User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Tryptofish. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

January, 2011 – March, 2011

Response Regarding an Edit I Made

I made an edit on the page entitled "Christian Terrorism." I changed "Christian terrorism means..." to "Christian terrorism is a debatable term meaning..." The article does not really give any defense from Christians. "Islamic Terrorism" opens by stating that it is a disputed term, expressing a small degree of incredulity. I thought it would be only fair to do the same for this article, and I didn't think my addition was offensive or untrue or anything. Would you mind explaining a bit further why it could not stand? --69.128.204.110 (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Please let me point you to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch). I don't think anyone would disagree with you about the fact that there is debate about the subject, but you were making an assertion that the very title of the page might be something that does not exist at all. You were, in effect, saying that the entire article is about something that is bogus. You were doing this without providing any citation of sources to indicate that this was not just your own opinion. On the other hand, if you would like to raise an issue on the talk page of the article about putting some nuanced language into the lead (but not the first sentence of the lead) about the fact that there is dispute about the term, there is a good chance that I would support that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Temple Beth Sholom, Miami Beach, FL

Having trouble attributing uploaded pics. We got permission to use them, but apparently I didn't do it right. I used the format from another synagogue, but I was flagged for it. Can you help me? I took the pics from the architect's website. http://www.newyorkcityfocus.com/photo_gallery/temple_beth_sholom.html How can I show we have permission to use the pics? Schultzdavid (talk)

Sure. Conceptually, the idea is that the architect is, of course, running a business for profit, whereas when we put an image on Wikipedia, anyone coming to Wikipedia is free to copy and make use of the image, so we cannot violate anyone's copyright. Operationally, editors are required to show, where the image is uploaded (and not at the article where the image appears), that the image is being used with the proper permission. By way of an example that shows what it should look like, here is an example of an image that I have uploaded with the kind of permission that you will need to show.

The kind of license that will apply in this case is described here. You need to have someone from the architect's company, with the authority to do so, give you the right to use the photos according to what it says there. If you've got something like a letter or an e-mail, it would be a good idea to hold onto it, in case anyone asks later on. Once you have that, do the following:

While you are logged in, go to Wikipedia's main page, using the link at the left of the screen.
Scroll down to near the bottom, and find where it says "Commons" under "Sister projects". Click through to Commons.
At the left side of the screen, click "Upload file".
Click "It is from somewhere else".
Follow the on-screen instructions. What matters in terms of the questions you ask are three fields in the "File description" area. In the "Licensing" field at the bottom, you must select "Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0". Having done that, go up a bit and enter information into the "Original source" and "Author(s)" fields, indicating as specifically as you can how you got permission from the architect. (It is possible that in the future you will be asked to provide a copy of that permission via the OTRS link; the policy about that is still being discussed.)

Let me know if you have any more questions. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for all of your help, but now I feel like an idiot. Followed your instructions, including getting written permission to use the photos. However, for whatever reason, they won't load onto my wiki page. This is format I'm using. Schultzdavid (talk)

File:TBS EXT SS C IMG 1.jpg|Sanctuary File:TBS EXT SS C IMG 2.jpg|Outside File:TBS EXT SS C IMG 4.jpg|Outside — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schultzdavid (talk • contribs) 22:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that was quite challenging! I think it's OK now. There were two things: getting the format of the gallery correct, per Help:Gallery, and then going to Commons, finding the files (which were uploaded just fine, by the way), and getting the exact spelling of the file names correct. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been working on it since 3:56pm when I received permission. I figured it was you because I was stumped. One picture worked and then another, but 2 others wouldn't. Thanks for your help, AGAIN! Schultzdavid (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC).

You're very welcome. You may find it useful to go through the page history for the last several edits, to see exactly what I changed. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm having trouble with copyright violations despite having written permission to use said pictures. Please assist.Schultzdavid (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Schultzdavid (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC).

In this case I will answer at your talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

sorry again Tryptofish

Hi again Tryptofish,

I just want to apologize for taking your comments the wrong way - I didn't mean to.

As far as including Philip Seeman's research goes; he is a prominent spokesperson for the dopamine hypothesis. To someone who isn't used to the policies of writing in this encyclopaedia, it is understandable that I reported his viewpoints.

Before I edited the dopamine section, this is what it was like: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_schizophrenia&oldid=212030177

As you can see, most schizophrenics or people dealing with schizophrenia reading this would assume there 1)is no reason for schizophrenia as far as dopamine goes and 2)may be no reason at all for schizophrenia if this is wrong.

Dr Seeman observed that using methylspiperone the sites were indeed exagerated and consequently proposed a theory for the different results.

Ignoring his theory of cooperativitity, the methylspiperone results still stand.

I hope you can forgive me. I realise I broke the primary/secondary source rule (and included anecdotal evidence in the past) but my main motivation here was to inform people that there is something unusual about schizophrenia as far as dopamine is concerned.

Do you agree that there is something to the methylspiperone research?

Steve Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I've already said at the article talk that there is absolutely nothing for you to apologize for. Please don't feel bad about any of this! I've explained that in a lot more detail at the article talk page. Since you ask me here what I think about the methylspiperone data, I'll say (stepping out of my Wikipedia editor role, and answering as my real life self) that there are technical problems that mean that the graph on the page exaggerates the amplitude of the effect. But I think that pretty much all investigators agree that the dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia is very important, at least for some of the symptoms of SZ (the so-called "positive symptoms"), and that there is, indeed, an increase in the number of D2-like dopamine receptors in people with SZ. Just not that big an increase, nor is it clear how much of it is D2 versus D3 versus D4. OK? Happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Christian Violence NPOV Tag

Ok I hope that we can begin working on the article now. Richard apologized to me about the cutting and pasting and he understands the rules about it as I have posted about that as well. I've asked him to back down for a bit. I can use your help and any others that want to bail in and get this cleaned up. I think its pretty fixable but it wasn't with the two of them fighting over the article. Can I ask you to contact the editors that would like to work on this and lets get this rolling?Tirronan (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not going to contact anyone at this point, because frankly I haven't seen anyone who really contributes to it in a helpful way, as opposed to getting into arguments past or present. Actually, I think that both Noleander and Richard are good folks, and I like interacting with both of them, but they are like oil and water when they get together on this page.

Here's a bit more history that you may, perhaps, find useful. I became aware of the page around the time of this version: [1], fairly early after the page was created by another editor, and the page was brought up for AfD. The issue at the time was that it seemed like an attack page against Christianity. During the second AfD, it was Richard (interestingly!) who removed almost all of the page on the basis that it had too many examples in the manner of a laundry list, giving a page looking like this: [2]. Over the next several months, I worked mostly with editors who wanted the page deleted, to create a better quality beginning to the page, but had not yet gotten to the point of figuring out which of the deleted examples to restore, and which to continue to leave out: [3]. I got a lot of positive feedback for that version from editors who had previously wanted to delete the page, and I'd like to see the opening sections of the page look more like that. Before I got around to looking at the examples of violence, the recent edits such as those you've been seeing began, as did the argument you observed. Richard asked a few other editors to get involved, and they started helpfully pruning the cruft, and I decided at the time to get out of the way and let them do it. Unfortunately, those editors got involved in some other things that involved some dispute resolution ('nuff said), and the effort had petered out until you stopped by.

One of my shortcomings as an editor is that I tend to get overextended, with a long to-do list that I never seem to get caught up on, which is why I haven't done more with this page recently. For that reason, I'd welcome you doing whatever you see fit to do with the page, per WP:BE BOLD. I'll make an effort to do likewise, time permitting. I think it's largely a matter of just going ahead rather ruthlessly and doing the things that are currently called-for on the article talk page, subject to subsequent discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't get the feeling that either of these fellows are disruptive as much as both being a bit bull headed. Richard has had it explained to him in no uncertain terms what the burden of proof is and why you can't copy other wiki articles and citations over and say that it is OK. It is a plain violation and he will be going back and cleaning them out though its going to take him awhile. Nolender has also been talked to about the endless tagging and the "this sucks" behavior, they are both still welcome to work on the article but it needs to be up to standard. Now it doesn't take a genius to figure out that they have both been told in the talk pages and on their personal pages what is and isn't expected. If they continue with the same behavior I'll get the admins involved and start the procedures that would need to take place. I'd prefer not to do that so I am hoping they will stick to their words and behave better. I don't like the way that it was done but they both had valid points perhaps we can get this cleaned up now.Tirronan (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we are anywhere near to needing administrative sanctions for anyone. Let's just edit content, and see how things work out. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree.Tirronan (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, having given everyone a chance to work on the article, they passed, I've reset the article to the point where it can be worked on again. I'm leaving it to you all to edit this from this point on. Please be sure to include the various reasons that the violence happened and keep it to the subject.Tirronan (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I've commented at the article talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

and he put it right back in... sigh, I think he is a good guy but doesn't get that he is pushing me into a corner and ignoring repeated requests. He knew all about the rule of having to personally see what you cite, demanded that I provide proof, then told me he wouldn't follow it once it had been shown. Whew is that bad... I've tried to be a bit blunter and I am hoping that we can keep this out of the ANI procedure at this point.Tirronan (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

At first, I thought your comment at the article talk (about not fixing after five days) was directed at me; I'm glad that it wasn't. Please follow your own advice about not discussing things (there) in terms of other editors. The more you criticize Richard personally, the more it escalates the situation. You told me just above that you are "leaving it to you all to edit this from this point on", and I took you at your word. Then, you made a lot of deletions (with which I happen to agree, but that's not the point), and that makes it much more difficult for me to step back in. Just allow the Wrong Version (TM) of the article to sit there a little while. The sky will not fall. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I hate it when others are right. I'm going to shut up for awhile.Tirronan (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you guys happy with the current truncated version of the article? My major heartburn was about deletion of two sections that were neither copied nor NPOV. If you are OK with leaving those sections there until they can be rewritten to be more concise, I think we can work together to come up with a new outline for organizing the examples. I'm really not so much wedded to my old outline as I am insistent that there be some sort of outline rather than a hodge-podge laundry list of every example of violence by Christians that any editor passing through decides to drop into the article. Hopefully, we can find sources to backup Tirronan's proposed categories and that will be the new outline going forward. If not, we may find something suitable in the sources. See you guys back at the article talk page. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Richard. Yes, I think we are basically on the right track, especially given that we all understand, I'm sure, that this is still very much a work in progress. I, for one, agree with you very much about, going forward, not having a laundry list. And I'm in no hurry at all to change what is on the page at this moment, although of course we all regard this only as a transition state. I'll try to help get the opening sections rewritten to be, as you say, more concise. When we see how that comes together, then we can all collaborate in figuring which elements of the former list to bring back, and how, and which to leave out. Happy editing, all! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Reinclusion

Hi Tryptofish,

I've reincluded the graph as allowed by MEDRES under minority point of view. The most recent secondary source is 2002 'Neuropsychopharmacology the fifth generation of progress'.

Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll answer there. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

reply

Hi please see my reply to your comment here - Off2riorob (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I understand that's the way you feel. I hope you don't feel like I was finding fault with you personally—and I'm pretty sure you know me better than that. I just wanted to make clear that it was your personal opinion, not one shared by me, that PC is working well, and that it was your personal opinion, again not one shared by me, that this is an either/or situation where either one supports it or one doesn't. Me, I'd be happy to see it work, and would support it if it worked better, but I cannot support it unless it works better, and that is probably going to cause me to change from a PC supporter, as I have always been in the past, to an opponent. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Links for my own reference

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive674#Mass link moving from Brain to Human brain by User:Nono64.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive675#Two Editors incapable of working on Christian Terrorism Article.

Christian terrorism

Don't order that book. It is published by General Books and may be merely a copy of an older version of the Wikipedia article. Here is a link to a book that may be a helpful source. TFD (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the heads-up! Amazing how things here end up out there! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

IRC invitation

Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76 Strat 08:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I choose not to use off-Wiki means of communication (except for in unusual circumstances involving material that needs to be confidential), partly out of a preference for transparency, and partly out of a sensitivity for my own privacy. Best wishes, --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Re your section addition

The developers have indicated that they will do no further work on PC unless and until we give it the go-ahead for a full rollout. This was mentioned several times on the RfC page before the change in format. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 22:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. And that's a problem with keeping it as it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

T(w)inkle

One of those days you know your work is making a difference. Glad to see so many careful eyes on this page! Ocaasi (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much! :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Pat Tillman

Please take a look at Talk:Pat_Tillman#Hew_to_the_source and chime in on the discussion as to how the "Offensive material" guidelines apply. The disagreement is whether the word fucking is germane to the section in question or whether it is gratuitous and therefore in opposition to this guideline. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

That page has never been on my watchlist. You might perhaps want to consider starting an RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Pat_Tillman#Clarifying_for_consensus

Re. Pat Tillman, and the quotation/censorship debate,

In order to clarify, I am asking users to briefly, clearly state which version of the quotation they support or oppose.

Please see Talk:Pat_Tillman#Clarifying_for_consensus

I am sending this message to everyone who has previously participated in the discussion; I do not wish to make any assumptions of the previous opinion.

I want to show clear consensus, so the issue can be resolved and edit-warring can be prevented.

Thanks,

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Chzz (talk) at 00:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC).

Note: I did see your remark about 'Canvas', and understand it. But in the interests of fair-play, I thought it best to add you to the list, for this message. Feel free to simply ignore it, of course. Just "due process" for me to inform you, I think. Chzz ► 00:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem. Yes, I figure I'll just ignore it, but good luck to all of you in editing that page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool; thanks - I'm glad you understand.

I only 'stumbled' on it, and noticed a bit of an edit-war, so yeah; I thought I'd dive in and try to sort it out. Seems to be going OK, really; I suspect consensus will be abundantly clear; I'll let it run for a week, or so give time for input. Cheers, Chzz ► 19:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Fully understood, and all good. I have to admit that I just took a quick peek, and yes, I think consensus is pretty obvious. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply about Atheism

You have no reason to give me warnings and you have exacerbated the problem by contuining to edit war. My interaction with you was only based on the fact that you artbritarily removed a Harvard sociological study from the Religion article, even when the this study is not even mentioned on the Atheism article. I will attend to that matter at a later time. Cheers, Anupam^Talk 22:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You are very wrong in what you are saying. I am not edit warring in any way at all. I made a single edit reverting you. One edit. And that comes in a sequence in which multiple editors have reverted you, and only you have reverted them. You are already well beyond WP:3RR. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Boston College Neuroscience Project

Hi Tryptofish, if you're still willing and able to help review a few of the students' topics, I'd appreciate your expertise. Here are the details again: I have an 8 point rubric that you can use to make quantitative judgments about how much improvement to the stub has been made by the students (and any other editors that help out during our course period) between 3/1/11 and the "final" version at the end of the course (~2nd week of May). Would you be willing to review DISC1, Directed attention fatigue, Excitatory synapse, and Flynn-Aird syndrome and score them using the rubric? I would be most appreciative, and of course would acknowledge your efforts in the manuscript that will be written up detailing our project. Thanks much, NeuroJoe (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, will do! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Task force

Pursuing the task force idea ... would you be interested in participating, and if so, would it be possible for you to round up some people who share your views, especially on admin recall, and keep in touch with them as the task force makes recommendations? - Dank (push to talk) 20:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me. I guess I'd say that, at the moment, I'm in a kind of wait-and-see mode. I'm not particularly convinced that we need a task force for this right now, or that any kind of new initiative is urgently needed. I also am a little limited in the amount of time I can give it right now. I do plan on developing a new alternative to administrator recall, but my past experience has taught me that I will need to start it quietly, and bring other people in slowly. I'd like to see what ideas other people come up with. If you want, I could probably give you a list of users who made helpful contributions to developing CDA. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In these mega-discussions, I try to delegate as much as possible ... so if you can find anyone from the CDA proposal days who wants to do the same, round up people and participate in the task force, that would be great. I'm also not sure that this will do any good or that anything is needed ... OTOH, my understanding from Jimbo is that whatever we're going to do, we have to go ahead and do. - Dank (push to talk) 21:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You might want to start by talking to Ben MacDui and Jusdafax. I can suggest more names if you want. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll start there and see if I get a bite (or get bitten). - Dank (push to talk) 21:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully nothing more than a minor flesh wound! I'll be watching with interest. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Trypto, just wanted to thank you for your good opinion and point out that I have a substantial chunk of text regarding the task force, and what I think is required to be effective, on my talkpage. Hope all is well in your world. Best wishes, Jus da fax 02:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, it's great to hear from you again. I read it and found it interesting, and I'll be quietly watching with interest everything that happens with what Dank is attempting. All the best to you and to MacDui. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Trypto; likewise, and my best to you as well. Jus da fax 15:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)