User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 17

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 15

March, 2012 – June, 2012

You deletionist SCUM

What does an empty talk page need more than people telling you what they really think, you deletionist scum!? EEng (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Ha! Actually, I nearly had a heart attack (exaggeration!) until I saw that it was you who wrote it. Then again, it's one of the nicer things that people have said about me. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to give you a heart attack (exaggerated), but I nearly had a heart attack (exaggeration!) until I saw that you said that you were exaggerating about nearly having a heart attack.

Not a peep so far out of you-know-who... maybe the Home for the Indiscriminately Inclusive has been on lockdown for the last few days?

Seriously now... I notice your interest in neurology. Perhaps you've seen the article indirectly linked here (not that I own it or anything).

EEng (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm amazed at the non-response from that particular editor, not that I'm complaining, and not that I've checked my watchlist before looking here. No news is good news.

I guess, strictly speaking, I'm into basic neuroscience more than the clinical side, but Gage is most definitely someone I've heard of, and it's a great tale. Looking at the discussion you linked, I felt awful about what you said there about the reason for your having been off-wiki for a while. I trust and hope all is well now. And in looking around a little more, I noticed your interest in a particular "house" with a blue-domed bell tower and two courtyards. I'm usually pretty strict about not revealing any of my personal details on site, but I have a hunch that you and I must have both spent some time there ('78 in my case). Cheers! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S., just having noticed your edit summary here. Actually, that would make me a deletionist Aufwuchs. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Always best to read to the end of the paragraph [1], though it was sweet of you to be so gentle about my fictional incarceration (in prison I mean -- not the belltower place -- more tea, anyone?). EEng (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

D'oh!! Well, let's delete that comment. I guess Aufwuchs like me can't read... I might need something stronger than tea. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for helping my students

Thanks for popping in and cleaning up my students' work on the '66 animal welfare act. They are required to submit 10 paragraphs before April 30; any tips and help you provide them with are most appreciated. They might work slowly, thanks for your patience!! Waterbug42 (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure! It turns out that you've assigned them a couple of pages that are on my watchlist. Stickler that I am, I'll inevitably follow up any of their edits that I see, with whatever fixes I think are called for. As a recovering academic myself, however, I've decided that I'm only going to treat students as I would any other editors, and I've sworn off doing any teacher-like activities. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Unblock (of another user)

Hi Trptofish, I'm very sorry I wasn't able to get back to you regarding that unblock request, however I'm glad to see that all ended well. Do drop me a note if you need sysop assistance with anything at a later date. WilliamH (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind note. I realize that it was a complicated matter, but I'm glad that you now agree that the unblock of that user was a good decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

3RR

I have no intention of reporting this, and I completely understand why you've done it, but I just wanted to warn you about 3RR on the Clementi article.LedRush (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing, understood, thanks for the heads up. At this point, I'm just talking on the talk page. Actually, I think I did only a single revert about the categories, and thanks for backing me up, and the other edit was a completely unrelated one of an IP edit, but they are both reverts, that's true. The rest is simple rvv, which isn't part of 3RR. I guess there's an outbreak of IP vandalism, with the verdict expected very soon. I hope you're feeling better about that other business over the page, by the way. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

My understanding of 3RR is that any revert to any other editors' contributions counts (doesn't have to be the same content). One of your reverts was odious vandalism (exempted, to my understanding) while another was a simple delinking (probably not exempt). All of this is moot as you haven't broken 3RR and I wouldn't report you even if you did. But I just wanted you to be warned, especially with all that heat on the talk page now (you never know when people are going to want to use something to gain an edge in an argument).

I am still pissed at Fae for what I consider to be his general incivility and refusal to strike what everyone regards as an inaccurate accusation, but it is what it is. I understand that he has been the subject of some awful, awful hate speech, and that may be clouding his opinion. However, I still expect more from an admin. With the discussion collapsed and the article talk page not highly trafficked, it's probably fair to say that I'm over-worried about the accusation standing unedited. It still irks me to have such an accusation leveled against me, though. Oh well... (and thank you for asking, BTW...I know you and he are friendly.)LedRush (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, you and I have had our spats, but I'd like to think we are friendly too. Anyway, thanks again for the concern. A lot more editors are now paying attention to the categories, and I trust it will get worked out in due time. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Here you go

http://193.62.66.20/~karl/The%20disconnection%20hypothesis.pdf That's one of the sources for the hypothesis I descibed. In addition to DA, a variety of monoamine NT are implicated in schizophrenia, but an abnormal dopamine cascade is how the disease advances. Another big influence on my thinking is The Master and His Emmisary, Ian McGhelchist, quite informative on the abnormal lateralization observed in schizophrenia, split-brain, and patients with other traumatic lesions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guywholikesca2+ (talk • contribs) 22:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I just left a note at your talk that I think you meant this message for Anthony, not me, but thanks anyway. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Question about Tamil version of Ramachandran's name

I was surprised to see that the first line of the V.S. Ramachandran entry had been changed. I thought that editing on the Ramachandran entry had been blocked until April. For most readers, the Tamil version of Ramachandran's name will not be relevant. I have never seen an article that provided this information so I would have to say that this a form of independent research. What do you think? Neurorel (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Neurorel

Actually, the inclusion of non-English/non-Roman names in parentheses right after the English/Roman alphabet name seems to be pretty standard practice for people born outside the U.S.: see e.g., Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Mahatma Gandhi, Vladimir Lenin, Vladimir Nabokov. Edhubbard (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, both of you! Personally, I'm entirely neutral about how the name is displayed, fine with me any way we do it. As for the editing, my understanding is that the page is semi-protected, so that IP editors and non-autoconfirmed editors (in this case, the jerk who was posting those mean-spirited edit summaries) cannot edit it, but editors with established accounts are free to edit it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

If it seems like standard practice in wikipedia, then so be it.Neurorel (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Neurorel

Return of the vandal

Whoever is going from computer to computer has now shown up at the aricle on Apotemnophilia. They are using 108.89.117.115 to make more of the same accusations about both Tryptofish and Neurorel. Up until this point I assumed that he person who keeps vandalising edit summaries was upset because they have read too many popular science blogs and now harbor some sort of fantasy about defending Ramachandran's place in the world of science. However, I have tried to focus the article on apotemnophilia more on Ramachandran's work because he has advanced one of the only theories about apotemnophia that makes sense. There is even a small amount of research that suggests that the theory might be correct. Apparently the person who keeps adding edit summary diatribes does not know enough about Ramachandran's work to realize that the changes I have made highlight Ramachandran's contributions in this area. Neurorel (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Neurorel

I'm not familiar with apotemnophilia, but clearly we are dealing with someone who has, shall we say, issues. Perhaps they saw, just above, what I said yesterday about them being a jerk. Kind of proves my point. I'm not an administrator, by the way, so I've rolled back their edits, but I've also passed the information along to HA, who will have to do the edit summary deleting, page semi-protecting, and IP blocking, because those are administrator activities. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Neurorel, you may want to take a look at User talk:HelloAnnyong#More of the same vandalism. In particular, because you usually find those edits before I do, I'd suggest that you follow their advice about e-mailing the information, and specifically the diffs, right away to oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org. It would be a good idea to do that right away when you see the edits, and before you contact me (I'm really just ending up being an intermediate messenger) or anyone else. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Biodiversity of New Caledonia, paleobotany forgotten

Hello, could you to work on this article, please? Biodiversity of New Caledonia. It is a very important archaic species group in Paleobotany and evolution.85.251.99.49 (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello! That's very nice of you to ask me, although, like some of the other editors you have asked, I'm not at all an expert on the subject. I see that some of the other editors have already been working on it. When I have a bit of time, I'll go through it and give it a copyedit. I wonder if User:Casliber might be a good person for you to ask about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Clementi article minor edit

Thank you for your edit, a big improvement in prose. I would like to change "another man" back to "a man". Thoughts? --Javaweb (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Thanks for the kind words, and for your helpful edits there, as well. I'm not at all fixed on "another", but I felt like just saying "a man" sounds oddly vague. Is there some alternative way of putting it? Perhaps: "a man whose identity has not been publicly revealed"? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I modified it, a little differently than above. I hope that helps. If you disagree, please feel free to change it further. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the improved wording. --Javaweb (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Thank you very much

Thank you very much by your unselfish cooperation in Article "Biodiversity of New Caledonia". Muchas gracias por tu colaboración desinteresada en el articulo "Biodiversidad de Nueva Caledonia". 85.251.99.49 (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Time for a break?

I am quite certain that you see this situation in a completely opposite view than I do, but it is hurtful to me that you are continually adding insulting comments to your edit summaries on the Clementi article and that you are not addressing my comments on the talk page. If you do not feel that you can discuss things on the talk page without getting angry, perhaps it is best for you to step away and get some perspective. This is not meant to insult you, but as friendly advice.LedRush (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

If you cannot see why I feel the way that I do, I guess that's your problem. If you want to take a break, go right ahead. I do not really see what you are saying as friendly advice. Everything you do at that page seems to be pushing the POV that Ravi should not have been charged, should not have been convicted, and should be sentenced leniently. You constantly revert anything with which you disagree (although, to your credit, you have been getting somewhat better in this regard since the WQA discussion), and you act like you are the one who is "hurt". I defended you to a considerable extent in that last DR. Don't count on it from me in the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

And you shouldn't overlook the fact that other editors there have largely stopped responding to you in talk. Don't make the mistake of interpreting that as agreement with you, or lack of objection. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have added many sources criticizing Ravi's actions, better describing Ravi's actions, better describing Wei's actions, better describing the LGBT response to the incidents, and ensuring that sources are used accurately. Yes, I also add criticism of the trial and the verdict, but seeing as the media is reporting the heck out of that aspect, I feel this has been done in a completely appropriate way per WP policy. For you to reduce me to a characature of POV is as ridiculous as it is insulting. Furthermore, I would be interested to see who has reverted more since the WQA, you or me (I got 5 bucks on you). Recently you have not engaged in talk page discussion (most discussions on editing disputes are started by me as I try and avoid edit wars) and when you do, you are insulting and non-responsive while, at times, misrepresenting my views and even your edits.

This having been said, while your actions are hurtful both to me and to the Wikipedia project, I have had no problem focusing on the edits and not the editors. I only came here because you have mentioned a couple of times about how angry you are and about how annoyed you are. If you can't comment on an article without being emotional, I just thought that might be an issue. Of course, you'll do what you want to do.

In fact, I think it's good that you stay actively involved in the article. It is good to be forced to ensure that edits conform to the sources, and having someone with strong opinions on the subject can sharpen that focus. Additionally, you continually make gramatical and clean-up changes which help the article. You also make good suggestions on structure and content. My post here was not intended to say that I don't think your work on the article is valuable: it clearly is.LedRush (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I've read what you've said, here and at the page. My best advice to you is to engage other editors at the page and find out where they stand on the issues that concern you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Problem?

Hello, please enlighten me what the problem was. I very much doubt that person who removed the link even read the article. If he actually read it, he would not say it is a unreliable source based on nothing but his assumption. It is a very well written article involved first hand personal experience on fishless cycle. Fishkeeping does not include detailed content about the most important part of fish keeping... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwong6 (talk • contribs) 23:20, March 28, 2012‎

I recognize that what you did was entirely understandable for a new editor at Wikipedia, but it pushed a couple of buttons that got what was, for someone who has been around here a while, a predictable response. What caught that editor's attention was that the website ended in dot-com. When you have a few minutes, please read through WP:SPAM, which is the main place that explains the concerns that such links set off. (There is also some relevant information at WP:EL.) How we decide what sources to cite is a big deal around here: see also WP:RS. Generally, some of the fishkeeping magazines as well as books on the subject will be readily accepted. Please let me know if I can explain that some more. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The fishless cycling page has very little useful information to teach the beginner fish keepers on the subject. I couldn't even provide more information without getting ride of most of what other editors had written, which I believe would offend them if i do so. Not everyone is willing to go out and pay for the magazines and books when the information can be grabbed from the net within minutes. You can't even contact the authors for further questions. Whether or not a source is creditable should not be judged upon how you think of the source. It is the content that matters. As experienced fish keepers, we can judge what source is creditable based on our own knowledge rather than simply "book > web article". That is my honest opinion. By the way, the one who removed the source had never even looked at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwong6 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, my advice would be to take your time and get used to how "the system" works here. As for editor expert opinion, let me also point you to WP:NOR. Please don't take it personally that the person reverted you. If you'd like, you can post a comment at Talk:Fishkeeping, and ask other editors to take a second look at that source. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have someone questioning the effectiveness of Tetra SafeStart as bacteria seeding which was mentioned in that article. Is there anyone on the project trying to test it? I had been doing extensive search for the product reviews (mostly positive) before I tested it myself. It worked for many people as well as for me, although it does not guarantee an instant cycle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwong6 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I've never used that particular product. Generally, bacterial cycling starters all are useful up to a point for getting the nitrogen-metabolizing bacteria into the tank, but you still absolutely have to take your time letting the cycling process work its way through before adding a heavy fish load, no shortcuts ever. Instant cycles don't exist, period. Water, filter material, or gravel from an already thriving tank (or live rock if it's saltwater) tend to work better than commercial products, in my personal opinion.

This being Wikipedia, I have to say something else. What I told you in the paragraph above is full of my personal opinions. That's OK here, because it's my individual talk page. But it's off-limits for any of our articles, as would be any testing of products by editors. See WP:OR. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:V mediation compromise drafts

Hello Tryptofish, this is just to let you know that to help find compromise drafts at the verifiability mediation, I would like each mediation participant to submit at least one draft at one work group that includes the best of all the previously submitted drafts of that work group. This will probably make more sense if you look at this section on the mediation page, but if anything is still unclear, just let me know. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening COTM

The current monthly WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening collaborations are:

The next collaborations will be posted on May 1, 2012. (Contribute here!)

WP:V mediation step five

Hello Trytofish, this is another update about the verifiability mediation. We have now started step five, in which we will work towards deciding a final draft for each work group. I would like you to submit a statement about this - have a look at the mediation page to see the details of what you should include. The deadline for this step is 10.00 am on Friday 6th April (UTC), and unlike the other steps I am going to be strict about it. If you don't leave a statement by the deadline, then you won't be able to participate in steps six or seven. If you think you are going to be late turning in your statement, please let me know as soon as possible - I can't promise anything, but it will be much easier to work out alternative arrangements now than it would be after the deadline has passed. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Harassment of editors and Arbcom transparency

Hi,

At a recent RFC/U concerning User:Fae you endorsed a summary written by me, which basically recognised that Fae was being subjected to harassment by Delicious Carbuncle; harassment at best -- homophobic harassment at worst.

If you refer to my talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Russavia#Comment_from_AGK), you will see that an Arb threatened to block me for harassment of Fae, and it has now started from here. It may surprise you that the Committee was aware of this harassment occurring, and they failed to act.

I am now pushing Arbs to be transparent with what occurred on their list, and essentially get to the bottom of why they neglected to act. I have posted very simple questions requiring very simple answers to each Arbs talk page, and am collating their answers together, in order to help attain this goal of both ensuring they are transparent, and to get to the bottom of this.

I am letting you as a courtesy to let you know that this is occurring, and you may want to keep an eye on discussions, and chime in if you deem you need to do so.

Cheers Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 21:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me. I certainly feel that harassment, homophobic or otherwise, on-Wiki or at WR, is something that I entirely oppose. I find it hard to make sense of the appearance that you would be accused of harassing Fae at the same time that you are opposing that harassment, and I hope that everyone would keep calm about this. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - re Atheism page

Tryptofish - just wanted to give a brief note of thanks for the revision to the page on atheism. The original meaning of the term probably should have been clear, but it tripped me up as perhaps a lazy reader. Anyway, the swift revision is much appreciated. Apologies if this isn't the proper way/place to offer thanks, but I wanted to express it somehow. Cheers! Massivereptile (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome, and this is an entirely proper and welcome place for your message, so thank you, too! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Tryptofish. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 11:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your support at my RfA. I will do my best to live up to people's confidence in me. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
- Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
- If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 21:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Inline citation problem for Mirror Box entry

I am not clear as to what the issue is. Is the problem created by the citations inside the quotation? These create dead citations such as [90] that are not part of the wiki list of citations for the article itself. I was not certain how to deal with a quotation that has its own internal citations. Should they just be deleted?Neurorel (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Neurorel

I see two kinds of problems on the page. One is that there are places where, as you say, all that is visible is something like [90]. If there is no actual reference to go with those numbers, then I'm afraid that, yes, you should just delete that bracketed number. Otherwise, the numbers are of no use to readers. The other problem is where there are valid references, but they are formatted like (Name and name, year), where the material inside the parentheses is blue-linked to an entry in the reference list. That works, but it just isn't normal style for Wikipedia articles. What needs to be done there is described at WP:INCITE, which please see. First, the references where they appear in the text should be changed, to the information now in the reference section, enclosed by <ref> </ref> symbols. Then, the {{reflist}} template should be placed in the references section, with the actual references deleted. Let me know if any of that isn't clear. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, on the second point, according to WP:HARV, the current author-date in parentheses is perfectly acceptable. It appears that it is becoming less and less preferred but there is no policy that it is actually incorrect. Edhubbard (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Ed, I think that there should still be inline citations. If you look at WP:INCITE, it does go on to discuss parenthetical referencing, but it makes it pretty clear that inline is indeed preferred. It's certainly getting to be pretty much universal in usage. Look, I'm just saying that this would be a helpful edit to make. It's not like I'm demanding that anyone has to do it that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see where INCITE says that inline is now preferred. I agree that, in terms of what people are doing currently, inline is the common practice, but I'm not sure that a preference merits tagging, and thereby suggesting that others should change the article. That is, you suggest that you are not "demanding" that anyone has to do it in your preferred way, but the addition of the tag certainly constitutes a strong "suggestion". Edhubbard (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I've self-reverted the tag. In the time you've spent on my talk page, you could have re-formatted the cites yourself, but never mind. I honestly don't care about that page, and it isn't even on my watchlist – my involvement only comes from the two editors in this talk thread asking me to look at it. You call it my "preferred way". Actually, it's the typical practice on pretty much every other page on Wikipedia. But if it floats your boat to do it "your" way, then happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm the confused one, but I think you two have gotten tangled up in the terminology. Parenthetical references are a kind of inline citation, but so are little-superscript-numbers-pointing-to-teensy-endnotes; they're two varieties of in-line. Quite different from these two -- not inline -- is just having a list of sources at the end of the article, with nothing in the text -- in the lines, you see -- to tell which bits of text come from which sources. Trypto, where you say inline above, I think you mean numbered-endnote.

For the record, I much prefer endnotes over parentheticals, which I find intrusive. BTW if you look at Phineas Gage, you'll see what I hope was a successful experiment in having two different kinds of endnotes: what I called Notes (additional material which elaborates on the main text, but which would be too discursive if actually in the main text) versus References (which never contain additional material per se, just citations).

EEng (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's true that I was imprecise with my use of terminology. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Both of you, actually. EEng (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. I will study up on referencing styles for wiki articles. My basic assumption was that I should follow the reference style that had been established by previous editors. I have no strong preference in this matter although some approaches seem simpler than others.Neurorel (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Neurorel

temporal coding

Thank you, Tryptofish, for your help with the temporal coding article. Please let me know if you have any important information about the subject that we are missing or ought to explain in greater detail. ----User:Nicolenewell 17:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome. But I really need to tell you that I intend to merge it, along with a bunch of related pages, into Neural coding. There's still a certain amount of essay-like original research on the page as it is, and I don't think it will merit a stand-alone page once that stuff gets edited out. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions?

Hi tryptofish. I'm writing in regards to the edits you've made on the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 page. I am very new to wikipedia and want to thank you for you help in editing correctly. Do you have any suggestions on additions to the page? (Le.brianna (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC))

Hi, and you are very welcome! I don't really have any suggestions with regard to additional subject matter to add, but rather, I'd suggest that you get more familiar with the stylistic aspects of how Wikipedia editing is done. I see on your user talk page that Graeme Bartlett has already given you some very good pointers. My suggestion would be to take a little time to look at the links in the welcome message at the top. Especially, it's a good idea to go through the Tutorial, and I'd also suggest that you go through the Manual of Style. That latter is very lengthy, and I'm not saying that you need to really read all of it meticulously, but you will find it helpful to skim through it while thinking about all the things that I've corrected in the edits that you made. In fact, what I've been doing has pretty much been a matter of making stylistic corrections to your edits! I realize that you are here as part of a class project, but I've been trying to treat your edits exactly the same way as I would treat any other Wikipedia editor. One other thing that comes to mind is that I'd like you to take a look here. I have the feeling that you are copying and pasting source material word-for-word into the article. Because your source material is US legal code, there isn't a problem with copyright violation (which would have been a very serious matter), but as a matter of good writing practice, you should get more experience in writing in your own words. I hope that helps! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability mediation - choosing final drafts

Hello Tryptofish. This is a note to let you know about a discussion I have just started at the verifiability mediation. It is aimed at making a final decision about the drafts we use in step 6, so that we can move on to drafting the RfC text in step 7. If possible, I would like everyone to comment over at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Final drafts proposal. Thank you! — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm on my way! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Clementi

I recognize that my recent comments on the Clementi article are ungracious. For that, I apologize. While I am rather insulted and hurt that you called me childish for doing something I feel that you did with far less justification than I have, I recognize that you are reengaging in constructive dialogue. And I appreciate it. I have been extremely busy in the real world with events that are far more important than wikipedia, but I will attempt to give you a full and thoughtful response as soon as I have an hour of uninterrupted time.LedRush (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I have replied to you at the article talk page. And I strongly suggest that you take a long look in the mirror. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for making my ungracious reponses seem gracious by comparison.LedRush (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you !

Yeah, too right, it does go over into NPA. I hadn't had a good look at that one or considered it. What I had been doing was besides that part, grouping some of the different kinds of comments to help clarify why they are bad comments, and give editors direction in what they should do. If you tell a person / child / whatever only what it is not allowed to do, and nothing about what it could / should / can do, then the only things they have in their head are the wrong things. So there is rebellion or subversion to choose from. Besides giving the direction, I think linking between the pages would help a lot to explain why some ownership comments are wrong, like these

actually, I should just copy this to the talkpage there and continue really. please comment there if you have time, you certainly know a good deal I do not. Penyulap ☏ 08:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It's here, Wikipedia talk:Ownership of articles#Tryptofish's insight sorry about the poor title, it was the first thing that popped into my head, feel free to edit any of my text as you see fit. Penyulap ☏ 08:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply and the kind words. I've responded at the talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Animal Welfare Act

thanks for your many comments and edits to my student's work on the Animal Welfare Act page. For some, English is not their first language and others just ignore advice. As the instructor, I greatly appreciate your assistance. I will mark this page and head back to copyedit it once final grades are submitted--definitely some clean up is in order. I apologize that I didn't note your comments before. Waterbug42 (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

And thank you for your kind words here. Yes, in fact, it got a bit aggravating at times when some of them seemed to be entirely ignoring the advice that I gave them. Please let me suggest that, any time you are supervising a class project, you should watchlist the pages involved and look in on them frequently. After all, Wikipedia rolls on by its own rules, whether or not there are students unaware of those rules. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Admin review comment

Hi Tryptofish, while your comment was now over a year ago, thank you for what you said on my admin review. I appreciate what you said and hope it still holds true a year on! :) I have recently closed it and want to thank the participants. Best. Acalamari 09:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome! All the best, --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Herding cats

A kitten for you!

If there was ever a more appropriate situation for this, I can't think of it.

Bob K31416 (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Ha! Just keep it away from my fish! I really enjoyed that video that you linked, even forwarded it to some family members. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

New_Jersey_v._Dharun_Ravi article

There is an editing dispute what Ravi did and was indicted for.
Here is my edit:
The charges stemmed from incidents on September 19 and 21, 2010 in which Ravi pointed his webcam at Ravi's college roommate's bed twice during dates and the second time told 150 of his friends how to view it.^[1]

^ Ian Parker, New Yorker "That evening, Ravi also texted with Michelle Huang, a high-school friend who was at Cornell. “I have it pointed at his bed and the monitor is off so he can’t see you,” he wrote. And, “It’s set to automatically accept, I just tested it and it works.” He later added, “be careful it could get nasty,” and “people are having a viewing party.”

LedRush wants "The charges stemmed from incidents on September 19 and 21, 2010 in which Ravi used his webcam to view his college roommate kissing another man and told 150 of his friends how to view it. "

The second viewing and telling "everyone" to watch is what got Mr. Ravi indicted on the invasion of privacy charges. Here are the relevant edits:

As someone who edits the Clementi article, you may want to review this article as well. Readers searching for Ravi will probably find this article so the more reviewers the better. --Javaweb (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

I have warned Javaweb against WP:Canvassing, but seeing as it is likely that you will edit that article anyway, I ask only that you do not bring a WP:Battleground mentality there as it appears that SGMD1 and the other editors working on the article are willing to do so ina collaborative manner. This is a real opportunity to make the editing environment more positive and I hope we can all seize it.LedRush (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I have already thanked Javaweb on his talk page for letting me know about this, and stated that I do not regard it as canvassing. I also note that LedRush's warning to Javaweb about a possible block for canvassing, as well as the implied warning to me here, for supposedly being likely to engage in battleground editing, seems a bit off the mark for someone who professes so strongly to an aversion to battleground. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You may not regard it as canvassing, but wikipedia does. "Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement)." Also, I was very light-handed in my warning, and thanked him for his corrective action. I should have suggested it myself instead of just warning him. Hardly the actions of a battleground mentality. But trying to use this to further make attacks against me is classic WP:Battleground.LedRush (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

That kind of proves my point. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, there was no warning, implied or otherwise, to you; merely the hope against hope that the talk page at the trial article would be a positive one.LedRush (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I swear, this is a positive message about WP:AGF

In this edit [2], you added information that we already had in the article in that exact same form. I've reverted, and that's fine. Everyone makes mistakes, and I'm definitely no exception. But in your edit summary you implied that SGMD1, myself, or one of the other editors of the page deleted the material for a purpose that may not have been in the best interests of the article, saying "Oh look at this: POV discussions made to go away by deletion!". Even if someone deleted that info, there may have been a good faith reason. I know the tone of the talk pages is quite negative, but assuming good faith by other editors, even if you believe I've lost the presumption of good faith, will go far to de-escalate tensions.LedRush (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You are right, I was wrong, and I apologize. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that and your comment on the trial article.LedRush (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ocotea Lauraceae

Hello, how are you? I have edited in Ocotea I saw that you like biodiversity articles. Can you help me to edit again Ocotea? Palecloudedwhite wipe out the article over and over again. In any case I thank you it very much. Curritocurrito (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I've looked in there a couple of times, and it looks to me like other editors there are working well to make the page better, so I think that if you just work along with them, things should be OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Help me with my user page

Dear Tryptofish Please help me clean up my user page From- User:Pacman451 —Preceding undated comment added 22:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC).

I think the problem you ran into was using indents, which don't work well on Wikipedia. I cleaned it up some, so maybe you can take it from there. If you need more help, by all means let me know. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Requesting another topic ban for User:BruceGrubb. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I've taken a look at the discussion, and I'm probably going to stay out of it for now. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Start again

Real life crises kept me away from editing for two weeks. I don't suppose that we can both use that time away and my current return as a chance to start again, attempting cooperative edits and civil communication on the articles we both edit. I will strive to make this possible.LedRush (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm so sorry that you had difficulties to deal with, and I very much hope that things are getting happier for you now. I really mean that. I welcome what you say here, and I agree to go forward in that spirit so long as you do too. Perhaps with the events covered by the two pages drawing to a conclusion, this will be the start of a time when all of us editing there can step back and evaluate the information more dispassionately. I've already thought of what I think might be a good idea for how to deal with the Savage source, and I'll explain it at the article talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I really do hope that you realize that I reverted that other editor's removal of the POV tag entirely out of consideration for the fact that you might not have agreed with its removal when you saw it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I do recognize that you reverted the removal of the POV tag for me, and I thank you for it. I also thank you for your kind words above. I will endeavor to keep up my end of the bargain, and I'm sure you'll call me out on it if I don't. I thought your Savage edit was excellent, though I suggested one more tweak on the talk page.LedRush (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening COTM

The current monthly WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening collaborations are:

The next collaborations will be posted on July 1, 2012.
To propose future collaborations, please contribute here!

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Good behaviour

Hi Tryptofish. I am confused about your user box which asserts that "Wikipedia administrators serve during good behavior". What does that mean? Whose or what good behaviour? --Epipelagic (talk) 09:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a long story, growing out of some early experiences in my editing, when I felt that a certain administrator treated me rather shabbily. Obviously, I've had a lot more experiences since then, and I've grown to have a very good opinion of the vast majority of administrators and other experienced users here. But I've long held the opinion that Wikipedia needs to be able to remove the occasional administrator who misuses the responsibilities. See, in particular, WP:CDARFC. I'm pleased to see that in the past year or so, ArbCom is becoming much better that it used to be at handling such cases.

I saw a slightly different version of this userbox on someone else's user page, where the phrase "good behavior" linked, as I remember, to an essay by that user that treated this phrase to mean, in effect, that administrators should be able to serve as long as they choose to, barring only overwhelming evidence of misconduct. I see things somewhat differently than that, but I like what the sentence means when I apply what I consider to be the plain English meaning of the phrase (good behavior by the administrator in question), so I modified the box for my own use, by re-linking the phrase merely to WP:MOP. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :) --Epipelagic (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for !voting

	at my successful RFA
	Thank you, Tryptofish, for !voting at my successful RFA; I am humbled that you put your trust in me. I grant you this flower, which, if tended to properly, will grow to be the fruit of Wikipedia's labours. I will not let you down! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I've already planted it in my garden! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability mediation - choosing the RfC structure

Hello Tryptofish! You are cordially invited to a discussion at the verifiability mediation in which we will be deciding once and for all what combination of drafts and general questions we should have in the RfC. We would love to hear your input, so why not hop over and let us know your views when you next have the chance. Thanks! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)