User talk:Synaptidude

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk Page


Contents

[edit] Neuroscience

Hey there! thanks for your recent contributions to the neuroscience related articles. The content has been excellent. However, I've noticed a few common errors:

These are all common mistakes; everyone makes them when they start editing, so don't worry about it. Also, remember not to ignore your real research - Wikipedia can become addictive! Sayeth 15:37, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Action potential

Nice going. The page is much better. At some point I want to address the plant action potentials that are mentioned a bit. In the first paragraph. I think that sentence looks a bit odd in that section and it might be better to address the plant action potentials in their own section. It might be interesting to contrast the ions used as well as the speed between animal and plant systems. David D. 6 July 2005 20:26 (UTC)

Thanks! re: action potential. ITA about the plant action potentials. I know nothing about that, so it's not gonna be me, but it would be a really interesting addition to the page. Synaptidude 6 July 2005 20:58 (UTC)
I'll put together a small section for the end. I don't think it needs to be much, but I do think it is worthy of mention. I am sure many people will get a kick from imagining plants with 'feelings' David D. 6 July 2005 22:42 (UTC)

[edit] Hyperpolarization

Excellent work on correct vs. vernacular usage. I've tidied up the prose, paring it down quite a bit while trying to retain its original meaning. I don't think I cut out any critical pieces, but YMMV. ;-) Cheers, David Iberri | Talk July 6, 2005 21:27 (UTC)

[edit] Help Help I'm being repressed! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!!!!

Vote to keep my scientist fun page!!!!!

  • You know, you could always save your scientist fun page simply by putting it on a user sub page (User:Synaptidude/Scientist Fun, for example). I just don't think it's encyclopedic. Besides, even if it goes, 'twill be "just a flesh wound". --Scimitar 7 July 2005 23:13 (UTC)
    • I suggest that you move the page here. --Memenen 8 July 2005 00:28 (UTC)

Category:Repressed Wikipedia Users

Thanks for putting it on uncylopedia. I'll also consider the suggestion to put it on a user subpage. But the point was to collect a list - do you think anyone would see it in either of those places? Synaptidude 8 July 2005 20:39 (UTC) (newly blue - THANKS!)
"do you think anyone would see it in either of those places?" - Sure! David D. 8 July 2005 20:59 (UTC)

[edit] red link

Your name was red because that page did not exist in wikipedia. Memenen created the page and added the figure hence, from now you will be blue.

Since your scientist fun page is now red it must have been deleted already. They didn't hang around did they. Why not create your own sub page User:Synaptidude/Scientist Fun as suggested above? Clink on that red link and just start typing! David D. 8 July 2005 18:35 (UTC)

The page is gone already because I requested they take it down. It was clear it was going to get voted off, so I put it out of it's misery. Thanks to Memenen for the synapse. But dude, if there is something I have enough of, it's synapses!  ;-)

[edit] silent synapse

Hi Synaptidude, I saw your recent addition to the silent synapse article. I don't doubt your assertion about how synapses can revert to 'silent" status, however I'm not familiar with the paper you refer to. Do you have a reference for this? Nrets 00:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • The Montgomery paper only really shows that 2 cells in a slice culture can be connnected only by NMDA-only synapses, which really doesn't support what you said. The other paper you mentioned does support your assertion, however this is really dealing with nascent hippocampal synapses which are still immature. They may be in the process of unsilencing (ie. maturing) and are not quite stable, thus low freq. stimulation gets rid of the AMPA component. Just curious, were you an author in either of these papers? cheers, Nrets 15:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

No, not even close. But I do work in the general field. I just figured there was no current actual review article listed as a ref. I think the one I listed addresses some of the controversies, etc. nicely. It's good that many journals now provide free full-text access to articles more than 6 months old. That way, anyone outside of academia can actually see the references, so it makes sense to list them in the Wikipedia articles. Nrets 15:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

check out talk pages in IV curve and Silent Synapse Nrets 01:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your kind words on Talk:Creation science. Much appreciated. --Parker Whittle 20:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] If you recall the Bensaccount RfC

Hey, Synaptidude, I don't know if you'll get this in time or not. If not, that's fine.

I've been RfC'd by SlimVirgin on violating Wikipedia is not a battleground. I've posted some information about how she injected herself into the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bensaccount dispute after we requested that an admin delete the RfC. It is my opinion that she brought her dispute against me on into the Bensaccount RfC and that she made the Bensaccount RfC a battleground. I've posted a description of what I think happened around the Bensaccount RfC here [[1]]. Could you provide a comment of your view about what happened around the Bensaccount RfC. You can post it here Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FuelWagon 2. Thanks. FuelWagon 18:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to make a comment. FuelWagon 02:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Action potential

Hey there, Syn. I've been reading and working on Action potential for its featured article review, and wanted to let you know that I've been learning a lot. I hope you don't mind that I pared it down quite a bit though, mostly because sometimes the asides got a tad distracting. If you think I've left out something I shouldn't, please let me know.

On a related note, would you mind uploading PNG versions of the action potential images you created? They're great, but as JPEGs, their quality diminishes quite a bit when scaled. Thanks! --David Iberri (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neuroscience project

Synaptitude: I'm trying to revive Wikipedia:WikiProject_Neuroscience, and I'd love it if you would be willing to contribute and help out on some problem articles. There are many neuroscience articles that still need a ton of work, so if you have time and an interest, please check us out. Cheers! Semiconscious (talk · home) 19:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flash

As far as I know this isn't something that anyone does, so I'm not sure if it is possible. Sorry. Good to see you over on the neuroscience project. Semiconscious (talk · home) 22:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neuron edit

I'm not sure what you were trying to do here: "Thus is has the lowest [[axtion potential threshold | action potential] of any part of the neuron." --JWSchmidt 04:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I worded it badly. I was trying to say that the threshold is most negative - or closest to the resting potential at the axon hillock. Synaptidude 01:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silent Synapse Redux

Hi Synaptidude, I was in the middle of writing up a manuscript and was writing about the idea of silent synapse, in some cases, being "mute". I remember having this discussion with you a while back and you were complaining about the Gasparini et al. paper. After reading your comments about it, as well a couple of related, and more convincing, papers (Renger et al 2001; Akaneya et al 2003), and after looking at your...sorry the Montgomery paper where they essentially repeat the same experiments but with cell pairs and don't see unsilencing either with paired pulses or CTZ, I'm still not convinced that there may be situations where a synapse may appear silent due to a low Pr. Especially the fact that neurons can become re-silenced if you run-down release experimentally (as in Renger et al, Akaneya et al or even Xiao et al 2004). I see your main gripe with the Gasparini paper (where PP stimulation recruits additional low Pr synapses, rather than increasing Pr in their "silent" input), but I'd be curious to hear your comments on the Renger and other papers. I don't doubt that there are true NMDA-only synapses, but the question is whether a subset of immature synapses can remain silent even after AMPAR are inserted due to low-Pr. cheers, Nrets 02:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SUNY

J. Schmidt from SUNY Albany?
I did spend some time at SUNY Stony Brook in the 1980's, but I've never been to Albany. There are many J Schmidts! --JWSchmidt 18:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Just in case you do not know, I am also User:Memenen. --JWSchmidt 18:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: anon vandal at Bill Clinton

Looks like Curps took care of the vandal already. Next time, you might want to list vandals who've exeeded the final warning at WP:AIV. (I'm not an admin, so I can't block them myself.) Thanks! Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 20:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AP propagation discussion

Hey there, Syn! I've been discussing the topic with User:Somasimple over at Talk:Action potential#Propagation, but the discussion's rapidly reaching the edge of my knowledge. :-) Would you mind popping your head in and participating in the discussion a bit? Thanks! --David Iberri (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Also at AP....It looks like you introduced the term "neural code". I'm not sure it is constructive in the introductory section. Talk:Action potential#neural code --JWSchmidt 15:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 19:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Action potential

Action potential has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.