User talk:Looie496

If you leave a message for me here, I'll respond here. If I leave a message on your talk page, I'll look there for a response (but of course you can respond here if you want to).

Maine gubernatorial election, 2010

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)

If you had given a proper warning instead of making a mess of his talk page, I probably would have imposed a block. Looie496 (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I did give him a proper warning. Besides, the talk page has nothing to do with his violation of 3RR, battling, etc.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

So basically if someone messes up my talk page I have every right to violate wikipedia rules? If there is a difference, please explain. Thanks.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 01:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think harassing me is going to benefit you? Looie496 (talk) 05:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I added a comment to this. As you can probably guess, I've had it up to here with working on any and all of these articles. Good night, and good luck. Flatterworld (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Mirror Neuron

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 link you added goes to a paper by Iacoboni and Depretto. All the information in the citation is about a paper by Rizzolati and Craighero. As I said on your talk page, the Iacoboni paper may be a perfectly good reference, but if you want to use it, you should change the authors, title, journal etc in the citation, not just the url. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

User:The Good Doctor Fry

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)

I don't agree that The Good Doctor Fry has resumed the same behavior. See my comment on User talk:Falcon8765. But, by the way, thank you so much for stepping in three days ago! Spiel496 (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Ronz

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)

Could you please clarify the problem for me? Looie496 (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you can go look for yourself. Just bringing this to your attention. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 17:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did check for myself. I saw that he has been engaged in a dispute with an IP editor, but I didn't grasp what it was about. I don't intend to make a deep study of his recent contribs without some more specific info. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you an Admin or not? Look just forget it, I'm tired of trying to point out the obvious. He's the same, his promise and retirement was a show, and you bought it hook, line and sinker. Take care, and good bye. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 19:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

This anon IP appeared soon after User:Jo0doe's block and has been doing similar things:[1] in similar subject areas. Could someone check that out? Faustian (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

IP Ban for F Simon Grant

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).

Now he's edit warring with his sock.Tao2911 (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

now he's using anonymous IP address, and continues to insult, while begging not to be banned. I've filed a sock report (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TaoIsTheEssenceOfMeaninglessness) but since you know the case, I'd appreciate you following up when you get a chance. Cheers.Tao2911 (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. Mission accomplished. IP use blocked for 30 days.Tao2911 (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Plasmodium

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)

I have raised this matter elsewhere with those listed as the mainatiners of the taxobox element. This does not seem to have been a problem to date. I have not insisted that the taxobox is the ONLY solution. I have considered list the species in the main page but I have found this tends to decrease readility and increases the difficulty of maintaince of the page. I have yet to see a more sensible solution proposed. As you will notice from the feedback from the review when it was put forward for GA status I am not averse to useful suggestions. I have asked for workable solutions for other genera where this problem will arise. This is a problem that will arise again and again if the number os species within genera continues to rise with the advent of DNA sequencing and analysis and a generally applicable solution would be most welcome. DrMicro (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That's all good. All I am saying is that you have to find a way to work this out without revert-warring against multiple other editors. Looie496 (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. If you examine the recocd I think you will find that I have sought on this occasion and even before this episode a solution to the problem of large genera. This IMHO will be an increasing problem for wikipedia. I have suggested to the maintainers of the taxobox that a multicolum solution may be the way forward or alternatively a new XML element for larger genera. This I believe is under consideration. I have no idea what if any progress has been made on this matter.

I do not think that a species listing on the main page is the answer. I have seen this elsewhere and it decreases the readability considerably. This is the only solution put forward to date by Kevmin. I have explained my objections to this method to him but he appears to be adamant that there is no other solution.

As you will note from the record I have only reverted edits when they have deleted information from wikipedia. This I understand is in line with Wikipedia policy.

While I may be wrong here I believe that I am the only editor in this dispute that has much experience compling long lists of species for large genera. I would be grateful to hear the view of other editors who have experience of this sort of problem so that a improved solution can be found now that the concenus is that the taxobox is no longer considered fit for purpose. DrMicro (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI section that may require access to academic journals

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#A bit of a POV pushing problem. Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Tomayres talk page

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)

That message was to Tomayres, not to you. Also, I didn't remove any warning -- according to the edit history Tomayres removed a message shortly after I added mine, maybe that's what you were thinking of. Looie496 (talk) 05:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Communist terrorism redux

Kindly view the diffs here [2], followed rapidly by [3], and [4] 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 [5] 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 [6] 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 [7] as well as personal attacks by Siebert at [8], and TFD at [9]. Thanks. Collect (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Request outside neuroscience

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)

I have semi-protected it for 6 months, the most I feel comfortable with. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:AE case about Communist terrorism

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)

Edit warring by User:The Good Doctor Fry

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)

Article Sunset

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)

As the situation stands there is not much I can do to help. When a single editor gets into a dispute with multiple other editors, I can act in support of the multiple editors. But when two single editors get into a dispute about content with each other, unless one of them shows severe misbehavior such as personal attacks, there is no clear basis for administrative action. In short, if you can get other editors who have contributed to the article to agree that Spiel496 is misbehaving, I may be able to do something, otherwise probably not. Looie496 (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I do understand your reply; frankly, it's much what I expected actually. It would likely be my own reply as well, given the model of Wikipedia. This kind of situation again illustrates a fundamental flaw of WP when it comes to topics such as this. In select cases where I am knowledgeable, I would examine sources and make a judgment, but that requires a different model of WP oversight to be successful in general. As it stands, WP will likely never become an acceptable source of reliable information. Thanks for attention to the article though. Kbrose (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Need help

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: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. 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)

Thanks

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.