Talk:Cerebellum/Archive 1

message: I was thinking of nominating Cerebellum for featured article.  Before I do, however, I think this needs a few things:
1) Sources
2) Better picture of the cerebellum
3) Diagram showing cerebellar lobes
I'll work on adding these items in the next few days, but if anyone wants to help out, please do. Nrets 14:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Nrets, you read my mind. After my last major edit I looked at the page and thought, "with a little cleanup, some better images, and source citation this may be a good featured article". I'm in it with you on this one. But then, you probably already knew that. Once we clean it up we can send it to peer-review. Semiconscious (talk · home) 19:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

text: *I agree with this edit. "Computational Theories" could be a whole other, complicated section. But I'm not going to write it (yet). Semiconscious (talk · home) 06:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominate for featured article? 

message: Nrets, what do you think of the two new diagrams I've added? They look good to me, but I just threw them together this afternoon. If you can think of any more useful information to add to them--or if you'd like to make any changes--I've still got the Photoshop PSD versions of the files where each layer is still seperated. Easy to edit. Semiconscious (talk · home) 00:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *The tonsil is the portion colored pink, labeled "tonsil" :). Actually this is something I learned more from clinical work. Herniation of the brain will often cause the tonsils (located at the midline there) to swell through the foramen magnum, which will press against the medulla and can cause fatal respitory failure. Semiconscious (talk · home) 06:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

text: *Good question... that would be better than the "anatomy-stub" I often use instead. Semiconscious (talk · home) 19:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

text: *Looks good! I added a little orientation info to the image legend. Semiconscious (talk · home) 19:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Two new diagrams

message: Instead of sticking these in the article, I figured it'd be easier to put these here for others to use as they like:
the human brain has around 15e6 purkinje cells (and, incidentally, purkinje cells were one of the earliest neurons identified, and that dendrites have active electrical properties as opposed to being passive cables was first shown in purkinje cell dendrites)
there are around 6 times as many basket cells as purkinje cells, and 16 times as many small stellate cells
LTD has been shown onto purkinje cells from both mossy fibers and parallel fibers, but there's no consensus as to the functional role of this LTD
finally, to quote a chapter by llinas, walton, and lang: "The Purkinje cells thus demonstrate the following set of voltage-dependent ionic conductances... 1. a rapid, inactivating Hodgkin-Huxley sodium current that generates a fast spike; 2. a fast voltage-activated potassium current that generates the afterhyperpolarization following a fast spike, 3. a calcium-activated potassium conductance, and 4. a noninactivating, voltage-activated sodium conductance capable of generating reptitive firing of the Purkinje cell following prolonged depolarization." (this might be too much information, and it ought to be reworded, I expect)
actually, all that information came from that chapter, as I'm more a medial temporal lobe person than a motor person, but still wanted to help out Digfarenough 23:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other useful facts 

message: What's the plan of attack? Where do we go from here. We've got pretty pictures, we've got some consensus on the accuracy of what we've written. What else do we need to add? If you all feel we're set, then I'd like to put this article up for  peer-review tomorrow or Friday. I've read and reread this thing, taken it apart and rewritten entire sections, and I think we've got a pretty thorough, well-written article here. Semiconscious (talk · home) 00:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: What happened to the horizontal lines? I think they made the subsections easier to follow. Nrets 16:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I left a note to  Alex.tan regarding just that:
"I noticed you did some cleaning up on this article; thanks! Is it common wikipedia style to have section titles with only the first word capitalized and the rest lowercase? If so I shall be sure to follow that in the future. Also, I notice you removed my horizontal lines from the article. I thought those helped section the article a bit, as it looked a bit crowded with all the anatomy subsections. I'd like to hear why you disagree with their use. Cheers! Semiconscious (talk · home) 15:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

text: *So what do you think? I liked them, too. Semiconscious (talk · home) 19:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

text: *Agreed. Semiconscious (talk · home) 21:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horizontal lines? 

message: Semiconscious- I like the reorganization you did. I added a little introductory section to the cortical layers, hopefully this clarifies the diagram and the general scheme of things. Let me know what you think. Nrets 15:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thanks. Your addition looks good. I couldn't think of a clean way to tie this section together last night. Thanks for writing this. Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cortical Layers 

message: Great article (wish my undergraduate training had used it).  The micrograph picture is currently level with Peduncles, should it not be 2 sections higher up against 'Purkinje layer description ? --David Rubentalk 15:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm glad you like the article. I've moved some of the pics around. Those two pics are more intended as just neat images of the cerebellum mainly, rather than to be associated with any specific section. We don't really have any peduncle images! I've swapped two of them to try and make that more clear. Semiconscious (talk · home) 19:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Micrograph picture

message: What do you all think of using this pic instead of the pic that is currently at the top of this article? Semiconscious (talk · home) 19:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Doh! It's squshed because I uploaded the image before I corrected for pixel/voxel size. It's properly sized, now. I've also tried another image reorder using your suggestions. I agree that the Cajal pic gave a nicer feel at the top. It would be nice to have an MRI of a cerebellar lesion down at the bottom of the page, but I don't have access to any except for ones on film. Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New Intro Pic

message: So we should make this page a FAC after a week or so. I'm going to leave it up on peer-review to see if we get more feedback, but late next week I'm going to make it a FAC. I think we've got a really strong article here now. Next up: basal ganglia! That one needs a lot of work, and I'm much more knowledgeable about that system than I am on the cerebellum. Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured article?

message: Heading over to FAC. Good work everyone! Thanks Nrets; let's see what happens... Semiconscious (talk · home) 18:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: FAC

message: It's a really good article (or it will be), but it requires urgent work.
:*I'll get to all your points later this weekend if I have time... I really, really appreicate your work as you've made some great edits and contributions. Semiconscious (talk · home) 15:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *This one I had time to fix this morning as it was easy: I'm not sure what happened, but in your edits you changed the word "caudal" to "&". I've changed it back, but if you still had a question about this and changed it simply to bring my attention to it, I'll get back to you on an explanation later. Semiconscious (talk · home) 15:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

text: *Tony: I think I've managed to address most of the inconsistencies that you mention, and have added direct citations to the figures in the text. Thanks for you excellent input and edits.  If you see any other things that could be improved please let us know. Nrets 15:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *...and now that I'm back from my day-long teaching seminar, I find Nrets has addressed all your concerns! Nice job Nrets, thanks. :) Semiconscious (talk · home) 21:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

text: *Changed to "form". Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

text: *Yes! Color is always good in technical articles such as this; it's still correct. Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

text: *Cleared up an earlier instance of the term "GABAergic" and removed a redundant explanation in this instance. Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

text: *I think I've cleaned this up; thanks for the good advice. Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

text: *I've cleaned this up as well. Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Done! Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

text: *Dang, what's that doing there? I moved it. Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

text: *Wow... that one needed some work, but I think it's better now. Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

text: *Correct. Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

text: *It's become a word. There's a peer-reviewed journal called "NeuroImage" out there now. Scientists aren't the greatest at inventing new terms. :) Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

text: *It is only common courtesy to define abbreviations on first use; as I'm sure there are people out there who do not know what PET is. I've also written out the full name for fMRI. Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

text: *Good. Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

text: *"motor and sensory" was a good addition. Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

text: *Meh. I was just confused as to what you were getting at. :) I truly appreciate your hard work on this, as well as your approval of this article. As someone who is interested in writing (free, wiki-based) textbooks, and someone who wishes to become a teaching and research professor, this kind of feedback and editing is extremely useful. In the future I plan on reworking the basal ganglia article just as thoroughly as I did cerebellum. Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few things to fix 

message: I'm not entirely partial to the edits made by PZFUN. The images were bigger before so people could actually read the descriptive text embedded within the figures without having to open the figures in a different window. Because of that limitation, the images needed to be laid out as they were. You've also removed the horizontal lines which have already been discussed on this talk page: they break up the article more cleanly and make it less intimidating. Semiconscious (talk · home) 22:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *However, the layout is kind of nice. I'm torn. I'm not going to revert any edits; I'm going to wait to get feedback from others. If people think it looks/feels better, then I'm happy to keep the changes. Semiconscious (talk · home) 22:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by PZFUN 

message: I wrote a short, real-world example of what it is the cerebellum does exactly. It was removed. I think it may be useful for someone who is unaware of what "feedback deficits" and all that actually mean. Maybe it should go somewhere else in the article? What are others' thoughts? Semiconscious (talk · home) 16:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it shouldn't be in the introduction. --WS 00:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Okay--we'll leave it out! Thanks :) Semiconscious (talk · home) 03:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Briefcase example of cerebellar function

message: Raul: The link to anatomical terms of location is not for disambiguation purposes, rather is to help the uninitiated reader have a reference when terms like, rostral, caudal, saggital etc. are used in the text. While most of these are explained throughout, it is still helpful to have that link.  I'm going to put it back, if you still think it is unecessary I cann remove iit. Nrets 18:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anatomical terms of locations 

message: The pic of the brain at the top is good, but it's not of a real brain, is it? Can the caption specify that it's a model? Tony 10:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New pic 

message: Well done, Semiconscious and Nrets. Your hard work has paid off! Tony 05:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thanks! And thanks for all your suggestions. I think having someone, who edits scientific texts and research grants for a living, really helped bridge the gap between scientists and the general public -- maybe I should send you some of my grants! :)   I look forward to collaborating with you in the future.  Now, how do we get this featured in the main page? Nrets 20:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

text: *This is fantastic! Excellent job everyone! I'm sorry I had to leave before we could finish, but I had big plans for labor day weekend. Semiconscious (talk · home) 18:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  congrats! 

message: It seems funny that there is nothing on the work of Dick Thompson on the role of the cerebellum in learning and memory.  His research was some of the pioneering work on the biological substrates of learning and memory.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.175.41.146 (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nothing on Eyelid conditioning and the work of Dick Thompson?

message: The edits by 169.229.158.2 made today were mine. I forgot to log in. If there's anything wrong, you know who to blame now. Semiconscious (talk · home) 21:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Oops!

message: Since the majority of this article is focused on the human cerebellum and biology, I feel we should indicate this somehow. Should each section start with the phrase, "In humans..." or something similar, or should we simply put some sort of disclaimer at the beginning of the article? It's implied that this is mainly about human physiology, but not every section applies solely to humans, so I feel we should directly state it somewhere. Ideas? semiconscious (talk · home) 14:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Human-oriented

message: A new user added a comment saying that the granule cells compose approximately 70% of the total cells in the CNS. We wrote earlier that the cerebellum in its entirety constitutes approximately 50% of the cells in the brain. Obviously there is a contradiction here. We need someone to bring in citations. I'll try and dig up mine... Semiconscious 19:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the granule cell article, they account for nearly half of the neurons in the central nervous system. --WS 19:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Well, yes. But I wrote that article, so it's a bit biased! Semiconscious 23:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: * True, but if this person has a great new reference, then I'd be willing to accept that over the 50% comment any day (though 70% seems way too high to me, too). Semiconscious 23:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Percent cerebellum by total brain volume

message: Someone added a bunch of refs to something called a Tensor Network Theory of Cerebellar Function, but really did not take the trouble to explain how any of this is relevant or what it even is. My inclination was to delete the additions, but I decided to just make them fit into WP format, and give the editor a chance to perhaps amplify in simple terms the significance of these edits. Does anyone have any suggestions whether to remove them or keep them? Nrets 22:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks better, thanks! Now, we still need to figure out what exactly this sentence means: " "Tensor Network Theory" provides a mathematical model of transformation of sensory (covariant) space-time coordinates into motor (contravariant) coordinates by cerebellar neuronal networks." Also, the modelling section that follows the theory section seems like it could be merged with it. Is anyone familiar enough with cerebellar models to sort this out? Nrets 02:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tensor Theory 

message: The idividule terms should be linked from the article.  There is no reason why the first sentance of an article on the cerebellum should be a redirect to something that is only tangentially related.  Every anatomical article would need this link at the top if we follow Nrets' reasoning on this.  --Selket Talk 15:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right and many neuroanatomy articles do contain this, I agree it should be standard for all anatomy articles. Nrets 21:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some do, but many don't.  It's distracting and there is no reason why anatomical terms of direction/location should be treated any differently than other jargon terms.  In orchid, when they get to stamen they just link to the stamen page.  They do not have a For part of a flower see... at the top of the article.  --Selket Talk 21:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe then, do you think it would be a good idea to provide a link in the "Brain" infobox that accompanies many Neuroanatomy articles? Nrets 01:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anatomical terms of location 

message: It seems to me that this article doesn't cover much function. Specifically, what about the role of the olivocerebellar tract and dentato-rubrothalamocortical firbres on error correction? Also, it seems to suggest that the anterior lobe and the paleocerebellum are synonymous. Where on earth did that come from? I'm new to wikipedia but I'm really suprised that this is a featured article
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.1.229 (talk • contribs) 
:You're quite right. The part about anatomical divisions was indeed wrong, but confusing the gross anatomical divisions with the phylogenetic / functional divisions is a common mistake. (You'd be surprised how common.) I've amended that, and also tried incorporating the tracts you mention. --Nehwyn 06:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mainly contralateral -- I'll look for a good place to add that info, and for sources.  Thanks for pointing this out. Looie496 (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omission 

message: Hello there.
Did you realize, that the first external link "Worldwide list of laboratories that do research on the cerebellum" doesn`t function?
It would be great if the one who posted that link could fix it.
Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.167.115.203 (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: It seems difficult for me to understand the roles of the different parts of the cerebellum, especially regarding its newly-discovered cognitive functions; do the deep nuclei perform any cognitive functions, or are they involved mainly with the coordination of movement?  Also need a clearer explanation of figure #4 please.  69.140.152.251 05:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there. What is it particularly about figure #4 that you'd like to see explained?  --Nehwyn 05:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where is the flocculonodular lobe actually located?  69.140.152.251 05:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhmm... it's exactly where figure 4 shows it. Do you mean that you can't find it in figure 3? As for the deep nuclei, they are currently considered relay stations. Cognitive functions are being attributed by recent research to the cerebellar cortex.  --Nehwyn 18:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Cognitive functions of the cerebellum are not newly discovered, rather they are newly attended to.  Read any review by Schmahmann for examples.  Also, the deep nuclei are really the cerebellum's output structures, and so their involvement cerebellar-related cognitive function is sort-of necessary.  Generally speaking, the lateral cerebellum is thought be involved in higher cognitive function (because it doesn't exist in sub-primate animals), and these cortical regions project to lateral nuclear regions (dentate), so that would be where you start. --Dentate 20:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: About technicalities

message: It probably should not, but since I'm no expert (yet :) ), I'll leave the final editing to someone who is.
EelkeSpaak 10:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no expert either (and will probably never be), but I've asked your question in our reference desk Lova Falk 10:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, I didn't know about a reference desk. Since granular layers also occur in the cerebral cortex, I think the redirect is inappropriate. EelkeSpaak 15:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're absolutely right, granular layer should be a disambiguation page, not a redirect.  --Nehwyn 20:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why does 'Granular layer' redirect to Cerebellum?

message: The recently uploaded diagram of the cerebellar microcircuitry is an exact copy of the diagram from this paper. While it was redrawn, and does cite the source, it is basically an exact reproduction, down to the lines, layout, style, colors, shapes, etc. Also, this diagram is unnecessarily complicated for this article and lists many cell types and brain regions that are not even touched upon. Thus, I've reverted the diagram to the original version for now. If someone wants to redo the diagram from the paper in a way that it is not such an obvious copy, that should probably be OK. Nrets 15:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cerebellar circuit diagram

message: > cerebellum (Latin: "little brain")
This is a false explanation. The name actually comes from "bellum", which is latin for WAR, e.g. para-bellum = prepare for war). The name comes from the ancient romans observation about warriors, whose cerebellum area of the head was crushed in battle and they dropped totally dead immediately, without the slightest delay.
Even today, police snipers are trained to aim at the cerebellum (the triangular facial area between the two corners of mouth and the lowest point of the nose) to immediately and 100% reliably eliminate a dangerous criminal, e.g. one who is holding a gun to the hostage's head.
During the Moscow theatre hostage crisis, russian spec-ops troops shoot the opium-gas incapacitatd female jihadists in the cerebellum, to prevent them from involuntarily setting off their explosive vests in their sleep.
None of these is mentioned in the article, possibly because of wikipedia censorship forced by Uncle Sam. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that police snipers are trained to aim more at the brainstem than the cerebellum. The midbrain, pons and medulla are responsible for such things as regulation or heartrate, respiration and wakefulness (via the reticular activating system) that police would probably be more interested in interrupting so as to kill a person. The cerebellum is actually more responsible for smoothing and coordinating motions. Jamestttgrays (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Besides all that, perhaps you would be more inclined to believe the Perseus collection at Tufts University? Their Latin dictionary is, by and large, a transcription of one available from amazon (should you be interested in buying it), which was originally written in 1879. They also believe that cerebellum means "little brain".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamestttgrays (talk • contribs) 16:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Police snipers are probably just trained to aim for the center of the head because it's the best way to correct for any deviation in the bullet.  That being said, Doctors can even get the rod of Asclepius right, so, who knows?  Honestly, they probably have better things to do than argue over etymology. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  False explanation for its name due to censorship 

message: The section on cerebellar blood supply could mistakenly be interpreted as stating that there is only one PICA whereas they are, in fact, paired. Perhaps it should be slightly reworked?
Jamestttgrays (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blood supply 

message: I was reading on the Dentate nucleus page that there is a discussion on merging it into the cerebellum page.  I know that the dentate nucleus is part of the cerebellum, but I think that it is important enough to deserve its own page.  I think the dentate nucleus article needs to be expanded, and I don't have the expertise to do that, but I think merging all of the deep cerebellar nuclei pages into the cerebellum page would be a mistake. (D.c.camero (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think that the dentate nucleus is important enough to deserve its own page. — fnielsen (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging of all deep cerebellar nuclei into cerebellum 

message: The article currently says that the cerebellum is part of the archipallium, without giving a source.  I don't think this is correct.  The cerebellum is part of the hindbrain, but to my understanding the pallium, in all its variants, belongs to the forebrain.  I propose to remove these statements, but wonder whether anybody would like to comment first. looie496 (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archipalliar? 

message: My subject line speaks for itself. Alex Bieser (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By "longer" do you mean larger?  If so: strength, no.  Mobility, in the sense of coordination, maybe. Looie496 (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can a longer cerbellum increase strength and mobility? 

message: Up top in General Features, this article says the cerebellum has 50% of all the brain's neurons.  The section on the granular layer says that the cerebellum has 60-80 billion granular cells, making up 70% of all the brain's neurons.  Which is correct?  I think the first statistic is closer to 90%. Quantumelfmage (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The figures I learned are about 40 billion cerebellar granule cells and about 10 billion neurons in the rest of the brain, but there is probably more recent research that updates those numbers. Looie496 (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many neurons does the cerebellum have? 

message: As a 2005 featured article, this article has huge chunks of uncited text, and should be cited or submitted to WP:FAR.  Also, please see WP:MEDRS regarding primary sources vs. secondary reviews.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually irrespective of sources this article is well short of giving an accurate and comprehensive picture of current understanding of the cerebellum -- it really shouldn't be an FA without major work. Looie496 (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would you like to nom it at FAR, or should I?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. Looie496 (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see you're at work on it; should I hold off on FAR?  I've done all I can, but I find the jargon dense and inpenetrable :)  Are you able to cite and correct the dense jargon?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I've gotten started, I'd like to work on the content some, and an ongoing FAR would only get in the way, so holding off for a little while would be good.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I'll unwatch for now; ping me when I should take another look, pls?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Will do, thanks. Looie496 (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed 

message: There is nothing on this page about the cerebellar peduncles, despite the fact that pages for the superior, middle and inferior cerebellar peduncles exist. Furthermore, searching for cerebellar peduncles redirects to this article rather than the other three. I would fix this myself, but I'm already procrastinating too much as it is and I don't know how to fix redirects (I think it would be more appropriate if a search for cerebellar peduncles redirected to one of the actual articles, and I think there's an argument for merging those three articles). Seasunsky (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree. I'm adding a link to the cerebellar peduncles until the information can be better integrated here.--Xris0 (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cerebellar Peduncles 

message: The page only have a few citations of cognitive function of the Cerebellum, and I haven't run across this view very often.  Since this isn't commonly referred to in the physiological literature I have, I was wondering if this still represents a minority or fringe viewpoint or if it has become definitive? Bloomingdedalus (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to say for certain, especially since I haven't tracked the details of the cerebellar literature for the last few years.  However, the journal Cerebellum devoted a special issue to this topic in 2007 --  gives an overview. Looie496 (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Motor Function vs. Cognitive Effects of the Cerebellum

message: Hi Looie496 -- I noticed that you reverted my edit to the evolution section. Could you tell me why please? The information wasn't already included in the article, and it was well referenced with links to scholarly journals and a reference book.
For reference, I added in the following:
"The cerebellum first evolved as a small outgrowth from the vestibular nuclei of the medulla, which is involved in balance."DeMyer, Technique of the neurologic examination: a programmed text
"It has been suggested that the evolution of the cerebellum was originally an adaptation to predation, enabling precise attacking movements to be coordinated."Haycock, Being and Perceiving
I think the information was relevant, maybe you reverted it because you disagree? Reidlophile (talk) 08:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me first point out that you weren't logged in when you made those edits, and your IP address was clearly not fixed (because you made similar edits to the pons article from a different address), so I had no way of contacting you to discuss the issue.  What I immediately perceived was that all your edits are referencing the Haycock book, which seems to be self-published and in any case would not be an acceptable source according to Wikipedia policy (as outlined at WP:RS).  My perception was that those edits were probably a form of disguised spam, which we see a lot of.  The two statements that you added are speculative, and the sources given (even disregarding the Haycock book) are not authoritative enough to justify having them here.  Note that in the pons article I left your added material in place, and only removed the Haycock book from the list of sources. Looie496 (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I reread my post and it came across as a bit snarky, which I didn't intend. I just thought the information was worth including, and felt a bit miffed when it was reverted as spam. The Haycock book is my main source - it has quite an extensive section on the evolution of the brain, and I was going to go through the various brain regions and add in sections about their evolution. Will this be considered spam? Why isn't it a valid source? Reidlophile (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally a book is considered an acceptable source if (a) the author has established a strong reputation by publishing articles in peer-reviewed journals or mainstream media, or (b) the publisher has a strong reputation for fact-checking books that it publishes.  I can't see that the Haycock book meets either of those criteria -- in fact I could hardly find out anything at all about it, beyond seeing it in Google Books (with a really garish cover).  Regarding the added sentences, the first one is probably in part correct, except that the cerebellum clearly evolved in fish and fish-like creatures resembling the lamprey, which do not balance.  Also, a teaching manual for neurologic exams is not a good source for a statement like that -- much better ones are available.  The second statement is pure speculation -- it is just as likely that the cerebellum evolved to serve the vestibulo-ocular reflex. Looie496 (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted my Edit? (Evolution Section)