User talk:NeuroJoe

Welcome

Hello, NeuroJoe! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, 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 using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Crusio (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources 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
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

I noticed your interest in neuroscience, and I just want to add my welcome too! --Tryptofish (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Errors in your course's page

Just so you know, I've fixed a couple of what seems like errors on your course's project page. See here for the diff. If I misinterpreted your intent, feel free to revert. Tim Song (talk) 05:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I missed that! NeuroJoe (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note for one of your students asking for permission to delete a page from article space now that his proposal for an article's schema has more properly been moved into user space. In the course of that, I found the project page noted above. I will add my own welcome to the creator of what seems like a very worthwhile assignment and, if you or any of your students need any assistance from an administrator, feel free to call upon me at your convenience. Administrative tools are not god-like, but I may be able to guide you to policy and procedures pages if that would be of use. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, they're mostly newbies (as am I!) so your help is appreciated. NeuroJoe (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Namespace vios

Please, please, please tell your students to stop creating their "proposals" in the (article) namespace. I have seen at least a dozen cases already. Also, please tell them to stop this stupid capitalisation and, since the proposals are in user space, there is no need to put "project proposal" in the title, eg. User:Rabihgeha/neurological malignant syndrome is the form that does not scream "ignorant newbie".

One of the important aspects of Wikipedia, and one that should be stressed to your students, is that it is collaborative. You have 31 topics in this list, I expect your students to create no more than 31 "proposal" pages. Indeed it would be better if your students were to work directly on the substantive articles. You have offered a 50 point bonus for "featured articles". I assume you know that only stuff in the (article) namespace is going to be considered for featured status. (I hope that those 50 points would be awarded to each of the students who have worked on the article in question.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If your students haven't finished creating their proposal pages, I can put something similar to this on your project page. Try it out and leave me a message if you want it there. Tim Song (talk) 08:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, the Wikipedia motto is be bold. Just do it! Just do not get into an edit war if NeuroJoe removes it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim, that's a helpful piece of code. They had strict instructions *not* to post their proposal pages in the mainspace, and also received detailed instructions on how to create a subpage on their user page and post their proposals there. But of course that doesn't mean they'll all follow those instruction. I think most if not all of the offending pages have been moved and marked for deletion.

RHaworth, thanks for your comments as well. When their improvements on the stubs are moved from their user pages to the main space, they will obviously have the same name and capitalization as the current topic; "project proposal" will not be part of the move. It's a process!, but these stubs should all benefit from their work. NeuroJoe (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved some material from a speedy-tagged document in article space into a userspace page at User:Meidenbauer related to the same topic, because I didn't want them to lose any of their work. However, I note that there are two userspace pages belonging to User:Rabihgeha and User:Meidenbauer that are related to this project. I have advised them to pick one and go with it because it will be less confusing for them in the long run; you may wish to echo that. If I see material in articlespace that relates to this project, I'll be moving it to userspace and alerting the creators accordingly. As before, if you have questions or problems, I'm at your service. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And since User:Meidenbauer actually recreated deleted material as a "project page" in articlespace, I made it impossible to repeat that; I trust this will steer the students in the right direction. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This year

Feel free to contact me as a volunteer.--Garrondo (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'll help.~~ I like the sound of the project. Would this be any use? Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC) I've become very busy, so sadly must withdraw my offer. If things quieten down, I'll get back to you. Best wishes all. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that does help, thanks Anthony. I have detailed guidelines for the students our course page but the auto citation info will be useful for them. I'll be in touch about reviewing the stubs, thanks for both volunteering. NeuroJoe (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to get involved! I hope I'm considered knowledgable enough... Keepstherainoff (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone, I'll be in touch soon with more information and some simple guidelines I've pulled together to evaluate the pre and post project content. NeuroJoe (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First students

I have noticed that first students have arrived. I have posted a welcome message at their talk pages and offered them my help in case they needed. On the other hand I would recommend that prominently in their user page they had a link to the project page and a short description of it. It will probably save them of some problems if they get into some unintended trouble since other editors would see they are new, students, and would be able to contact you. Finally in the same line maybe they could present themselves in talk pages of their article as a first real life talk editing (although most probably being stubs nobody will even notice...). Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

good points, thanks NeuroJoe (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expectations and norms

You might want to know about this project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Anthony, I will add that link to our course page NeuroJoe (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Your sandbox can no be found at User:NeuroJoe/Sandbox. 19:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Here's another useful "how to edit" article. This one published in PLoS Computational Biology. [1] I know you can't use all of these tutorial thingies but I figure you can pick the eyes out of them. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, no problem about not being able to help with the evaluation, I can certainly understand busy! NeuroJoe (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I would have known I could get a PLoS publication out of rehashing the tutorial info I would have jumped on that last year! NeuroJoe (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A worry

Hi -- I've been scanning over your projects. Not nearly done yet, but one of them looks problematic to me: cellular recording. This really ought just to be a redirect to electrophysiology, which is a pretty well-developed article. I think this would be a bad thing for students to try to do anything with, which is a concern because a group has signed up for it. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually just looking at that today. One way around duplicating the electrophysiology topic is to include other forms of cellular recording, such as some of the newer live real time microscopy techniques that can "record" organelle or vesicle movement, calcium waves in astrocytes, etc. But I think it is best if they pick a different topic, I agree. NeuroJoe (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tips

I suppose you have noticed my comments at the talk page of the project: I will add further recommendations for your students as I found more common mistakes. I hoped you could make them watch that page so we could centralize general comments and recommendations instead of correcting students individually. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are very helpful tips, some of them they've gotten before from me or others but some are new and most welcome. Thanks, NeuroJoe (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still willing to review articles. I will follow those 5 articles and grade them. --Garrondo (talk) 07:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! NeuroJoe (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ever need help? Contact us!

Hi! It seems as if you're using Wikipedia for grading students. We, of the Online ambassador program can help!
We coordinate college projects (on the subject of US Public Policy) like these, and mentor students while they are creating their articles.
I'd like to offer you a couple of resources for helping students easily get around Wikipedia (Though, by the looks of it, you've got quite a lot covered). We have some videos, pdfs, etc here. We also have an IRC chat channel, on which your students can get their questions answered quite quickly here: # #wikipedia-en-classrooms ^{#wikipedia-en-classrooms connect}. If you want, there might be some ambassadors who can help mentor your students (I'm not sure, though, I'll ask around). If you need any more advice/help, just post a question on my talk page (click "New Message").
Good luck,
ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 11:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA

At this point, and with only 1 month left for the end of the project I have made comments to most of the articles in addition to the general comments at the talk page of the project with mixed results (some have answered me, others have not but have partially taken into account the comments and still others have done none of them). Right now I do not think I will make further comments in most articles unless aid is directly requested to me. In those cases where I have not made specific comments they will have to manage with the general ones. Instead I plan to work in the most advanced articles. As of today I think that the only article that has some possibility of reaching GA status (and only with an important work by its editors) is alcoholic polyneuropathy: this is both due to the state of the article as of today and the attitude of its editors, since they have been some of the most implicated with their article and my comments. If editors of this article are willing to take this extra effort I would be willing to make a closer peer-review of the different sections over the next two weeks so it can be taken to GAN. What do you think? --Garrondo (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your helpful comments to everyone Garrondo. In any course there will be some groups of students that are more responsive than others. For the groups that haven't responded directly to your comments yet or made changes to the article, they have until the end of the course to do so, so don't take it personally if you haven't heard back from them yet. Many of them will wait until the last second to complete their work, as is the nature of the college student!

I've been following most of the comments including the alcoholic polyneuropathy topic, i'll talk to the group to get an idea if they plan to push forward for GA nomination. Thanks again for your great work. NeuroJoe (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no bad feeling at all: wikipedia would probably not exist without some procastination at work, school... Only reason why I do not plan to continue going one by one through the articles is because I feel that comments right now at your talk page are enough for groups to begin with, specially since in my last reviews most comments I made where mainly repetitions from the general comments. I feel I can be more useful focusing my efforts in those articles whose editors are more willing to work: otherwise since there are so many articles I would only get to make a few repetitive comments on format on all articles, while this way I can at least make a few in-depth reviews. Nevertheless reassure students that I am still willing to help and that they can easily reach me at my talk page or talk pages of the articles. Bests. --Garrondo (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The intention tremor article also looks like it is coming along pretty nicely (mainly through the efforts of one student, as often happens). It might be worth emphasizing to your students, though, that the GA process takes time, and leaving a GA push to the last minute will pretty much guarantee that it does not succeed. Looie496 (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeap: One of my reasons for changing the direction of my efforts is that I feel that now is more or less the time limit for an article such as the two commented to become a GA or to be a top quality B article. A possible path would be a two week peer review (presumibly by me or Looie) and then (if there is time and editors decide it) a GA nomination, and even that is going to be hard, since it usually takes some time for a reviewer to volunteer to review a GAN and some more actually review it and decide if either passes or fails.--Garrondo (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the GA nomination timing info from both of you. For several if not most of my groups, the students get together to discuss the changes to be made but only one person actually logs in and makes the physical changes, which they know is OK by me as long as someone from the group addresses them. NeuroJoe (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

So if I understand correctly the reviews need to be done the last half of May 2011? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW how harshly (too what level) do you wish me to provide feedback? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The project is officially done 4/29 but I'll give the students until Friday 5/6 to finish up, so anytime after that would be fine for the reviews. When you ask about level of feedback, are you talking about scoring the topics using the rubric? As long as you can provide an honest quantitative value for each category that would be great, you don't have to worry about any qualitative written feedback. That should speed it up for you and provide me with the info I need. Thx NeuroJoe (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've left mine on the talk pages of the respective articles. I hope it's OK—just let me know if anything I did is lacking. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That looks great, thanks so much for your help Tryptofish! NeuroJoe (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neat assignment

Hey NeuroJoe, I just ran across your assignment, and thought I should drop you a note about how impressed I am with what you are trying to do. What an excellent idea! I'm a sophomore studying Computer Science at Utah State University, and currently my editing efforts are focused towards bring Folding@home up to Good Article status, and I feel I'm pretty close. So I know how much of a learning experience writing a Wikipedia article can be, especially if you're aiming for broad coverage of a subject. Moreover, it helps Wikipedia in general, which in turn provides information to millions of people. It seems a total win-win to me, but up till now I've never heard of such an assignment. I wish our school did this! Best of luck to your students, and thank you so much for the collaborative editing! Impressed, Jessemv (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words! We've run this 3 times now and it's been a very positive experience for all involved. NeuroJoe (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine it would be. It also looks like your assignment complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines far more than the Texas A&M project you got the templates and such from. Keep going! Jessemv (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USEP

Hi -- I noticed your course via klazomania, and thought I'd drop you a note in case you weren't aware of the US education program -- it is a coordination area for classes like yours. There's no requirement that you run your class under that rubric, especially since it appears you've done this successfully a couple of times before, but I thought you should be aware of the program. There are some resources that the USEP can provide, such as in-class training, and editors assigned to support the students, and you may be interested in those. The regional coordinator for your area is Max Klein, and if you decide you want to talk to him, his talk page is here. I can also answer some questions if you have any, as I've been involved with the program too. Good luck with the class. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BI481 Fall 2011 Deadlines

I just discovered that the GA review I am undertaking (TBR1) is part of your class. (great idea, by the way!) My concern is with deadlines. It looks like the last deadline you list is Dec 7. Your students nominated their article on the 5th, I believe. Wikipedia is all about rules-of-thum; it is generally accepted that a GA review can take 7 days. I was hoping to finish it up in 5, but that's past the 7th deadline. I do not want to be responsible for a loss of points for your students, but I also have tasks in the real world. I hope my timeline does not pose any problems. (They did excellent work from what I can tell so far....) ~ Lhynard (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lhynard. Don't worry about the deadline, I have another few weeks before the grades are due, and they won't lose any points anyway if it's not up to GA status. That accomplishment only gets them bonus points, and they were told about the long lead time for review before they started. NeuroJoe (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Need a hand?

Hi there. Your project looks very well organized, my compliments. If you or your students need any help, please feel free to drop me a note. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pericytes

Hi NeuroJoe. In the course of looking up pericytes, I came upon your students' page on same and noticed that they seemed to think that pericytes are found only in the CNS. Since I've been reading about pericytes in the context of stromal/tumor interactions, my understanding is that they are found throughout the body with endothelial cells of capillaries and venules. Since it didn't look like your fall 2011 students would be coming back to respond to my comment, I went ahead and made the correction myself. But, since I'm not an expert, you might want to take a look at my changes--in the summary paragraph only.

When time allows, it would be wonderful if you could either make it clear that this article in primarily about CNS pericytes or else broaden the coverage to include more non cns material. Or maybe next year's class can do that? Eperotao (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expert comment requested at redirects for discussion

Please comment here. Thank you, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]