User talk:Looie496

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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).

Publishing Hippocampus in WikiJournal[edit]

Hi William,

It seems you have been the most active contributor the Hippocampus article as well [1], and therefore, would you like to join the process of having this one as well published in the journal (which have since been renamed to WikiJournal of Medicine)? As with The Cerebellum article, it would be great if we could make it easier for external sources to cite it, and eventually bring it to PubMed.

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

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

This article has now been peer reviewed by a neuroscientist, discovering several issues: Wikiversity:The Hippocampus#Peer review comments
I hope you can help out in amending these issues. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Norepinephrine (medication) for deletion[edit]

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

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

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

Separation of octopamine[edit]

Hi,

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

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

(talk page watcher) To some extent, it's a matter of the specific case, often depending on how widely the compound is or is not used as a medical drug, but there has been something of a weak consensus that splits are often useful because the reading audience is different for the two topics. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 91#Splitting articles about endogenous molecules used as drugs. Personally, I'm not wild about this particular split, with octopamine, however. I'd suggest starting a discussion at WT:MED. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
The split was my (highly unsatisfactory) solution to the infobox problem. Octopamine has high importance as a neurotransmitter and virtually no importance as a drug, so the infobox associated with it ought to summarize its biological properties, but there have been a group of editors who insist on using a drug infobox for anything that is used as a drug, regardless of how unimportant. Recently however there has been an effort at unifying the drug and neurotransmitter/hormone infoboxes, so it may now be possible to solve the problem in a better way. Best regards, Looie496 (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Bad link[edit]

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

input needed in disagreement on article on "White"[edit]

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

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

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Looie496. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

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