Romddal

{{helpme}}

For some reason, despite spending an hour or more looking through FAQs, I just don't get how the actual hebrew lettrs were added on this line copies from the wikipedia article HEBREW. |nativename = עִבְרִית 'E-vrit

What am I missing? Thanks in advanceRomddal (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Click 'edit' and scroll down. You'll see a dropdown menu that says 'insert'. Hebrew is one of the options. Cheers. //roux   18:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello Romddal & Wilkommen! Welkom! Bienvenue! Benvenuti! ようこそ! Välkommen! Witamy! Bem-vindo(a)! ¡Bienvenido! Добро пожаловать! 欢迎! Basically, welcome to Wikipedia!

Deutsch | Español | Français | Italiano | Lietuvių | 한국어 | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Suomi | Svenska | Türkçe | 简体中文 | The main embassy page

Click here to respond to this message!

Cerebellum

Hi -- anything that goes into the lead of an article ought to be substantiated in the body, with sources specified. This is particularly important for a Featured Article such as Cerebellum. Unfortunately, I haven't come across the statements you added in the literature and don't know what the sources would be -- can you help? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, thanks for responding and adding the refs. The Schmahmann is fine, but I'm not so sure about the Turner. In Wikipedia writing, we're encouraged to rely as far as possible on review papers rather than primary research papers, but that leads to more stable articles with fewer disputes. The Turner paper is a primary research paper, and looking for papers that cite it, I find little discussion of its findings -- the most relevant citation, I think, is PMID 19776302, which expresses caution about this story. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

PS, you can reply here; I'll watchlist this page while the discussion is ongoing. Looie496 (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. The reason I used the Turner paper is that is a prototypical lesion study of cerebellar function (one of many, I might add). I agree that there is a degree of speculation therein that may or may not be warranted, and other studies may confirm or disconfirm its conclusions, but at least insofar as clinical neuropsychiatry is concerned, this is a working hypothesis on which we can attempt to understand the subtle (or not) emotoinal and cognitive deficits seen in people with a cerebellar deficit of any etiology. Of course, if (when) things change, I will update. Again, thanks for the info.Romddal (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I've tweaked the wording a bit, dropped the Schahmann ref because the article already covers CCAS in the body, and used the Wolf review paper as ref rather than the Turner paper -- I hope that's all okay. It will be interesting to see how the cerebellum-emotion story plays out. By the way, let me give you a pointer to this very helpful tool, which automatically formats a Wikipedia citation given only a Pubmed ID as input. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. The Wolf review paper is fine. I'm also intrigued to see how the cerebellum-emotion-cognition matter evolves. If the past is any guide, we'll find out - once again - how massively reduplicated and interconnected various brain areas are, and how such interconnectivity and reduplicativity allows the brain to overcome even slight perturbations in function.Romddal (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)