User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 13

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 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

May, 2011 – June, 2011

About Fourneau, Fourneau 309 and Suramine

Hello, Tryptofish. As you have already be so kind to help me once, I abuse with asking you to have a look on Talk:Fourneau where I posted a message about a wrong redirection. Thank you for your attention. Cordialement. --Thierry (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I took a stab at it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Salut, Trytofish, et merci de ton aide. I have collected two references to on-line texts in English which are widely enough to establish Ernest Fourneau's notoriety in this language and help casual contributors to write a page on him :

"Fourneau, Ernest". Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography, 2008,
Henry, T. A., "Ernest Fourneau". 1872-1949. J. Chem. Soc., 1952, pp. 261-272.

I now have to ask to somebody (but to whom ? you can help me to find him...) to transform the redirection page Fourneau (which you have of course made better by pointing it to Jean-Claude Fourneau) into a disambiguation page with the two names Ernest Fourneau and Jean-Claude Fourneau, and to create a page Ernest Fourneau. Those two things, I must tell again, I am unable to do by myself. Cordialement. --Thierry (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Done! The page on Ernest Fourneau is still a stub. I've tagged it so that interested editors will know that it should be expanded. If you are eager to get help to expand it sooner, I would suggest that you leave a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi! What a good job you have done, Tryptofish! I enjoy having asked you to help me, and I thank you so much. I have posted on Project Biography as you suggested me. Let's wait now. And please, do not forget that, if you need anything I can do for you from my French and modest position, you must ask me. Je te serre la pince bien chaleureusement. --Thierry (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Du rien!

--Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Jewish views of wealth and poverty

I noticed that you made some cosmetic edits to User:Pseudo-Richard/Judaic views on poverty, wealth and business. Thanks. I assume that the lack of comment or substantive edits means that you found nothing egregious in that draft. Since my attempts to solicit input on the draft have yielded little substantive comment, I have taken the bold step of moving the draft into article mainspace as Jewish views of wealth and poverty. Hopefully, the editing community will look on this effort of mine favorably. Any suggestions that you might have for improvement would be appreciated. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I only made the cosmetic edits because they stood out to me, and my lack of other edits does not constitute an endorsement of the page. I'm a little surprised that you moved it out of user space so soon. I'm responding here at my talk before looking at the response, if any, to the article, but I would caution you to be extremely careful about editing in this area. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

FSM (again)

Hi there, sorry, I was adding back in the good bits that were made since I last changed the lead back to "created" etc., such as the ref that Lawrencekhoo added, your removal of the redundant KSBE mention, and I got an "edit conflict" notice so I cancelled and saw that you had undone my revert.

I got involved on FSM due to viewing your talk page and kind of took over in your disagreement with the IP editor here, where I patiently and painstakingly cited the exact references that prove that: Henderson created the concept; and his original intention was satire. As you can see the IP editor had a couple of rants and then appears to have given up.

I'm a bit confused as to your comment because the recent changes are actually consistent with recent consensus, what consensus and where exactly? Sorry to be a wiki-pedantic but do you have a source? It appears that we both wished for the same thing, i.e. that the lead be left as it was, stating that Henderson created the FSM; I am assuming good faith and hoping that your reaction was over-rapid and if you had waited, you would have seen all the good recent changes go back. Or have you changed sides? (joke)

So, in deference to your WP experience, I will refrain from editing the article until we chat, I spent a lot of time getting the IP editor to see sense and leave the article alone, I would like it to say what it said initially (i.e. "Created in 2005 by Oregon State physics graduate Bobby Henderson, he originally intended it as a satirical protest") as this is what the sources say. Captain Screebo (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, obviously I didn't know when I reverted you that you were going to make subsequent edits, undoing parts of your initial reversion. Suggestion: if you had indicated in your edit summary that you were going to make those subsequent edits, I would have stayed out of the way and given you space to do so. Ideally, it's best not to hit the revert button unless you really mean to leave it as a revert, lest other editors draw the conclusion that I did. The tricky thing about Wikipedia is that reverting is (1) very easy, and (2) like waving a red flag in front of someone.

As for your question about the recent consensus, here is how I see it. The issue that the IP was ~~trolling~~ incorrect about was the rather ridiculous claim that, because there have been parody religions in the past, the FSM had actually existed before Henderson wrote the letter. Obvious nonsense. But the edit by Lawrence (who is, by the way, a long-time and very capable editor) simplified the whole thing to saying that Henderson wrote the letter that year, which smartly avoids the troll-magnet wording, and makes it clear that this was the beginning of the meme, and in no way implies that it wasn't the beginning. So I thought it was an improvement. Not at all the same thing as what the IP had been doing. There's a fuzzy line between ownership and stewardship of pages, and it's a good idea to be receptive to other people making changes. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay amigo, I have just added Twinkle today as I thought the easiest thing would be to revert and add bits back in, I have taken note of the suggestion to say so in the revert edit summary.

As for Lawrence, I stopped by his user page and checked the talk and contribs sections so I know that he is an experienced editor, that he explains the confusion about verifiability and the Truth™, that he is a ~~boffin~~, er I mean an Economics lecturer or some such thing, unfortunately, as you correctly say reverts are "like waving a red flag in front of someone." The fact that the commentary for the revert went also, one cannot 'create' something that doesn't exist. slightly riled me as this is totally what create means and it seemed to me that the person had taken no notice of all the carefully detailed explanations on the talk page. And what do economists (and suchlike) know about the English language anyway? (another joke)

Right, well editing Wikipedia is: a lot of fun; a huge challenge; very time-consuming; a bit of a headache sometimes; and a HUGE learning curve to familiarize onesself with all of the guidelines.

Oh and wanting to own a page is completely juvenile, I have already come across what appear to be fanboy cliques ganging up to protect pages that appear to be a lot of trivia and unreferenced original research and scaring off well-intentioned editors who only seem to want to apply encyclopedic standards to the articles.

I know there are the helpdesks and suchlike but I do a lot of random editing (due to random reading) and constantly encounter stuff which I do not know how to deal with (despite reading WP:THIS, THAT AND THE OTHER for hours), I can usually find stuff about titles, boldface, external links etc. but I was wondering if, from time to time, I could ask you for advice directly on your talk page, mainly concerning user behaviour and what we have just mentioned above, cliques protecting pages that are either non-notable, poorly sourced or original research? Just asking, like.

Captain Screebo (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'm happy to (try to) answer questions! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Great, btw, I am just posting a note to Lawrence's talk page to inform him about this chat (assume good faith) and to inform him of the definiton of create (slightly ironic wink [text to replace emoticon]). Captain Screebo (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It's all good with me. BTW, I bridle at the suggestion that economists know not their English. ;-)

--LK (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

All good, and no comment as to the literacy of neuroscientists. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Forsooth and other such wordy japery, there be no edit war on the horizon, alack and alas, I thought this be Wikipedia, not the Neuroscientists' and Economists' Cake-Baking and Embroidery club. Bien à vous, tous les deux. Captain Screebo (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Reopening Debate Of Icons On Template talk:Infobox bilateral relations

Hi, I've reopened the debate on flags with an additional proposal. Please compare Template_talk:Infobox_bilateral_relations#RFC_For_Overhaul_Of_This_Template and its edit summary.Curb Chain (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for asking me. I still think what I thought before. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input...

...at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Damiens.rf_Conduct. Good to see a fresh face in the mix to give an clear, concise, and unbiased opinion. RFC/U seems like a good next step. — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I'm glad to help. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Refactoring

Drat. SORRY!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

FSM

Hi Trypto, I just wanted to let you know that for various people, FSM isn't a parody religion. Not sure if the poster on the talk page was trolling or not, but there are people who have adopted it as their religion - not based on the parody nature of it, but based on the beliefs they feel legitimate and intended in the parody motion. Hard to explain... but there is indeed an actual, legitimate belief system. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 15:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I am so tempted to reply "citation needed". I'm all for AGF, but not to the point of ridiculousness. (What is the "actual, legitimate" part of it: the meatballs, the pirates? No, please don't try to answer that.) Look, we have excellent reliable sourcing that Bobby Henderson himself (the FSM originator) has a website where he says, explicitly, that it's a real religion. And we have equally reliable sources that say that his saying so is, itself, a parody, a joke. It's a neat trick, good performance art: you just have to keep a straight face. Hardly a week goes by without someone, oh so earnestly, posting to that talk page that they are shocked, just shocked by the disrespect to their religion. I, for one, have better things to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

LoL, I think my response to the editor was pretty much the same, though worded differently (ie: citation needed). I, btw, have found enough citations that are pretty much valid, but I am far from decent enough to contribute such content in a way that'll be suited to Wikipedia (without putting a lot more work into it than I currently have time for). The movement was/is indeed intended as parody, but in parody, embodied many people's beliefs, which thus started what various people do consider a religion. But of course, like you, I think that's irrelevant until properly written and sourced. Also like you, I suspect most of those "shocked" actually do not see it as (or care if it is) a religion... those who see it otherwise, probably couldn't care in the least bit how it's portrayed - which is of course part of the point of it all... Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, good, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Temp

I would like to gather support for a template to do with non-religious classifications. Although there are other such templates with various miscellaneous topics, I prefer a standalone tempate dealing exclusively with the classification of the non-religious community. My reasoning is that several people (including myself) have found difficulty in classifying our non-religious ideology. Am i an atheist or a deist? If the definition of "God" is broadened (i.e. "the entirety of the universe"), then most atheists would probably be deists or pantheists. Also, words such as pantheist and apatheist are still very academic and unfamiliar. Thats why i think the following template would be an important addition to the wikipedia. See: Template. I think all the current templates are too big/miscaleneous and bury these important distinctions in a sea of links. Pass a Method talk 17:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for asking my opinion. I took a look at it, and I'm sorry that I'm not very enthusiastic. As you just said, it is difficult to reduce many of these concepts to just a few labels, and I think that your draft actually makes that problem worse, instead of better. The purpose of these kinds of templates is to help our readers navigate the encyclopedia, by making them aware of the multitude of articles that we have. All of these considerations make it desirable to have navboxes with a lot of entries, which are more useful than having ones with just a few entries. And the purpose really isn't specifically to help people resolve their own concerns about how to classify themselves: instead of Wikipedia editors presuming to answer those questions, we should make it easy to read widely and decide for oneself. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Better late than never...

Thanks for the barnstar! It's really not a big deal; I'm sure another admin would have finished the job soon afterward if I had not. More than anything, I just want the community to move on quickly so that we can begin the next step in resolving the pending changes situation. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 01:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome nonetheless! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Your reverting of my addition to Haloperidol 2009-09-13

Hi Tryptofish,

You reverted my change to Haloperidol and said it was WP:OR. I do not think it was. You might have been mistaking by just reading the abstract from the research, not the research article.

If this is the case could you please read the article or ask before reverting changes?

If not, then please explain why you did this change.

Kind regards, Nopedia (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

That edit, judging by the date, must have been a very long time ago, so I don't remember it. I'll definitely look into it, and of course I have no objection to being corrected if I made a mistake. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I've looked into it, and I wasn't editing that page in 2009. I'm making a guess that you actually meant 2010. You had made an edit in August 2010 that was this: [1]. In that edit, you created this sentence: "Normally this is described as the "neurons was spared but positioned more closely compared to the controls", but this is not true." There is no reference cited at the end of the sentence. Around that time, I think I remember being asked by another editor to look at that article for poorly sourced material. On September 13, 2010, I made this edit: [2], which was not focused only on your edit, but on a variety of edits that had introduced mis-spellings and the like. My guess is that it is that edit of mine to which you refer. To the extent that I reverted the sentence I quoted here, I stand by it. The part you put in quotes is entirely ungrammatical, and there is no way of determining where you got the quote from. To say "Normally this is described as" goes against WP:WEASEL: how is "normally" defined, and who is doing the describing? To say "but this is not true" does indeed violate WP:OR. Who is saying that it is untrue? A Wikipedia editor? A source? Which source? No source is cited for that sentence. And the way Wikipedia works, no one has to ask you before making a subsequent edit. You can, of course, watchlist the page and respond there. I thank you for asking me about this, and I hope that my answer to you is clear, but I have to say that I stand by that edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I misread the date. And thanks for your answer. I understand your reason and I should have been more explicit with what I meant. I have changed the page again and added the information back. Could you please see if my new changes are unclear or violates anything? Nopedia (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for your understanding. I was just checking that now, while I got your reply. I've just made some copyedits for readability, without changing the meaning, and I don't think you will have any objection to those. There is also one sentence that you added that I am, next, going to modify for the same sorts of reasons that I referred to above. If you disagree with that change, we can, of course, discuss it. Cheers, --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good. I am going to add some other important articles later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nopedia (talk • contribs) 19:00, 28 May 2011

All good. I've made the edit to which I just referred, and I'm done for now. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Crucifixion Article

I removed the Orpheus Amulet from the crucifixion article because Historian James Hannam identified the amulet as a 19th century fake.

http://www.bede.org.uk/orpheus.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristhehistorian (talk • contribs) 04:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me at my talk, but sorry, but you are wrong. Subsequent scholarship, after Hannam's, raised serious questions about his theory, and the current consensus of scholarly sources is that he was incorrect. In addition, you are in violation of the Wikipedia policy at WP:3RR. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Can I pick your brains? (ha-ha neuroscientist joke?)

Hi, I was just perusing the FSM discussions and noted that you said "okay, fire away" to my request for help on various subjects. Could you take a look over here and tell me what you make of all this. This is a BLPcat guideline, but one editor seems to have stomped in and removed a part of the guideline which informs policy and has been there for nigh on two years. I have tried to point out that I have used the deleted section several times recently as a criteria for CSD and the editor's replies are fairly dismissive and also, IMO, deliberately confusing.
As you will see, it appears to be a one-man war and several editors appear to have given up or been worn down by this 1 user (who also happens to be one of the 400 most active editors on WP = userbox). Surely one must seek consensus before deleting large sections, or, if Bold, Revert, Discuss, once they have been reverted cease reverting (WP:EW) and discuss (instead of imposing their will).

I have recently been involved in some very time-consuming, and pointless, edit warring over at DSK and the related sex assault case article, some people appear to trample all over WP policy by being the most insistent and persistent advocates of stuff that is totally not Wikipedia, IMHO, and other editors let themselves get battered into submission. I appreciate the exchanges we have had and would like your POV on what's going on. Some disputes are minor or irrelevant or have no impact in the long term but I feel that a lot of people take the policies and guidelines concerning BLPs too lightly and forget that the mission of WP is encyclopaedic. And also, they could sue our ass? So if you have half an hour or so, could you tell me where this should go? Dispute resolution, the BLPN, the seven circles of WP hell and so on? Thanks, your brother in meatballs and spaghetti CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, listen I have thought of another editor who could probably give an opinion and appears to be more involved in BLPs and so on, so if you don't have the time or the inclination please say so and I'll go bother someone else. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm happy to try to answer this kind of question (just haven't been logged in until now). If I understand correctly, your question is about this: [3], and the corresponding discussion near the middle of the talk page to which you linked (and not about the Eskimo discussion near the bottom of that same talk page). I don't know a lot about the history and issues about that guideline page, and I'm not going to spend time getting more involved in it, but I can see a number of points where I can make suggestions to you:

Given that the edits back and forth between you and All Hallows are recent, and given that there has apparently been a history of multiple editors disagreeing about the issue, I think that the very first thing you should do is: nothing! I would suggest that you sit back and wait, and see whether anyone else comes along and agrees with you (or not). Don't contact anyone, asking them to do so (per WP:CANVAS), just wait. Wikipedia has a noble tradition of The Wrong Version^TM. Nothing wrong with letting someone else be wrong about a page for a couple of days. Understand that, and you are on the path to Wiki-Zen!
On the talk page, I see you saying stuff about "your final comments are fairly dismissive" and "you're getting all hot and bothered over this and working yourself into a lather". Don't. When you talk to me here, I get it when you are speaking casually and with a sense of humor, but don't expect that of everyone, and never when you are in a disagreement with them. Next thing you know, they'll be claiming WP:NPA and people unfamiliar with the case will be taking their side against you. Comment on the edits, not the editor. No speculating about what they are thinking. Just be matter-of-fact, no humor in a disagreement. On my own quick read of the talk, it's not clear to me who is correct and who isn't, but All Hallows comes across to me as reasonable on the face of it.
About DSK (that's a disambiguation page, but I figure you mean the guy from the IMF), anything contentious about current events is an edit war in the making. First, try to get consensus on the article talk page. In this case, it's such high-profile that I'm sure there are plenty of eyes on it. If you want more eyes, yes, BLPN is the place to go, and the editors there are well-aware of the complicated legal issues.
Did you really say that you use the category page as a criterion for WP:CSD? I hope not! The only reasons to tag anything for speedy deletion are spelled out at WP:CSD. Tagging something for speedy for any other reason is seriously a mistake (compare WP:PROD and WP:AFD). The paragraph where you and All Hallows disagree is potentially a very valid reason to delete some content from a page, but not for deleting an entire page. Useful tip: any time you tag a page for CSD, watchlist it, and pay attention to whether or not the reviewing administrator agrees with you.
I don't see any reason to get into dispute resolution yet, from what you've shown me. Remember that once you go down that road, WP:BOOMERANG takes effect, and you want to have the above points cleared up first.

I hope that helps. Lemme know if there's anything else I can try to answer. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the reply, sorry, very busy IRL, will answer more fully next week I guess, but much appreciated. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

DRN

Letting you know I have taken your ideas into consideration, and updated the proposal accordingly, as after a reflection doing a parallel of both processes in action before doing a trial of both boards would be a good idea. Thanks for your suggestion. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

And thank you, too. It looks much better now. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hi Tryptofish. Would it be possible for you to apologize to Malleus for this comment at 28bytes' RfA? I know you didn't mean any harm by it but it seems Malleus didn't appreciate being made fun of like that. I feel bad now because I also like to lighten things up by making joky remarks, as I did on that same RfA. But Malleus is a good editor and feels he has had a hard time in the past for perceived incivility, so I guess he is sensitive on the issue. He is also an extremely good writer, one of our best. Can you say something to him to make things better if you can? Please note that this is not in any sense a warning, but more of a heartfelt request from one user to another. Thanks. --John (talk) 02:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. On RFA, you should be focused and especially civil to persons with whom you may have had disagreements in the past. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

John and Kiefer, thank you both for raising this with me in such a thoughtful and well-reasoned way. I have (I hope!) done what you requested. I hope that's the end of it.

Kiefer, please let me make it clear that it is not factually the case that I was doing any of it out of "disagreements in the past". Rather, it was what I have now said at the RfA, nothing more, nothing less.

And I am going to say, here, at my own talk, that I find a contradiction between Malleus' reaction in this instance, and his attitude towards what he, himself, should be permitted to say. Those who expect others to have a thick skin would do well not to have thin skins themselves.--Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tryptofish,

Thank you for your clarifying and good humored statement at the RFA, and your kind reply here. I saw no indication that your jest was meant as anything other than humor, and I am glad that you clarified things.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad you understand. Happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You know, John, your claim that incivility bothers Malleus would be more credible if Ii hadn't been reminded just yesterday what he considers acceptable. This is not an isolated example: If Malleus wants to be treated civilly, then he needs to stop insulting people he disagrees with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No doubt, but, be that as it may, please let's not convert my talk page into an RfC on someone else. Nothing more to see here, folks, time to move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No doubt? There is a great deal of doubt and misunderstanding on display here. I don't at all object to your comment Tryptofish; what I object to, and have always objected to, is the hypocrisy of sanctioning one editor for what another is allowed to get away with. I have nothing but contempt for Wikipedia's childish civility policy, and that's unlikely to change until it's either rationalised or applied equally to all editors, not just non-administrators and those that you don't like. Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, hello. If I understand correctly, you don't object to what I said to WhatamIdoing, and I hope that you will focus on the fact that I was telling him and others to please move along. I was pleased to see what you said about a group hug on one of the other talk pages, and I really do hope that this discussion will not continue, or at least continue without me. Yes, I agree with you that there is an awful lot of inconsistency in what we allow from one editor but not from another; I would add that the specific ways in which that inconsistency can seem unfair is all too often in the eye of the beholder. As I think you know, I am no fan of the "me big administrator" school of conduct, although I'm also no fan of "me big FA writer". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I am a fan of neither. What I'm a fan of is honesty and consistency, something that's rather rarely on display here on Wikipedia. Malleus Fatuorum 21:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, anyway, I was there when you copyedited Schizophrenia. I consider myself to be a very capable writer and I'm hard to impress, but I was impressed. Your work there was absolutely masterful. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It was, but I've never claimed to be in any way deserving of special treatment because I can write; I only demand that the same standards are applied to everyone. Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If you say so yourself. But, shouldn't that have been "be applied to everyone"? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

In a word, no. Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tryptofish, for complying so collegially with my request. I don't think there is any point in making this an extended topic; as the owner of this page has said, this was not intended to become an RFCU but was merely a request for clarification. That has been done, so there is really nothing to be said here. --John (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks John. As for OWNer, well, that's a bit awkward, as I'm unhatting what you did and moving your comment here, so it's a bit too complex to parse. But, indeed, it's time to move on (after one of the busiest days on my talk page that I can remember!). Happy editing, everyone! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

An amusing (to me!) statistic: [4]. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Help yourselves—they're on me! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tryptofish. I just wanted to request that you let Ajraddatz have the last word in his oppose. I've left him a note that I understand his oppose and don't have a problem with it. Take care, 28bytes (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh, looks like we posted at the exact same time. No worries. 28bytes (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Alas, I got the orange bar just after I hit save replying there. However, I think I replied in a way that won't be a problem for you. And, anyway, I think you have handled the whole thing very well, and it reflects very well on you. I also appreciate the ways in which you have been kind to me in this. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that, and I want to thank you for being so supportive as well. I'm sure that this whole thing has been stressful for you, but only 111 hours left 'til it closes! Heh. 28bytes (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, wait a minute. I thought it was supposed to be stressful for you! Well, in 111 hours you can block me. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Input on Vilayanur S. Ramachandran page

Hi Tryptofish, Can I get your input on the Vilayanur S. Ramachandran page? There seem to be a couple of single-purpose editors (perhaps meat-puppets of each other) who are determined to simply enforce their POV an all things related to Ramachandran, and who really do not seem to be into things like talk page use. See Talk:Vilayanur S. Ramachandran and Special:Contributions/Neurorel, Special:Contributions/Edgeform and Special:Contributions/Pfstarrs. I might be out of my head, as I've been involved in a slow battle with them, but as a fellow neuroscience contributor, I thought I'd ask for some outside input. I also just asked a couple of other editors who are part of the neuroscience project for some input, and asked an admin to lock the page to promote discussion instead of edit-warring. Thanks, Edhubbard (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ed. Thanks for asking me, and I'll try to help. I've been looking into it, and it's very complicated.

Before getting to the content issues, a few procedural things that stand out to me. I think Favonian made a good point in saying that you, yourself, are right on the bright-line edge of 3RR. Once the full-protection lifts, my STRONG advice to you is to absolutely refrain, 100%, from reverting anything on that page. Let those other editors make the edits they want, and just raise any objections you have on the article talk page. Even if they make edits that horrify you, let them stand, and know that other editors are going to have eyes on the page. Given that you are identifiable as a scholar who trained with the subject of the page, you have a double-edged sword pointing at you: on the one hand, you have credibility as a knowledgeable editor, but on the other hand, you are very vulnerable to accusations of pushing a hagiographic POV.

One of your last edits before the protection included a link to WP:MEAT in the edit summary. Never do that again. It's a violation of WP:NPA, and there are now going to be eyes on all edits there. It's OK to bring up the issue on talk pages where you are raising concerns about conduct, but keep it out of content editing. Now that said, I was surprised that the checkuser of the sock report you filed turned up no connection between the accounts, because their edit histories sure pass WP:DUCK for me. I think you really are dealing with 3 or 4 distinct editors who are, for Wikipedia's purposes, independent of one another, but who clearly have shared agendas. (Maybe something with the culture of India, or maybe something related to autism science, I don't know.)

OK, now turning to the content. First, I can see from the edits this month that there's an issue about the discussion of mirror neurons and autism. Looking at the talk page history, the page seems to have been quiet until the beginning of this year. The current talk page shows a lot of threads in which you and some of the others discuss various areas of disagreement. I can't tell from the too-lengthy discussion how most of those issues turned out. Please provide me, here on my talk page, with a brief summary of those talk page issues that are not, currently, resolved to your satisfaction.

About the edits in the edit war this month, this is what I think I see, based on a superficial read. The other editors may have had a valid point in decreasing the amount of text that could be considered to present a sympathetic listing of the people in the subject's lab. No need that I can see to list the names of post-docs, for example. In your opinion, is that fair? On the other hand, the other editors appeared to me to be pushing a format that seemed to want to refute what VR had published, sort of like saying, first, here is what the lab published (so good so far), but then, here are subsequent publications from the lab and from others that allegedly call those findings into question. In your opinion, am I correct about that? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

In very short, yes, the mirror neurons and autism is the one thing that is at the center of the current debate. However, I see it as a symptom, not the real problem. Note this current debate about the MNS comes in the context of a long history of slow attempts to undermine and discredit Ramachandran in many ways. As for the current version, it might be too much; I wrote it in response to repeated attempts to This was the old version [5], and after repeated attempts to introduce the material you note above, I rewrote to include more details and references to current review articles. I have even suggested that I was willing to go back to that short version on the talk page Talk:Vilayanur_S._Ramachandran#Let_Ramachandran_speak_for_himself.21, but so far Neurorel has mostly simply made edits and ~~avoided the talk pages altogether~~ has used the talk page as a last resort. Of course, the MNS and ASD section in the Ramachandran biography is not the right place for all of this; the MNS page probably is better suited, but so far, the debate has been on the Ramachandran page. Thanks, Edhubbard (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that, as a WP:BLP, keeping it short and leaving much of the science to those other pages is a good idea. And don't over-compensate in the edits you make. Just make edits to make the page the best that it can be. If the other editors make it worse, let them do it and let other editors fix it. If that pattern holds, you may well have, in the near future, a valid issue for WP:BLPN. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks... I've made a similar suggestion on the talk page for the Ramachandran article. Part of the issue is that for some reason, this page hasn't had many eyes on it, so there weren't any other editors to fix it. I hope more eyes makes it all less fraught; perhaps on both sides of the debate. Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)