUGE MISCONCEPTION that the ion channels are responsible for the creation of the resting membrane potential..btw..this therm is the same as membrane potential in this case. I think the article was keeping the the misconception alive, but if you feel it is necessary. You can remove the name of the specific pump (na/k); and also change also remove "resting" from "resting membrane potential". However, i thing the whole article is about the resting membrane potential. Tahmmo ( talk) 18:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC) I will take a 2nd look now to see if I can simplify.
You seem to have deleted 3 questions, attributing them the Light Current, when they are not. Please be careful to only delete posts if you have evidence that they are actually from a troll, not just based on a common (and huge) IP range. See the Ref Desk talk page for the discussion. StuRat ( talk) 16:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to ping you about Talk:Neurolaw/GA1. It looks like you'd meant to get back to it, but just haven't had the time to finish up. If you need help, drop me a note. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I think this comment was unwarranted and unwanted on the Reference Desk, and that you should delete it. Comet Tuttle ( talk) 17:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, this is cspj123. I noticed you haven't responded to my request for a citation... is this because you haven't been on wikipedia recently? Anyway, I hope that you will respond eventually. I think that there is no evidence beyond environmental commonality, and if there is then it should be cited there. Thanks cspj123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.31.131 ( talk) 00:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I'm a first-year PhD student working on a system to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles on scientific topics by providing easier access to relevant scientific publications. I was hoping to speak with some editors who work on scientific articles in order to solicit requirements for my system in order to better satisfy the needs of the Wikipedia community. I noticed that you have been a caretaker for a number of pages on topics concerning neuroscience, and I would really appreciate your input. If you are interested, please let me know on my talk page ( talk). Thanks! —Preceding undated comment added 23:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC).
Thanks for your comments on Talk:Rhabdomyolysis, which I hope I have addressed sufficiently. I was wondering if you could comment further on the FAC page, particularly whether you think it now meets WP:WIAFA. JFW | T@lk 02:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I just deleted one of your comments over at WP:FT/N and asked to have it oversighted. I know you were just responding to the other user's speculation, but please be more careful of the outing policy. Thanks, and happy editing, - 2/0 ( cont.) 13:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you for giving ratings for the article on William McDougall. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 09:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Looie, Could I get your input on the Vilayanur S. Ramachandran page. There seem to be a couple of single-purpose editors (perhaps meat-puppets of each other) who are determined to simply enforce their POV an all things related to Ramachandran, and who really do not seem to be into things like talk page use. See Talk:Vilayanur S. Ramachandran and Special:Contributions/Neurorel, Special:Contributions/Edgeform and Special:Contributions/Pfstarrs. I might be out of my head, as I've been involved in a slow battle with them, but as a fellow neuroscience contributor, I thought I'd ask for some outside input. I'm also asking Tesseract2 for some input. Thanks, Edhubbard ( talk) 23:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The talk page of Caffeine has a lot of people posting anecdotes about supposed sedative or relaxant effects of caffeine, particularly in people with ADHD. I couldn't find any solid studies to support this claim on Google Scholar, but it can't be a coincidence. I really want to get to the bottom of this mystery so I can include something about it in the article. I have a few working theories; it's a known fact that Adderal and Ritalin are stimulants (nearly chemically identical to crystal meth) that are used to treat ADHD by means of increasing concentration. It could be that after the caffeine wears off they are left with a brain that is much more sensitive to adenosine, which would certainly make a hyperactive kid sleepier. Maybe children metabolize and get rid of caffeine faster, while at the same time adapting to it by creating new adenosine receptors faster? Caffeine definitely enables me to concentrate on my homework better, but I have a hard time seeing how this could be confused with sleepiness. I will continue searching. What are your thoughts on this?
-- SuperEditor ( talk) 17:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, ADHD meds are reuptake inhibitors of dopamine and norepinephrine. Maybe there's actually something adenosine-related going on in the brains of kids with ADHD already that causes them to react differently to caffeine. It should be noted that sleeplessness is not a primary symptom of ADHD.
-- SuperEditor ( talk) 17:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, hey, do a Google Scholar search for "adenosine adhd" and "adenosine adhd sleep". I think I've got it. A widely accepted theory of the nature of ADHD is that sufferers exist in a perpetual state of abnormally low arousal, so they are driven to seek intellectual and emotional stimuli more strongly than people without the disorder. Adenosine is know to suppress arousal, so when adenosine is inhibited by caffeine, a subject's arousal levels return to normal and they are less driven to seek stimuli from the surrounding environment.
http://The_ADHD_and_Sleep_Conundrum__A_Review.11.aspx http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17981738
and others.
-- SuperEditor ( talk) 18:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey there, thanks for your comments on neuroplasticity. Over time hopefully some of the pop science stuff can be addressed (not eliminated without comment, because it is a central feature of a lot of the pop science views on neuroscience.) I'd also like to see better use of sources and references to multiple studies.
I'm also not sure how strong the statement is that non-neuroplasticity was the main consensus view throughout the 20th century. I'm no science historian, but this does imply that the large number of papers touching neuroplasticity made no impact. Perhaps that's exactly what happened?
I'm vitally interested in these topics, in practical applications of the empirical evidence as well as doing what I can to contribute here. Drop me a line sometime in email, I'm easy to find.
Dan Shearer ( talk) 18:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
What an interesting object -- I wanted to create an article about it today but I saw you beat me to it! This is exactly the kind of interesting science that makes a great front-page feature at Did you know ...? so I would like to help get it expanded up to the right size and shape to be featured. Thanks for creating this and thanks also to the mysterious IP who added so much good techy information. Sharktopus talk 17:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for posting the link to Hofstadter's satirical piece. I'd never seen that before, and am very glad to have read it now. Ladyof Shalott 04:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
hi! I definately agree that the music that Scotty sings isn't all Christian although he is a Christian. Thank you so much =) Now I get it because I'm really new to this whole wikipedia thing :) So are you saying not to say that Scotty is a christian american singer... and just instead and american singer because then people will think that he only sings Christian songs? okay thanks! I'll do what u say! sorry cause I didn't really understand thats what it means when you say Christian american country singer. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22046024769264ev ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Philosophy of mind
I am letting you know that I am just about to undo the edits you have made. In my opinion the purpose of those edits was to advertise a book rather than to support the material in the article. Note that Philosophy of mind is a Featured Article, the highest level of article quality in Wikipedia, and we put substantial effort into reviewing and maintaining the sources for articles at that level. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Looie496 Im a little new at this so perhaps you can help, it was my thought that the info posted was important to Nagels thoughts on how to proceed in furthering the epistemology of the issue of qualia in a physical manner
I put the book reference becasue all the notes I see on Wiki suggest strongly that things should be well referenced. Please help if you can to show or teach me how to rewrite it so that it is listed properly best Copernics01 Copernicus01 ( talk) 04:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copernicus01 ( talk • contribs) 03:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Copernicus01 ( talk) 04:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Duberman Preface
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).