| Revision as of 11:49, 13 October 2011 editWilliam M. Connolley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,044 edits nearly← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:13, 13 October 2011 edit undoEncyclotadd (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users666 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Hello Encyclotadd. Your edit constitutes vandalism. If you wish to discuss, do so on the relevant discussion page, and/or my talk page. Please refer to ] and ] ] (]) 08:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC) | Hello Encyclotadd. Your edit constitutes vandalism. If you wish to discuss, do so on the relevant discussion page, and/or my talk page. Please refer to ] and ] ] (]) 08:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| : Your edit isn't vandalism. But, it is contested and is likely ]. Please discuss it on the talk page, as advised ] (]) 11:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC) | : Your edit isn't vandalism. But, it is contested and is likely ]. Please discuss it on the talk page, as advised ] (]) 11:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| Thanks for reviewing this and providing feedback. I'm new to the[REDACTED] community so doing my best to contribute helpfully. | |||
| Thanks for your feedback guys. | |||
| I think LKK was referring to a note that I put into the article addressed to her, and that she was right to call me out for it. I'm new to the Misplaced Pages community and would only like to contribute in the most helpful ways, so I appreciate her feedback and also yours. | |||
| For the text that I'm hoping will be accepted by everyone, I gave three highly credible references directly in the article using the format required for those references by Misplaced Pages. Additionally, I provided even more substantiation in the discussion section including to work done by mainstream news sources. | |||
| I'm highly confident members of the[REDACTED] community will only become more impressed with the facts added as they look into them and encourage everyone to do so. A lot of interesting work is being done in the neuroscience community about plasticity. | |||
Revision as of 16:13, 13 October 2011
Hello Encyclotadd. Your edit constitutes vandalism. If you wish to discuss, do so on the relevant discussion page, and/or my talk page. Please refer to WP:NPOV and WP:BRD Lam Kin Keung (talk) 08:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Your edit isn't vandalism. But, it is contested and is likely WP:OR. Please discuss it on the talk page, as advised William M. Connolley (talk) 11:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing this and providing feedback. I'm new to the[REDACTED] community so doing my best to contribute helpfully.
Thanks for your feedback guys.
I think LKK was referring to a note that I put into the article addressed to her, and that she was right to call me out for it. I'm new to the Misplaced Pages community and would only like to contribute in the most helpful ways, so I appreciate her feedback and also yours.
For the text that I'm hoping will be accepted by everyone, I gave three highly credible references directly in the article using the format required for those references by Misplaced Pages. Additionally, I provided even more substantiation in the discussion section including to work done by mainstream news sources.
I'm highly confident members of the[REDACTED] community will only become more impressed with the facts added as they look into them and encourage everyone to do so. A lot of interesting work is being done in the neuroscience community about plasticity.