User talk:Saganaki-/Archive 1: September 2006 - mid June 2007

Sorry, it was reported on IRC as a "large scale blanking", but as I look at it, it looks more like "reorgainization". Feel free to rv it. My apologies. -Royalguard11(Talk)(Desk) 04:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Brain implant vs BCI

Hey. BCI and brain implants are separate things. BCI is a form of a brain implant but a brain implant does not imply that it is about a computer connection. A brain implant could be a simple brain pacemaker or it could even involve the insertion of foreign biological material such as stem cells for the treatment degenerative diseases. That said, improve them as much as you want, just remember that they are not necessarily the same thing. Best. --Ben Houston 22:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point, thanks Ben. --Saganaki- 00:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Brain-computer interface

I would like to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. --Pjacobi 12:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, point taken. Cheers --Saganaki- 12:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism 70.98.73.2

Hi user at ip 70.98.73.2 is on a vandalism spree (see [1] [2] etc) Noticed that you've already warned them but the page count is three and rising so I thought you might be the person to take things the next step. Cheers--Saganaki- 13:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I allowed some leeway because of the delay since the last warning, but as you rightly pointed out, there is intent at malice. I have issued a final warning.

Regards

LittleOldMe 13:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The Free Wholesale Directory & IDIM Business advertising, spam article

This article, The Free Wholesale Directory & IDIM, appears to be blatant business advertising/spamming. Obvious language aside, the wikpedia username of the main contributor also appears used in the html of the external links. Wondered if you could take action? Cheers --Saganaki- 04:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, somebody else has already deleted the article (probably while I was asleep).

Regards

LittleOldMe 15:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Brain-computer interface

The article Brain-computer interface you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be adressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. _→AzaToth 20:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Company spam nonsense (RE: Help desk)

See Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Specifically, look for the Adding spam links and Adding promotional material rows. You could also hit them with Introducing material without proper citations, Not adhering to neutral point of view, etc. Just writing something up yourself works as well ;P -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion nomination? =

You contribute to editing I-flex Solutions - owned by Oracle, and you go around nominating for deletion articles informing about a product line by its competitor?

Responsed to user on page. For the record it's User:198.129.218.190.

And as was responded there - I am using that computer and have no idea what you are talking about. Stop polluting.

User:198.129.218.190 again. Responding on page.--Saganaki- 07:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Robert_Lawrence_Kuhn autobiography

I agree that its problematic. So long as its tagged for NPOV and needing refs then it can be taken care of at some point. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

DataMirror

Kudos on the long overdue cleanup of this article. I removed the npov and advert tags, and polished it up a bit. Thanks! -- Robocoder (t|c) 18:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:MiguelNicolelisActuator.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:MiguelNicolelisActuator.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. MECU≈talk 23:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Heya!

Just a short heads up, notifications of speedy deletions should be put on the user talk pages of editors, not the user pages... - Ta bu shi da yu 08:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Tessella (company)

Please do not restore prod tags to articles after they have been removed. If you look at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion especially the section called Conflicts you will see that the tag should not be restored no matter what. Cheers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CambridgeBayWeather (talk • contribs) 14:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Michel Perrenoud

Hi, thanks for letting me know. I didn't check the deletion logs prior to adding the translation template. It's been a long time since I've studied French so I've took your word for it and tagged for speedy deletion! - 12:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Esashi

I'll do my best but it might be a while. If you get tired of waiting, feel free to make a start. Zargulon 07:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean Esashi, Hokkaido (Hiyama) ? Or some other Esashi? Please watch that page and improve my translation. Zargulon 12:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Garrett Stanley reference

[shifted from user page]

The Garrett Stanley reference does not use a brain-computer interface, per the definition in the introduction. It neither has a computer accept a command from a brain, or issue a command to a brain. Instead, the brain computer relation in that study uses the computer to record when the brain is active. This is commonly done in neuroscience labs worldwide.

My feeling is the Georgopoulos study should be removed also for similar reasons. Studies of how neural signals create outputs are not brain-computer interfaces. Studies that let neural signals create outputs in the computer that alter the local environment to the animal are brain computer interfaces.

Most specifically, in both of those studies, the brain neither sends a command to a computer, or accepts a command from a computer, which fails the definitional test in the introduction. --Animalresearcher 12:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for spamming your user page instead of your discussion page.

Studies of neural coding that use computers are categorically different from those that interface brains and computers. The neural coding studies only interface with a brain by recording its activity. You might as well say a simple EEG is also a brain-computer interface, and a simple EKG a heart-computer interface, so long as a computer is used to record the signals. As I pointed out, the article defines the brain-computer interface as requiring either the brain to actuate the computer (ie: send commands to it) or the computer to actuate the brain (ie: stimulate it typically electrically). The Stanley reference, and the Georgopoulos reference, do not do that. Instead, the computer is used only to record what the brain is doing. The references do not fit the page, at the very least they should be reclassified as studies of neural coding that may motivate brain-computer interfaces. The problem with that, of course, is that there are thousands and thousands of studies of neural coding in which computers are used to record data, and only a few brain-computer interface examples. --Animalresearcher 15:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Assabu Town Logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Assabu Town Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 10:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

June 2007

Thank you for making a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. « ANIMUM » 01:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

RE:

The Final warning needs to be recent; like today or yesterday. Thanks, « ANIMUM » 12:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

A vandal has to recently vandalize past a recent final warning, so no, I can't block until the IP vandalizes again. « ANIMUM » 00:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)