User talk:Neurorel

Bingham

Found a UCL reference for Roger Bingham. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/alumni/alumni-news/ucl-people/68_memories Wagonlease (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caltech reference

Could you add a link to the reference you site for Roger Bingham's time as a visiting scholar at Caltech? You mention it in the comments but it didn't get a ref link. Also, the paragraph about Bingham's theory of evolutionary theoretical neuroscience seems to have been changed a lot recently on that page so I am adding a section to discuss that to the Talk page. Caromk (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet investigation

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Neurorel. Thank you. Edhubbard (talk) 03:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neuroscientist vs. Neurologist

It looks like it has been left as Neuroscientist! Thanks for the message on my page; I haven't logged in since I made that edit. Obsessive Wikipedia users are incredibly annoying, even when something is plainly obvious! Vivara (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Mirror neuron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Churchland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

... for letting me know. Unbelievable, huh? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

Remember that when adding medical content please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

copying message to here, left at User page (not at my Talk page) in this dif. putting it here to keep discussion in 1 place Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concern;however the pedigree for the research I cited is about as good as you can hope for. I came across this research on Viatcheslav Wlassoff's web site,Brain Blogger. The researchers involved include Tamar Makin at Oxford, who is one of the world's leading researchers in the neuroscience of phantom limbs. If you read the article, I think you will see that it is extremely sophisticated research. Neurorel (talk)

Actually you are new here, so I don't think you do appreciate the concern. Please read the message above for the principles involved here in Wikipedia which is not like other places where information is published. If you don't understand what that message means, please ask. You can reply here. Thanks~ Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

copying message to here, left at my Talk page) in this dif. putting it here to keep discussion in 1 place Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, allow me to point out that the research in question is basic research. Secondly, please examine the acknowledgement section at the end of the article. This research was funded by both the Wellcome Trust and the Royal Society. It is the highest caliber of research.

Acknowledgements The study was funded by the Wellcome Trust and the Royal Society. SK is supported by the UK Medical Research Council and Merton College, Oxford. JK holds a Stevenson Junior Research Fellowship at University College, Oxford. SJ is supported by the UK Medical Research Council (MR/L009013/1). CFB is supported by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO-Vidi 864-12-003) and gratefully acknowledges funding from the Wellcome Trust UK Strategic Award (098369/Z/12/Z). IT is supported by the following: Wellcome Trust Strategic Award and NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research centre. HJB is a Wellcome Trust Principal Research Fellow (110027/Z/15/Z). TRM holds a Sir Henry Dale Fellowship jointly funded by the Wellcome Trust and the Royal Society (104128/Z/14/ Z). We thank our participants for taking part in the study. We thank Devin Terhune and Naveed Ejaz for advice on analysis and Tim Vogels, Paul Matthews, Jody Culham, Tim Behrens and Holly Bridge for comments on the manuscript. Neurorel (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)neurorel[reply]

Hi Neurorel, funding has nothing to do with whether something is a secondary source per WP:MEDRS. Please do read the initial note above and my reply to you above. This is a primary source. If you don't understand please ask! Please. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And please do reply here, to keep the discussion in one place. thx Jytdog (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The research being cited is basic neuroscience research.The article cited is not a discussion of health or medical approaches to treating phantom limb pain. It was published by a new,but highly reputable online publishing platform, eLife.[1]. The editor-in-chief is a Nobel Prize winner. The platform is supported by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Wellcome Trust, and the Max Plank Gesellshaft.Neurorel (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)neurorel[reply]

You are ignoring what I am telling you. Again - please read my notes above and please read WP:MEDRS; this is a primary source and we do not use them for health content. This has nothing - nothing at all - do with the editor in chief or the platform.

If you want to work in Wikipedia you must engage the policies and guidelines. Must. Following the policies and guidelines is required under the Terms of Use that you agree to every time you log in, and the community bars people who refuse to engage them. Wikipedia is not a Mad Max world, where you can do whatever you want or make up your own justifications for things. Again - you must engage with the policies and guidelines.

Please understand the issue is that the reference is a primary source. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to apologize. I have now read the guidelines for medical subjects. Would it be fair to say that footnote 27 is an example of a reference that fits the guidelines for "health" entries? (I would say it does.) It seems to me that this article has material that deals with with basic neuroscience(what is the neurological source of phantom limbs?) and material that deals with medical aspects of phantom limb pain. Does this mean that each entry falls under it own guideline? Neurorel (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)neurorel[reply]

Ah, you are engaging! Thanks. The current reference 27 is PMID 21326041 which is a review and complies with MEDRS. MEDRS covers any content that is WP:Biomedical information; if the content is not biomedical information, then plain old WP:RS is the relevant guideline. A primary source published in the biomedical literature is pretty much never going to be useful in WP. We prefer secondary sources for everything. Please have a look at User:Jytdog#NPOV_part_1:_secondary_sources which may help you understand the underlying principles at work here in Wikipedia. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Hypotheses

is not a MEDRS . It has generally not even been considered a RS, as it is intended for publishing speculation. DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Neurorel. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Neurorel. 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)[reply]

September 2018

Your recent editing history at VS Ramachandran shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Acroterion (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention. It's been very peaceful on the Ramachandran entry for the last six months. Then, on Aug 30, Sciencelover2016 reappeared and began insisting on moving material (references to Newsweek and Time lists of influential scientists) into the opening paragraph. We went back and forth about this and I made several suggestions about compromises. Sciencelover was not amenable. It's a peculiar development --back in February he actually agreed that this material belonged in the Awards and Honors section, which is where it rested until last Friday, when he moved it back to the opening paragraph. My point of view is: the references to Newsweek and Prospect are blank flags. They tell us nothing about Ramachandran's status as a scientist or as a public figure. The Time list (which was compiled through an on-line survey) points toward Ramachandran's status as a science celebrity, so I am ok with that. Ramachandran is a sort of pop-scientist, so gently representing his dual status is challenging. Personally, I like to keep blank flags to a minimum.

0

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Neurorel. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Noticeboard

I have filed a complaint at the BLP noticeboard about your BLP violations at VS Ramachandran. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#VS_Ramachandran HouseOfChange (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An experienced editor at BLP noticeboard advised me that WP:ANI, not BLPN, is the place to get help. This is concerning your repeated disruptions of articles about VS Ramachandran, Roger Bingham, and topics related to them, where you have consistently removed positive or simply descriptive material, and in the case of Ramachandran repeatedly tried to introduce, often in the article lead, unflattering trivia of various kinds. Here is the link to the ANI discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Neurorel_pattern_of_edits_VS_Ramachandran. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]