User talk:Nrets

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Picture of Nissl Stained Rodent Hippocampus at Neuron from Brainmaps.org, not NIH 2 leta hollingworth 3 Cerebellum 4 Silent Synapses 5 Purkinje 6 What to do when Wikimedia returns no response 7 New Stub 8 Basal ganglia 9 Basal ganglia new problems 10 Emotion 11 Front Page 12 Synapes diagrams 13 Avicine 14 Your welcoming message 15 "Not giant squid, giant axon in regular squid!" 16 Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience 17 Brain 18 Silent synapses 19 orthodoxy suppresses open debate 20 Neuroscientists 21 Animal testing 22 Talk page comment format 23 CREB 24 Growth cone 25 AIDS 26 H5N1 and AIDS 27 Franz Nissl 28 AIDS 29 Thanks 30 Draize Test 31 Thanks for your help 32 Semi 33 Basal ganglia 34 Thanks 35 Hey dumbass 36 A virtue 37 Please stop it 38 Your advice? 39 Category:Ethically disputed business practices or Category:Business ethics 40 Draize test argument 41 Wikiproject proposal 42 Your note 43 Slim V. 44 Troll? 45 AfD 46 Primates at Cambridge 47 Re email 48 License tagging for Image:SynapseIllustration2.png 49 New template 50 Comments on animal testing page 51 Electrical synapses

[edit] Picture of Nissl Stained Rodent Hippocampus at Neuron from Brainmaps.org, not NIH

Just a note that the image you uploaded at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NisslHippo2.jpg is from http://brainmaps.org and not NIH. See http://brainmaps.org/index.php?i=hippocampus . Please correct the source where this image came from since this violates their terms of use

[edit] leta hollingworth

I was going to clean it up myself. Ok.

Hello there! I noticed your recent contribution to Cerebellum and I just wanted to let you know that we usually use the "minor edit" designation to refer exclusively to prose edits; that is, grammar, style, wiki-links, a comma here and there, etc. Whenever you add actual information, no matter how insignificant that info may seem, I would recommend leaving the "this is a minor edit" box unchecked. Thanks for your edit, and welcome to Wikipedia! Jeeves 09:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cerebellum

Nrets-- I just recently got back from vacation--sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. As you can see I've reworked the cerebellum article pretty heavily once again. I took your advice about the cerebellar blood supplies not needing their own pages. In the future I may do a redirect or something or stub articles for different parts of the cerebellum, but for now I took away the wiki links entirely. Also, I don't have any good diagrams, though I'll look around. If you can find/make one, please put it up, as this page needs them! Semiconscious (talk · home) 09:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

---

• I got this message just as I was about to log off. Yes, I put this in. I'll double-check with my advisor (a neurologist), but as far as I remember, it's true. I've worked with Ivry, who pioneered the cerebellar timing theory, and from his stories about working with cerebellar patients I recall this tidbit. I'll get back to you on it soon. Semiconscious (talk · home) 15:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• I've got verbal confirmation of this. Apparently physicians will give little info IDs to people with all sorts of neurological problems to help them avoid issues with authorities: turret's syndrom, cerebellar lesions, etc. Basically for any social disinhibitory disease or condition, or any condition giving the outward appearance of intoxication. Semiconscious (talk · home) 19:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Silent Synapses

Hi Nrets. The Montgomery paper referenced on the bottom of the page, and also: Xiao MY, Wasling P, Hanse E, Gustafsson B. Creation of AMPA-silent synapses in the neonatal hippocampus. Nat Neurosci. 2004 Mar;7(3):236-43. Epub 2004 Feb 15. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14966524&query_hl=7

Mebbe, mebbe not ;-).

The Montgomery paper, in the first two or three figures shows the silencing of a synapse by low frequency stimulation.

....and ru, by any chance, an author on that Voronin paper?

Well, whatever, you are unusually knowledgable about the field. I guess inclusion of the Vornonin paper is OK, depending on how deeply you want the article to go. IMHO, both the whispering synapse and the "mute" synapses hypotheses have been scientifically discredited. The methodology used to support both was fundamentally flawed, and the flaw was both published in the literature and communicated to (Vornonin, Cherubini)directly. That they persist in publishing "reviews" that push their agenda indicates to me only that they don't "get it". Now, of course we all have our agendas, but one is ill-advised to continue to push a cherished agenda when actual facts have shown it to be a non-starter. The issue is highly technical and would be beyond anyone who is not unusually knowledgeable about synaptic physiology - so it seems like a discussion of it might be innapropriate for a wiki pedia article, but then again, it would be fun as hell to write a subsection exposing those issues to light.

I'm having a lot of fun discussing this with you, and maybe we should take it to the article's talk page, where others might benefits from the discussion.

[edit] Purkinje

Nrets, I found the picture online, where it is cited as being a photo of an original sketch on display at the Instituto Santiago Ramón y Cajal. I'm not sure if it was originally published anywhere as it was likely just from a sketchbook. Semiconscious (talk · home) 20:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I never mind edits to my work--if I did I wouldn't be a scientist! I'm such a big fan of Cajal's work (hell, I desinged and named my graduate student website after him). I've been trying to track down images of his sketches. A donor from Spain--after hearing our graduate student site was named after Cajal--gave the director of our institute a copy of one of his original works! He was an amazing scientist. What is it that you do, my friend? Semiconscious (talk · home) 23:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What to do when Wikimedia returns no response

Sometimes, the software will report to you that there was no response to the Wikimedia server. If you are using a browser that keeps changes in the text field if you go "Back" (i.e. Firefox), please follow these steps and make sure your edit wasn't actually gone through:

1. Press back, going back to the edit page
2. Press article, go to the article
3. Check if your edit is there:
   1. If it is there, stop, you're done
   2. If it isn't, press Back
4. Now, resubmit.

This prevents duplication, especially on Talk Pages. Thanks! — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 17:14, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Stub

Nrets, head over to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals#Neuroanatomy_stub to check out the proposal for a new neuroanatomy stub. I'm not sure if we should do a neuroanatomy or neuroscience stub. The stub-master suggests {{nervous-anatomy-stub}} because the anatomy page lists "nervous system" as a major body system and I think he wished to follow that designation. Your input would be appreciated. Semiconscious (talk · home) 10:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Nice! I like the neuroscience template a lot. It looks good man. :) Semiconscious (talk · home) 20:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• So I went ahead and finished creating it. I've put some articles in it already; we need to somehow figure out subcategories, categories, etc. There's a fair amount to do here.

• Category:Neuroscience_stubs
• Template:Neuroscience-stub

Semiconscious (talk · home) 00:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Basal ganglia

So I'm not sure if I'm going to be getting to this any time soon. I'm teaching an incredibly difficult course this semester (neuroanatomy), taking an even harder course (computational & theoretical neuroscience), applying for the NSF, and preping for my quals which are this coming Spring... On top of that I'm trying to keep some of my own research moving forward. Ugh. I'll try and add to this article when I can, but I wouldn't wait with bated breath my friend :) Semiconscious (talk · home) 20:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Basal ganglia new problems

The basal ganglia system has extensively changed since the last years. Please read Primate basal ganglia system. They are data for introducing computanional aproaches.The recent view are entirely different but are complex of one start from the credo . As well as for cerebellum one must introduces the shape and mutual orientation of neuronal afferent and receiving elements--Gerard.percheron 13:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Gerard.Percheron

If not necessarily competent censors think that one text or article does not please to the Wikipedia's world, the lesser politness should be to place it, in World format for instance,in order to allow the author to remove it for another publication somewhere else. Someone (an administrator?) completely suppresses a french version that I made from the Primate basal ganglia system; which represents an ecclesiastic censure. The enligthment encyclopedia (Diderot, D'alembert), the start of every encyclopedia, did not care about the common opinion (an encyclopedia is not a democratic vote). They were reversely trying to find the most competent authors to raise the level of the general knowledge.--Gerard.percheron 14:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Gerard.Percheron

[edit] Emotion

I read the emotion page today and didn't like what I found. I'm thinking of starting to rewrite it and was curious to hear if you had any thoughts on what would be interesting to see there. sallison 09:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Sallison: I actually think the Emotion page is fine as is. It presents a psychological and philosophical perspective and I think the link you put to your affective neuroscience article is the way to go regarding neural mecanisms. One comment about the affective neuroscience article, it looks like its coming along nicely, but you really need a section in there regarding affective disorders, since many of what is known in this field stems from their study. Nice job though! Nrets 15:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Very well. I still think the psych arguments could use some balancing in themselves. I may still try some things ... and you can tell me if you like them. also, congrats on on the cerebellum feature article. cheers, sallison 05:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Front Page

My wikipedia face time has been dwindling a fair bit as of late; I feel like we did all that work and now I can hardly enjoy it! The vandalism comes with the territory it seems; I'm rather appalled by some of the things some people write. It's a shame. However it doesn't mean I won't enjoy it while it's still on the main page today! What article (if any) are you working on these days? Semiconscious (talk · home) 19:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

As I think I've said somewhere here on WP before, I'm TAing a really tough neuroanatomy lab this semester. On top of that I'm taking this intense computational/theoretical neuroscience course. Between those two classes, preparing for my quals, writing fellowship applications, various committees, and trying to maintain a semblence of a social life, I've not had much time for WP. This weekend and next are two retreats for my institute. Once those are over I should have some time to put into the basal ganglia article. I like your idea of splitting the electrophysiology page, as well. Semiconscious (talk · home) 20:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to congratulate both of you for frontpaging. It's an awesome achievement!—encephalonὲγκέφαλον 20:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Came across this mention in a blog; thought you might be interested. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Synapes diagrams

Hello, thanks for your modifications. I will forward the information to the contributor who is working on the french article. Best, Dake 20:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Avicine

When you tag an article for speedy deletion because it is a blatent copyvio, please go to the talk page of the user who created the article and add {{subst:nothanks-sd|pg=PAGENAME|url=URL}} to notify the user that the page is being considered for deletion as a copyvio. Otherwsie an admin has to do this before the article can be deleted. You also might want to consider using {{db-copyvio}} in future rather than rolling your own. This has the exact language of the CSD criterion, which helps reminds all involvd of the rather narrow limits of this particular CSD. Thank you for finding and tagging this copyvio. DES ^(talk) 19:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your welcoming message

Hi there, I've been noticing your recent contributions to several neuroscience-related articles. I just wanted to point out that there is a neuroscience-stub category you might want to use in your articles rather than using the less descriptive bio-stub. Also, I redirected your article on Resting channel to Resting ion channel, which is a more descriptive title. I hope you don't mind. I also left a message for you in the AMPAR talk page. Finally, I wanted to encourage you to keep up the great level of work you have been contributing. Cheers, Nrets 14:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Good call on resting ion channel. Sorry about saying nmda channels are more conductive to Ca by the way, I think I was confused because ca's reversal potential is so much higher so more goes through.

Hey, question: I found a really good lit review through a school database and I wanted to add it to the external links section of an existing page. Problem is, it's so new the abstract's not even on pubmed yet. Should I put the citation for the article up even if there's no link yet, and hope someone will put it up later? Sorry if you're not the right one to ask about this. --Delldot 20:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

the reference is microbio, not neurobio, but if you're interested, here's the article. I did like you said and added it to the human papillomavirus page. thanks for the help! --Delldot 22:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Greenblatt R.J. 2005. Human papillomaviruses: Diseases, diagnosis, and a possible vaccine. Clinical Microbiology Newsletter, 27(18), 139-145.

[edit] "Not giant squid, giant axon in regular squid!"

Your correction is in err. It is the axon in the giant squid that I referred to, which was indeed, if you'll check the literature, the basis for these understandings.

• Hodgkin and Huxley performed experiments on the giant axon of the Atlantic squid Loligo pealei, here is a link to their classic paper [[1]] and to some information about the species from the MBL [[2]]. The "giant squid" is truly a giant, and is a species that has rarely been seen [[3]]. Nrets 19:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience

Nrets: I'm trying to revive the temporarily defunct Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience. You should join, man! Cheers. :) Semiconscious (talk · home) 06:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brain

I'm not crazy, right? That article really does need a lot of work before it goes FA. Semiconscious (talk · home) 09:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice work over on neuron. As you know by know, my knowledge of higer-level systems outweighs that of lower-level. It doesn't seem as though I can add much to neuron, but I've got a lot to say over on brain. I finally edited basal ganglia though, and will be adding more. Feel free to add anything if you have the time. Happy holidays my friend. Semiconscious (talk · home) 09:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Silent synapses

Hey Nrets. I have no quarrel whatsoever with the idea that there are low Pr synapses, or that the Pr can be dropped even further by activity, rendering them essentially mute. The data I quibble with are in the studies where they try to argue that NMDA-only synapses ARE low Pr synapses. My problem with the Gasparini paper is a bit more insideous than just the PPF stuff. My problem with it is that after they have established "minimal stimulation" they then change the stimulus strength (upwards). This will always add in an AMPA/NMDA synapse to their recording, and thus they will never be studying an NMDA only synapse in isolation. It is exactly my point that Gasparini (and Chao et al as well) are studying low Pr synapses not NMDA - only synapses.

[edit] orthodoxy suppresses open debate

Thanks for your removal of the "orthodoxy suppresses open debate" section on AIDS reappraisal. I wasn't bold enough to remove it myself because I thought doing so might further inflame its original author, but I agree that it isn't related to the reappraisals of Peter Duensberg et al. and so doesn't the belong in that article. The Rod 19:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It is rather amusing that you reject the views of a scientist whose name you can't even spell and whose works you've never read. Nonetheless, you can remove it all you want. I will put it back because a) It is a dissident argument b) You are not a dissident c) There is nothing in the chronology of the page that says it doesn't belong where it is. And d) It is not redundant, perhaps one sentence is. I have an idea: You, an ORTHODOX promoter, stick to promoting yoour views on orthodox pages. And I will stick to accurately stating dissident positions on the dissident page. It is not the Peter Duesberg page, either, to the other person. Sgactorny 20:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

In the previous message, I was addressing both of you, neither of whom are AIDS dissidents and both of whom are invested in censoring AIDS dissident views from the AIDS dissident page. Please stop. Stick to promoting your paradigm on the orhtodoxy pages. Thanks. Sgactorny 20:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I will accurately state and reference dissident positions. Are you a dissident? Why are you invested in keeping people from reading the views AIDS dissidents? I have lost too many of my friends to AIDS to let you censor, even on Wikipedia, the actual views of AIDS dissidents, with threats of banning me and banning the actual views of AIDS dissidents. It's wrong. Please stop. You have the right to sit on the orthodox AIDS pages and promote the current paradigm that HIV-causes-AIDS all you want. Why must you also try and stop AIDS activists who care about people with AIDS from trying to educate peopole about what AIDS dissidents actually believe? Sgactorny 20:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• As I said, this is not about "Promoting views", it is about stating facts. Nrets 20:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I absolute agree with your new edit. The article is MOSTLY written from the perspective of the AIDS orthodoxy: dissident positions are missttated throughout...It is a real mess. I will work on it slowly. If you knew anything at all about the actual dissident viewpoint, you would know that. So I agree with your new header. Thanks. Sgactorny 20:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Nrets. I admire your handling of the AIDS reappraisal dispute so far. Hopefully, Sgactorny can finish making his points there so we can filter the article for accuracy and POV. Until then, the {{POV}} template and obvious conspiracy language should adequately alert otherwise naïve readers. In the meantime, stay cool and don't let personal attacks push you too far away. Cheers! The Rod 17:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Ideally, there would be a more direct citation between the various linked Science articles and the exact terms used in the paragraph under discussion ("conflict between sound scientific practice and a group of politically motivated activists", "selectively pick and choose ... scientific evidence", "superstition", "fear", "degraded useful scientific debate", "overwhelming majority of scientific evidence"). The Rod 20:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your "unleashed the worst" comment: the user already had strong resolve, and unleashing it was not your doing. We are just challenged with staying cool and better incorporating him into the collaborative effort that is Wikipedia. P.S. I'll review your reworked paragraph within an hour or so. Thanks for working on it. The Rod 03:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Although it's difficult to refrain from debate, in order to unlock and improve the article we must refrain from making judgements that a view is "absurd" or "distorted", a dissident is "publicity-hungry" or on a "high-horse", or accusations are "over-hyped". The Rod 19:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Hahaha, good luck Nrets. I've gotten into a few debates like this in the past over "science conspiracy" claims on Wikipedia. Such people can be rather frustrating to work with. Just keep going and know that most of us understand the logic of what you're saying, even though the person toward whom it is directed may not. Semiconscious · talk 19:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neuroscientists

Searched for "neuroanatomist", "neuropathologist", "neuroendocrinologist", and "neurobiologist" and was able to root out a few more. I like this game. :) Semiconscious • talk 04:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animal testing

Please don't remove stuff from this article without discussion. It's a controversial topic so that kind of thing is bound to ruffle feathers. Bring your suggested deletions to talk and we can chat about it. Just removing the stuff means that interested editors have to trawl through your edits, trying to work out what you've taken out and why. Grace Note 03:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note and thanks for putting the stuff on talk. I'm really pushed at the moment but I will look at it. Please don't delete anything until there's been a full discussion.Grace Note 05:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page comment format

Hi Nrets, I have noticed that when you comment on a talk page you use the format * instead of : to indent your comment. Please could you restrict it to only using the : indentation style as the * style can lead to confusion about who is talking etc... Cheers Localzuk ^(talk) 18:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, I am not trying to say you don't sign your comments. What I am saying is that you always include a bullet point (*) at the beginning of each message. The guidelines for talk pages just advise that you indent using : (one per indent amount). -Localzuk ^(talk) 18:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not 'picking on you', I am just asking if you could stick to the documentation/advice on this as it currently looks mish-mash and makes it confusing to work through. Most people use the : style not the * style so it is easier to ask the few than the many. I have asked 2 people today about it and have asked 1 person in the past. I have not singled you out - it is simply that I have seen you using the * style so thought I'd ask you to change it.-Localzuk ^(talk) 18:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Cheers for that :) Localzuk ^(talk) 18:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CREB

What I meant is that it activates a dominant-negative mechanism which shuts off CREB. I have deleted the word dominant which isn't really necessary. As for the link for the ref, its the external link after the word "recently" in the paragraph. Thanks for your feedback..--Tycho 00:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Growth cone

Growth cone: This is more your field, right? I wrote the article; can you make sure I didn't f**k it up too badly? :) Semiconscious • talk 23:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AIDS

Hi, RfC probably won't solve the problem since the user seems determines to exert the POV regarless of other editor opinions. It might be a good idea to suggest mediation to work out an appropriate balance for these articles, otherwise you and The Rod may need to take it to the ArbCom. If you need and advice, feel free to leave me a message.--nixie 02:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you should correspond with the Perth Group scientists and Dr. Stefan Lanka. Would you do this? I can put you in touch with them. I am happy to read the data, but I'm not the experts, they are. I do not represent them, they do. I don't have much time on my hands, less and less in fact is about to happen. But you see I am not insane nor do I have ill-will. I'm interested in the truth. And by the way, this is only on the issue of isolation, not on the accuracy of antibody tests, or AIDS etiology. Duesberg is on your side, send the articles to theauis@gmail.com please. Thanks, Sgactorny 21:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] H5N1 and AIDS

Hi. I discovered you (like Columbus discovered America) on the AIDS reappraisal pages. Could you please look at the H5N1 series of pages? I'm doing the best I can, but I think you could help. Please? WAS 4.250 22:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Franz Nissl

Hey, I noticed your changes to Franz Nissl. Were you aware that some of the text in the version you reverted to appears to be copied directly from this copyrighted page? I'm not sure if the slight differences in wording are enough to avoid a copyright problem. Do you think the wording should be changed more? Or what do you think should be done? Thanks, delldot | talk 01:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks a bunch. I'll strike out my note on WP:CP saying you'll do that. Peace, delldot | talk 02:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AIDS

apologies. I was hoping that sgactor would engage in discussion on the talk page. If he is unwilling to do so, we will fix the article around him. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for your cooperation until now. It is helpful. --Redhead 22:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Draize Test

Hi, I'd be grateful for your views and contributions to the discussion at Draize test. At the moment it looks like a two way contest and SV seems to be ignoring the new sources I quote in the discussion. MedicalScientist 18:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your help

I am new here (but learning) and your format corrections of my comments on the Jason Bennett delete page helped. I am grateful. Tree Trimer 18:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi

Nrets: Thanks man... it's been good working with you online over the last year. It's sad to go, but I've simply got too much work to do these days. If you ever end up in the Bay Area, or out at SfN or other neuro conferences, email me. My email address is <my old username>@gmail.com. :) -- Semi

[edit] Basal ganglia

Hi! I hope that you don't mind me bothering you--I picked your name from the list of participants in the Neuroscience wikiproject. I was wonding if you would take a look at the Basal ganglia article. This article has recently been extensively rewritten by a new editor (mostly editing from anon IPs). The edits are clearly good faith edits, but I feel that the new content is at too advanced a level for wikipedia--I would consider myself reasonably knowledgeable in the field (I am a post-doc researching the physiology of subthalamic nucleus neurons), and I have to re-read many of the parts of the additions a few times. This is the dif from what I would consider the last good version. I am unsure what to do--as a revert would seem ungrateful of this editors efforts--so I would appreciate a second opinion. Thanks, JeremyA 13:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the second opinion. I agree that, as well as being advanced, the writing was poor. I think that the same editor worked on the Globus pallidus article before, I spent a lot of time trying to integrate the added content but ended up deleting is. So, in this case, I decided that the best action was to resore the version from 19 April; I have left a note on the talk page explaining why. Thanks again, JeremyA 13:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for helping out with GP. --Arcadian 15:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey dumbass

You *DO* realise that really is Harvey and I you're speaking to at Talk:Harvey Bialy??? Revolver 21:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, all I'm trying to do is make sure the article is accurate, and so far I haven't been able to confirm independently the information within it. When asked for a source all I get is a barrage of insults, as evidenced by your uncivil remarks. Nrets 21:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A virtue

Thanks for so calmly taking Somasimple's questions over at Talk:Action potential. Folks like you make Wikipedia a great place to be. Cheers, David Iberri (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop it

What are you playing at, turning up to edit war at an article you've never edited before? The page has just been through an extensive rewrite. All the criticism is now incorporated into the text, as it should be. All your edit achieved was to introduce repetition. This is disruptive editing, and WP:POINT. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your advice?

Hello Nrets. Per your interest in animal experimentation issues, I wonder if you would mind having a look at a related mini project i'm embarking on? Your opinion would be most welcome. Thanks. Rockpocket 07:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Ethically disputed business practices or Category:Business ethics

Hi Nrets! In Animal testing, you just changed the former back to the latter, writing "rm cat, this page is not only about business practices". By the same argument, one could remove Category:Business ethics as well.

That said, I think I see what you mean. I probably didn't choose the right name for the category. What I meant was something like "Practices disputed in business ethics". My purpose was to give them a category on their own, because the main category already contained many organizations, laws, principles, crimes, individual cases and other articles. Do you have an idea for a name that would achieve this? Common Man 00:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Draize test argument

Hi, I would just like to apologise for my recent, rather pointless, argument regarding the image on Draize test. The only explanation I can give is that I was having a bad day. Cheers, Localzuk ^(talk) 13:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject proposal

Hi, I am posting this message to everyone who has edited on animal rights or animal welfare related articles in the last couple of months. I have just created a proposal for a WikiProject to help co-ordinate editors on the many articles under the mentioned subjects. If you would like to find out about it or show your support for such a project, please visit User:Localzuk/Animal Rights Proposal and Wikipedia:WikiProject/List of proposed projects#WikiProject Animal Rights and Welfare. Cheers, Localzuk ^(talk) 10:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your note

If you want to stop being accused of editing disruptively, then learn how to edit, and stop turning up to support every single thing that you think makes animal rights look bad. As I and others have pointed out, you have never made a pro-animal rights edit, or even a neutral one. All your edits are designed to be anti, and they are never, ever informed. If you want to be a Wikipedian, you have to be willing and able to edit from both POVs, at least occasionally. You also have to treat the articles with respect and read before you edit them. Look at this edit, for example. Read the section as you left it. The paragraph you added has nothing to do with the rest of the section; there is no narrative flow whatsoever. It's embarrassingly bad editing. You moved the section there only because I had moved other sections, so it's WP:POINT and incredibly childish. I am sick and tired of it, and I'm not the only one. If you don't like animal rights and aren't prepared to do any reading about the topic, or even read the articles or sections you're editing, please edit elsewhere. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slim V.

Wikipediareview.com might be of interest to you. Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 16:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. [4] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Troll?

Wondering what you think of this? Pete.Hurd 18:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Sounds like it's time for a close. -- Samir धर्म 22:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Primates at Cambridge

Thanks for your message. I had actually written much of the text in the article myself, when it is a subsection of the SPEAK article, illustrating how and why the campaign started. In that context, i didn't have any problem with it. SV moved it to its own article as it grew and began to unbalance the rest of the article. I supported the move at the time.

However, that said, i see your point that in its current state, the article isn't a balanced overview of its title: Primate experiments at Cambridge University. I agree it would either be better served under a title such as Cambridge University primate research controversy, or else more information about primate research be incorporated for balance. Unfortunately, i don't have much knowledge of primate research there (and its probably not that easy to come by, due to the risk of extremist reaction publicising that information would hold). However, i'll see what i can find out. Rockpocket 23:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've had a go at balancing this article. Its still not perfect, but better. I think. Rockpocket 01:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re email

Hi Nrets, No mate, I don't think I sent you an email unless technology has got out of control and is taking over my computer - which is possible!! Perhaps its someone else? Keep well friend and thanks for taking the trouble and show such concern – it's appreciated. --Hari Singh 18:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:SynapseIllustration2.png

Thanks for uploading Image:SynapseIllustration2.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New template

Template:Animal_testing_advocacy has been created, I've been digging for references on WIKI pages of groups or people advocating for research including animals. The people are mostly affiliated with one or other of the advocacy groups. Any help appreciated. Ultimately the template will be added to the animal testing page and possibly other relevant spots (Pro-Test page, RDS page, etc).--Animalresearcher 16:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on animal testing page

"Because it is in the best interest of those editors to hide information that they do not agree with, and to highlight that which supports their point of view."

As you yourself mention, this is not assuming good faith. It is also a personal attack against us as our names are specifically mentioned. If you do this again, I will report you at WP:PAIN.

Now, for the reasons, I will comment on the article's talk page.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You are trying to cause a rift to be created by attacking 2 editors without any justification other than a perceived idea that we are both 'editing to support our point of view'. You did not provide any evidence of this and as such it is uncivil, against good faith and can be reported at WP:PAIN.

Also, as I was editing in good faith in order to prevent such rifts between editors being caused - which is still my intention - telling someone to refrain from such behaviour is acceptable and not a blockable issue. -Localzuk^(talk) 20:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Electrical synapses

Do you really believe the electrical synapse work? When I spoke with Markram about it, he was adamant. All the patch work is done in immature animals so that the infrared confocal imaging allows direct visualization of cell bodies. In short, because with this new technology it is 1000 times easier to patch a cell, all the research is done on immature animals. Markram stated personally to me that gap junctions are dramatically more apparent in early postnatal days than after P20 (rat). No one has really looked well after P28 because the myelin obstructs the imaging system, and you have to patch blind (like the good old days). Whereas I wouldn't argue that gap junction synapses are not present, I am pretty sure that Connors work is wholely misrepresentative of their presence in the adult (ie: fairly rare). --Animalresearcher 15:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)