User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

December, 2010 – January, 2011

Adminship?

Hi there Tryptofish. I just had this crazy idea that you might want to think about. I was wondering if you'd ever be interested in being an admin. You seem experienced and clueful enough. Unless you've got any hidden skeletons, I'd be happy to nominate you if you'd like. Let me know if you're interested. AD 23:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Aiken, and thank you so very much! I am very flattered by what you said. I'm going to say "no thank you", for the time being, while leaving the door open for later on, like maybe a year from now. In brief, I personally do not feel ready for it yet, and I'm at a stage in real life when I temporarily cannot offer the project the additional time that this would take. I can explain all of that at greater length if you'd like, but that's the WP:KISS version. But sometime later: who knows. Thank you again for the very kind words. Best, --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Major Edit-Religion

Thank You! I believe it may be better to have the discussion on the Religion page since the Edit would close the Criticism of Religion article and merge it into the Religion article. If there is a perennial discussion on what to do with articles critical of religion, please send me a link to any such discussion.

I have not been able to find anything on wikipedia that states that pages Critical of Religion should not be considered to be content forks. I stand by my position that the Criticism of Religion page is a POV fork, and that this controversial section of the Religion article was broken out, without leaving an adequate summary.

JacoLink (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You're most welcome. As for where we discuss it, it doesn't really matter that much. Help on setting up those kinds of discussions can be found at Help:Merge. As for prior discussions, there have been many of them, all over the place. You could start by looking at the older, now archived, discussion threads at Talk:Criticism of religion. Also, you can go to Talk:Criticism of Judaism, and follow the links at the top of the page to the previous proposals to delete the article. You won't really find any consensus that these criticism pages are universally accepted as good practice, but you'll see tons of discussion in which there is vehement disagreement, and certainly no consensus to get rid of criticism pages either. My advice, take it for what it's worth, is to recognize that you'll probably be wasting your time and effort starting another conversation about this, only to end up with no agreement at the end. But of course it's up to you! Happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent Block of Toner89

I am the user Toner89. I saw that you recently blocked me for block evasion, but noticed that I am trying to start anew, just not doing it in the correct manner. I have tried for almost a year getting any kind of helpful response, but no one really seems to want to listen to me. If you can offer any help how I can regain control of Toner89 I would greatly appreciate it. I want to put the whole ordeal with Antony1103 behind me. The sock puppet case seems to stem from me trying to move on and continue my editing, with little understanding from moderators viewing my case. If it helps with your response, I will be using this IP for the rest of the year, but it will change early January. I can be e-mailed at antony1103@mindless.com if that is any better. Thank you. 66.71.97.40 (talk) 06:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Antony. I will reply to you at User talk:66.71.97.40. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

In need of a little help...

Hello ! I was wondering if you could give me an explanation on a detail about membrane potential. It seemed like you "supervised" that page, and I've found it really useful to clear things up when my lessons were a bit obscure. But there's one thing I still wonder about... When you calculate an ion's driving force, you get a relative number, so what does the sign of that number mean as to the way the ion is going to cross the membrane, whether it is going to want to go in or out of the cell ? I'd understand very well that you don't wish to become a on-line help desk for biochemistry, so you don't need to answer if you don't want to. And don't worry, I'm not planing on making this a habit! I know these pages should really be for discussing the articles and ways to improve them. Thank you very much RiverGirl (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your very thoughtful question, which I'm very happy to try to answer. (By the way, I'm happy to answer about this, but if you find there are questions that are outside of what I know about, please be aware that you can always turn to Wikipedia:Reference desk, which is set up exactly for that purpose.)

Anyway, the use of + or – for these things is really kind of arbitrary (as you say, it's relative), so electrophysiologists do this by convention, rather than by any underlying physical principle. By convention, an inward current (which can mean a positive ion moving into the cell, or a negative ion moving out) is "positive", while an outward current (a positive ion moving out, or a negative ion moving in) is "negative".

In determining membrane potential, we are defining the inside of the cell relative to the outside of the cell. Since the outside is just electrical "ground", that's not arbitrary. Most real cells at rest (ie, not during an action potential) are negative inside relative to outside, so a typical neuron has a resting membrane potential of something like –60 mV or –70 mV.

Please let me know if any of that is unclear or incomplete! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Right ! I see now... Thank you very much, that was what I needed. It's always much easier to learn things once you understand what they actually mean. And I've got so much to learn at the moment, it nice to lighten the load little by little. And thank you for pointing out the Reference desk, I didn't even know it existed ! All the best RiverGirl (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

4chan

No worries, do you think it is actually going to be citable in a independent RS? Off2riorob (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Taking it step by step, I wanted to simply add a "clear" template for layout reasons. While I was doing that, it occurred to me to make that comment about the cite tag in my edit summary. When you then deleted the whole thing with an edit summary saying you agreed with me, I wanted to make clear that this wasn't what I had intended by my comment. In other words, I was saying that maybe we could include the information without needing an inline cite, because the existence of the image makes it self-evident. I was not saying that we should dispense with the request for citation because I was sure the citation would not exist, but I have the impression that that's what it sounded like to you. So I was trying to correct that confusion, is all.

Now, that said, frankly I don't feel too strongly about whether we include the information and the image or not. We're in WP:TRIVIA territory here. But maybe that's worth discussing on the article talk page. And, here in my own talk, I'll say something that I wouldn't say there: with the banners at the top of our pages now, it tickles me to include this parody, even though I'm usually no fan of the griefer crowd. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah thanks for that, we were like two deaf old ladies talking then. I see what you mean, we can accept the simple statement and the existence of the template supports it, fair enough. I have no objection to removal of the citation required tag. Off2riorob (talk) 01:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Now I'll go check my hearing aid. :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 01:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

hehe, and on that note I shall retire to slumber, thanks for the laugh. Off2riorob (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Home Office Licence

Hi Tryptofish. I hate to be a pedant (actually, truth be told, I find pedantry rather satisfying) but license is a verb, licence is a noun. In this case we are talking about a UK Home Office Licence (a noun). As you can see, according to the Home Office itself the correct way to spell it is with a "c". (I only make this point because I've just spent the last few weeks writing an application for one). Rockpocket 23:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Woops, my spellchecker tripped me up. You are correct, so please accept my apologies on that. But I think I'm right about the redirect on that other one. And I happily give you full licence to be a pedant here! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I agree about the an(a)esthetics - I didn't check for redirects. We'll call this one even ;) Rockpocket 23:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Good! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Greetings

--Nuujinn (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Balloon}} to your friends' talk pages.

sucide of tyler clementi

it seems the other fella cant be brought to discuss whatsoever, how many ever times i try to accmodate. At any rate, im willing to discuss with you. No bad blood i should think between us. if you want to start a new section with your queries for my edits ill be glad to answer them.(Lihaas (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)).

Hi, I've also commented at the article talk page, and yes, I'm happy to do what I can to help get this back onto a more peaceful footing. As I said there, I will indeed start a new section with some queries of mine that I hope will be constructive. In the mean time, I would like to request of you to consider that the other editor is really acting in good faith, and that it has been difficult for all of us to understand what you are trying to communicate. I guess that when you assume for yourself the role of "copy editor", it becomes very important for you to be able to communicate clearly with other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, ive accepted the WP:BRD version from where we can pursue this. i will reply to you shortly.(Lihaas (talk) 12:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)).

actually ill be off in about 12 huors and return on sunday.

Also note the other user has a vested interest and possibly a WP:COI in this. As noted this evidence does suggest WP:OWN issues in the lack of his discussion to maintain his version.(Lihaas (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)).

I see no evidence to support those claims, and I strongly urge you to drop that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Im back from the holiday, so when your e ready just post my message.

btw- what about his complaints? cant have it one way, but anyhoow..(Lihaas (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)).

I'm just getting back into things myself. I'll try to get to it within the next 24 hours. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Welcome to Wikipedia

Hello, I am fumbling a little bit on the editing but my intentions are in the right place at least. A little time and I think I can sort out the imperfections. I'll take you up on that offer if I really become frustrated. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caffiend67 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for warning User:Dovermolloy, restored the revision by Fer(di)nand(o) Sant... Cit helper (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. In my opinion, this was a rather WP:DUCK matter of being a disruptive edit, rather than not understanding NPOV, although I can appreciate that it can be seen either way. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the offer of help, Tryptofish. When i have more time i will begin by reading up on Wikipedia editing and Wikipedia Help. Happy holidays! Fer(di)nand(o) Sant (talk) 09:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome, and happy holidays to you too! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry (IP) Christmas!

Wiki-IP-Santa says, Merry Christmas!

A Santa-IP-editor says Merry Christmas Tryptofish! - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 00:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

about K+ channels

hi, I did edit some info about K⁺ channels, specifically info about K_2P or tandem, I'm doing my undergraduate thesis about them, so I'll try to improve as articles as possible, and always referencing to papers and reviews I really know that are linked to K⁺ channels. I'll ask if I have any doubt or question, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Гонсо (talk • contribs) 01:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That's great, welcome aboard! --Tryptofish (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, I saw you have a lot of contributions to wikipedia and as i said before, i'm reading a lot about potassium channels, specifically K2P channels and i want to start an article for every subfamily in the K2P channels family, but already are articles with the name of 3 of them and i don't know how i should name them, something like "TASK (potassium channel)"? I don't think it sounds good, but i really can't think in a good solution and i was hoping you can help me since you have lot more experience than me here in wikipedia. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Гонсо (talk • contribs) 04:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I looked at Tandem pore domain potassium channel, where they are listed, and we are naming them according to KCNK#, such as KCNK1 etc., rather than as TASK. It looks like we already have pages on most of them, so it may be best for you to expand those pages with more information, which would be very worthwhile. (It would be a bad idea to have two articles on the same channel, under different names.) Speaking generally, I try to look for existing articles, and just go with whatever naming convention is already in use; if there's a reason to change the particular naming convention, I'd raise the issue on an article talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

ok, it's a good idea, but a subfamily usually is composed by 3 channels, like TWIK subfamily which includes TWIK-1, TWIK-2 and KCNK7

I'll better do what you told me to do by now, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Гонсо (talk • contribs) 20:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Trypto. Thanks very much for the barnstar! It was awesome of you to go out of your way, and much appreciated and encouraging. All the same things could be said about your contributions as well! I always do appreciate having you on board those heavy discussions! See you around :) Jess_talk|_edits 23:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Stub reviewer for course project editing

Hi Trypto, I'm running my Neuroscience stubs Neuroscience stubs editing project again this coming spring semester and was wondering if you would be able to help us out by reviewing the stubs we work on before and after the assignment to evaluate how well the scientific content has been improved? I will be putting together a rubric for this purpose and would like to involve knowledgeable WP editors with a neuro background with the goal of writing up our experience as an educational manuscript in CBE Life Science Education or somewhere similar. What do you think? NeuroJoe (talk) 03:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be happy to—time permitting. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

thats great, thank you. can you recommend 2 or 3 others in the WP community that you believe would be appropriate to participate as well? I thought about contacting those who are listed on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Neuroscience/Contributors page but figured with your expertise here i should ask you first. thx, NeuroJoe (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Since everyone is a volunteer, I'm a little leery of offering anyone by name, but there's (hopefully!) an easier way. Just start a new thread at WT:WikiProject Neuroscience, and ask for volunteers. Perhaps I can then follow up if a little nudging is needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. NeuroJoe (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to keep an eye on this as well. Looie496 (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Looie. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Rollback misuse

It's a misuse of rollback to revert without comment a reliably sourced content addition. Hekerui (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe technically, but you were in violation of WP:BLP, and that takes precedence. Sources are conflicting, and it's a serious matter to report someone's death. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I followed WP:BLP. Hekerui (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that you made that edit at a time when the talk page included comments that the sourcing was not clear. There were definitely conflicting sources. And it wasn't an emergency for you to make that edit anyway. You seem to feel that the sky was going to fall unless we reported instantly that he had died; I'm arguing that it could have waited an hour or two for the news reports to sort themselves out (and I'm not arguing at the page now, because I think the sourcing is becoming clearer). Perhaps you feel that you have been horribly insulted by my not stopping to create an edit summary, so if it helps, I apologize for that. But I also think you are making too much of a deal about it, and should consider that Wikipedia is not a news source, and we have to be careful about reporting the deaths of real people. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This was not a backdoor complaint about the revert but actually about the rollback use. The paragraph above is a lot of conjecture. Please don't overthink this and don't apologize. Regards Hekerui (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I make no apology for insisting that BLPs not report deaths until the sourcing is clear. And with that, I really think we have nothing more to discuss here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thx

... for this. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Ha! And Happy New Year! (Oh, and you're very welcome.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

More on RfA

For the record, I did see your follow-up note about Courcelles' concern on the RfA, and I just want to say that I strongly admire people who are willing to reevaluate their supports or opposes in the light of new evidence. I was quite tempted to switch to oppose myself when I read Courcelles' diffs (those really were awful closes, and recent, too), but since I had an outstanding question to the candidate about copyright I thought it would be a little mean to switch before giving him a chance to address those concerns and hopefully keep me in neutral. Anyway, sorry for the TL;DR on your talk page, just wanted to follow up with you on that without spamming the RfA talk page. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not TL;DR at all, and you are very welcome here. Yeah, this is turning out to be a tough case. I'm just about switched to oppose in my own mind now, but I too feel that it's best for me to wait a while longer. I fully accept now that you meant no harm with the Machiavelli part, and I want to thank you for engaging with this issue in a thoughtful way. Happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Bit confused

Hey there, I'm a bit confused now: you seem to be saying here that an article that passes an SNG can be kept (at least in some circumstances) even if it doesn't pass the GNG? But to the original question posed by Mr Z-man -- 'should articles for which "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject' cannot be found be allowed if they meet a subject-specific guideline" -- you said "Absolutely not"? --Mkativerata (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

A bit confused, huh? Yeah, that makes two of us! At this point, I honestly have to say my brain is fried, and I'm going to log out for the night soon. But you are certainly a vigorous debating partner! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, OK, I'll give it a bit of a stab now. GNG is the measure of notability, or at least it should be, full stop. The SNGs provide guidance as to what is expected to pass GNG if one could truly find the sourcing that exists. Maybe the sourcing for that footballer you mentioned isn't on line, but could be found in a library if one went there. Thus, we use the SNGs to "presume" that a subject is notable. And I won't be calling for your head on a pitchfork if you close an AfD accordingly! But that doesn't mean the same thing as saying that a page that "really" fails GNG should be kept because it appears to pass an SNG. Admittedly, that's a subtle concept. Maybe it needs to be explained better, which is what I was trying to do. Maybe editors have been talking past one another about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

But I am logging out soon! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks - we are coming from different views then. I'm fine with some articles failing GNG if they pass an SNG: some, but not all. Have a good night! BTW I'm planning to return to the admin capability stuff once the current RFC on RFA reform fails. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Then off with your head! Just kidding. Good night! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Notability

Hey Tryptofish, I've seen you around and noticed that you'd made some edits to Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Do you have any idea what the standards are for clubs, and whether Killarney RFC meets them? They're second division. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for asking, but I'm afraid that the answer is I don't know. My interest has mainly been in influencing the balance between NSPORT and GNG, and I actually don't follow the specific sport pages that closely. But if you ask at WT:NSPORT, I'm confident someone will give you a helpful answer. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15