User talk:Gerard.percheron

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Hi! Welcome to wikipedia and thanks for your contributions. However, I have restored the previous version of the basal ganglia article. My reason for this is that I feel that your edits are at too advanced a level for the more general audience that wikipedia is aimed at. As an encyclopedia we need to try to make our articles accessible to people who have little or no background in the subject area of the article. JeremyA 14:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Style

Thank you for your extensive contributions to Basal Ganglia and Thalamus, please keep in mind the Wikipedia style before editing articles extensively. Please make sure you use accessible language to a general audience, as well as use wikilinks for the various terms you use. This will keep your contributions from being reverted by other editors. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions. Nrets 17:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Gerard.percheron, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Arcadian 14:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basal ganglia

Greeting, Gerard! I'd like to offer my services if I can be of help to you in your edits on Basal ganglia, or on other articles. It is clear that you have a great deal of knowledge about the topic, and you could be a great help in improving our articles on neuroscience. For now, I have split much of the new content onto a new page, Anatomical subdivisions and connections of the basal ganglia. There are still many formatting issues that will need to be addressed on that page, but if you have any questions, ask me, and I'd be happy to help to the best of my ability. --Arcadian 14:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions

I noticed your displeasure with the reversion in the basal ganglia article. However, nothing was erased it was just moved to here. The way you had written the page had made it basically unreadable. While the information is good, it was incredibly disorganized, written completely with disregard to the manual of style, unreferenced, and full of gramatical and spelling errors. If you want a good example of a neuroanatomy article on Wikipedia, look at cerebellum which was the work of many people's (scientists and non-scientists) painstaking efforts to trim the information to the most essential bits, in a clear, organized manner. Nrets 13:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Thank you for adding the references to the Thalamus article. However, without using footnotes, it isn't possible to tell which reference relates to which assertion. If you take a look at Wikipedia:Footnotes for guidance on the proper way to link references to the text, you may find that it helps you, because content which is easily verifiable has a better chance of remaining in the articles. If you're not sure what I'm talking about, take a look at Cerebellum#Footnotes, and see how it integrates with the rest of the article. Thanks! --Arcadian 16:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Journals

When you add references to journal articles, it is important to include a PMID reference. For example, where you added:

  • Rockland, K.S., (1994) Further evidence for two types of cortico-pulvinar neurons. Neureport 3: 1865-1868

Please instead use something like:

  • Rockland K (1994). "Further evidence for two types of corticopulvinar neurons.". Neuroreport 5 (15): 1865-8. PMID 7841364.

There is a useful tool here that makes generation of these citations easier. --Arcadian 16:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theoretical neuromorphology

Hi. Do you think you could put a definition at the top of the article that can be understood by a reasonably intelligent layperson? Dweller 11:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Dweller 14:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] STN image

Hi! I tried to help place the image you mentioned but I can't find it. Did you successfully upload it? JeremyA 17:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Description of diencephalon in Thalamus section

Hi. Why have you deleted the hypothalamus from that description? I tried to describe it more logical. Hope you also think that's better.

schlobb

Because the subject which is already huge is the description of the thalamus not of th diencephalon. Thanks --Gerard.percheron 16:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Gerard.percheron

[edit] Development of the thalamus =

Dear Gerard -

I think we agree that the thalamus is the most important relay station in the brain. Therefore, I think that the development of the thalamic complex has to be mentioned. I agree that the data obtained in human regarding the development is poor. Therefrore, I would like to broaden the understanding of the readership by INCLUDING a paragraph about the embryonic development of the thalamus in other vertebrate species. To delete the paragraph (now the second time) reflects presumably your personal oppinion but not the need (for example of students) of the wikipedia community.

Thanks and I would appreciate if you would not delete the praragraph in the future.

Yours sincerley -

Steffen Scholpp

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/e/r/User_talk%7EGerard.percheron_07a2.html"