User talk:Looie496

Hello, Looie496! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Gimme danger (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

A Scientific Dissent

Well done. If you look back you'll see I arrived on the talk page saying I had a view on the issues but was not going to say what it was. And you've seen how well that worked. But what do I know, I'm only a social scientist. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Your example of an article on Zeus was apposite. One way I think of it is that each article must fall under some area of scholarship. When you can identify what that area is, then you can identify which sources to use in the article. For example, in cold fusion, a very contentious article, I suggested that it was a science article and therefore we should be using mainly scientific literature; that was agreed. ASDD is not a science article but an article on science politics (more precisely, science politics in the USA). So the references should mainly be to political analysts and commentators. I had high hopes of the Renka article as the author is a political scientist, but when I looked more closely it was hardly a notable opinion at all. There is one basic problem with this article, and that is that there has not been a great deal of commentary on the petition. I really wish we could find more sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Judith. I think with patience it may be possible to work this out, since all of us have the same basic attitude toward the topic, and it's simply a question of how to organize the presentation. The basic problem is that the people who've been contributing to the article have worked on it so much that they're no longer able to see it from the viewpoint of a reader. If we can get them to do that again, the battle will be largely won (I hope).Looie496 (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV issue

Thank you for your reply here. However the user who first raised the issue about thoese statments still doesn't seem convinced basically because it was the only reply and because you "about 200 edits". Do you think you could go into and bit more detail or recommend another user to ask. Buc (talk) 07:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason nobody else said anything is because there was nothing else to say: it's just too obvious. Could you point me to the relevant discussion -- I wasn't able to find it. If I could understand why the person in question thinks there is a pov problem, I might be able to say something.Looie496 (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Gonzo fan2007 is the user who has a problem with it. Mainly because of the use of word "only". Buc (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hippocampal Formation

Happy those figures were yours. As I write my thesis on phase precession, I have become quite familiar with your '95 thesis and was worried that someone was using your figures without attribution. ThetaMonkey (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

"Dawkins on Darwin"

FYI: "Dawkins on Darwin" to air August 4, 2008

I thought you might be interested in the following:

A July 18, 2008 Times-Online interview with Richard Dawkins discussed an upcoming television film entitled, "Dawkins on Darwin", which will air in the UK on Channel 4 from August 4. In the interview, Dawkins specifically states that his film is about Darwinism.

Given Dawkins' high profile in this controversy, it should be informative to watch and see how he currently uses the terms: Darwinism, evolution and natural-selection. Enjoy! - DannyMuse (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"Chill"

I suggest, next time you feel the need to butt in and tell someone to "chill out" you take a moment to shut your mouth and think to yourself: am I helping the situation one iota? In this case, you were not, and I ask that you refrain from posting similar drivel on my talk page ever again. I hope I've made myself clear, and I hope you have a wonderful day. --Badger Drink (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)