User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 20

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 15

←

Archive 18

→

October, 2012 – January, 2013

Aquascaping subject

I thought this subject might interest you, for reading or editing. b:Hydroculture/Physiology/Aquatic
- Sidelight12 ^Talk 22:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for making me aware of that! Yes, it's something that I ought to pay attention to. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Appreciated

You may be interested in noting this: [1]. Also this and to add to your collection, this. The user has little credibility with me. You and I can have respectful disagreement on the topic at hand and remain professional, and I appreciate your alerting me to these other incidents. Montanabw^(talk) 22:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely, it would have been wrong to discuss it behind your back. (It seems that this discussion between us is going on simultaneously on multiple pages now, since I just now saw and replied to your comment to me at that RfA.) I've had little interaction with that user (the one that contacted me at Commons, and, because of that RfA, now I know why they contacted me – it seemed awfully strange to me that they would have contacted me about that veterinary page where you and I had been talking previously), but they didn't exactly score points with me by that comment. And I definitely am not inclined to have any doubts about you! Not at all! I think we had very good discussions at that veterinary page, and really didn't disagree much at all. Maybe we disagree at that RfA, but I have no problem with what you asked me there, and I certainly don't take it personally. Anyway – happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. And yes, collegial editors can have differences of opinion, both sincerely held and honestly believed. That particular editor who contacted you at Commons is banned on en.wiki so was posting assorted things in both commons and metawiki, some on my talk page at Metawiki (which I had never previously used, but have email notification turned on, so was aware I had been contacted). The individual appears to be banned for legitimate reasons, IMHO, and after a brief but fruitless discussion, I suggested they leave me alone. The issue is now moot, anyway. So indeed, Happy Editing! Montanabw^(talk) 19:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and you can, if you want, see what I said at Commons. As you know, my biggest concern was making sure that we weren't talking about you without your knowledge. But as far as I'm concerned, the issue is indeed over with, and I'm happy to move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflict

[2] Try and be a little bit more careful next time? Legoktm (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not exactly clear on what is going on here, but I'm guessing that you wanted to make a comment in that RfA, and were thwarted by having an edit conflict with my own comment. Is that it? If it makes you feel any better, your message to me here on my talk page caused an edit conflict with my attempt to reply in the thread immediately above. If it helps, my advice is that, whenever there is any likelihood at all of encountering an edit conflict, you should select all of your edit within the edit window using your mouse, and "copy" it into memory before hitting "save". Then, if you get an edit conflict, you can just start over and paste your edit back in without losing it. That's what I do. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I saw it, there is a bug that's hitting that page, causing half the page to be deleted on edit conflicts. - jc37 22:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow! Did I delete half the page without realizing it? I thought the page looked OK after I saved my edit. Well, it sounds like the Wiki-Gods are in wrath! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh! I just went back and looked, yikes! Really strange, because, as I said, the page looked fine just after I made the edit. Anyway, to the OP, I was being careful. If there's a software bug, I didn't create it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I see from the RfA talk page that there's a Bugzilla about it. Anyway, I wasn't doing anything deliberate or careless, so this thread on my talk page now strikes me as a waste of my time. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Happened to me too and a few others, see my talk page. There is no warning about edit conflicts or anything. Stuff just vanishes. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I see. Thanks, I saw the thread at your talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

(speaking of edit conflicts - x2 lol) I was just about to mention it happened to several people so far. So no worries : ) - jc37 22:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, I'm getting edit conflicts here too! Is this how to get centijimbos? Blech! ;-) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

This is the second case I've seen of stuff vanishing mysteriously -- I've opened a section at WP:VPT about it. Looie496 (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Special Barnstar for you

		The Special Barnstar
		awarded for all the excellent editing tips, being humble, for providing helpful & balanced inputs on delicate issues & articles; and for helping make my first year in wikipedia a pretty good experience since day 1. --Ramos1990 (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

That's extremely nice of you. Thank you very much. I, in turn, appreciate how you and I can sometimes have slightly different opinions about content, and yet still be able to work together so constructively. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Crunkcore, Talk:Kesha/Archive 4, Talk:Kesha/Archive 2". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 22:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Done --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The only reason I included you was because of your role in the RfC. As this discussion has gone on for about two years, there have been a lot of people involved and I didn't expect everyone to respond, or to need to respond. (And I didn't even include everybody, only major players.) Thanks!--¿3family6 _contribs 23:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I figured that. No problem. I doubt that I can help much, but please feel free to come back to me if I can help. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Physics

Hi Tryptofish, I was wondering if you would like to join WikiProject Physics. If you would like to, please send me a message. Also how do you send a message? thanks Iolaus221 Iolaus221 (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a physicist, and I don't edit physics pages, so I probably wouldn't have much to offer that project, and I already have almost 700 pages on my watchlist, so I'm already pretty much over-extended. About messages, what you just did here, and I did earlier on your talk page, is the typical way to do it: a message on someone's user talk page. A more private mode of communication is to use e-mail, but I have very intentionally not activated my "e-mail this user" function, because I am very protective of my privacy, so for me, it's on-Wiki or not at all. As I said before, welcome to Wikipedia! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening COTM

The current monthly
WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening collaborations are:

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

V • T

From: Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Response to introduction

G'day Tryptofish! Thank you so much for your warm welcome!

I'm glad you understood where I was coming from, vís-a-vís the neuronal page and the ambiguous images.

Unfortunately, I've already made a couple of, shall we say, impassioned contributions on a couple of subjects, which I'm not particularly proud of. Since I'm not completely au fait with some of the more specific editing mechanics, I'll keep asking and learning how best to make changes based on what I observe others doing, until I'm much more comfortable and less prone to making mistakes.

I really appreciated your welcome, you're the first person to meet-and-greet since I joined a while ago. It made my day. And made me feel as though I do have something good to contribute!

Cheers, Cephas Borg (talk) 05:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

When a standalone page is not required

I think what you have proposed is worthwhile, but it may be that WP:Notability is not the right venue. Suggestion... hive it off into a new essay... and work on promoting it to guideline status. Blueboar (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm in no hurry here. (I can just see it: I make an essay, and the "inclusionists" take it to MfD!) It's clearly not just me who is in favor of it. One editor opposing is, frankly, incapable of persuasion, but the other editor has brought up some very thoughtful points, and I'd rather start by really listening to all sides, and only go the essay route if all else fails. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Neuroscience Project

Thank you, Tryptofish. I'll look into it! I'm new to Wikipedia (at least, to edit), so I hope this message is correctly formatted and in it's right place. -Ben. Benjaminsvejgaard (talk) 07:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It's formatted just fine, except that the convention is to put new messages at the bottom (chronological order), so I've moved it down here. Anyway, welcome again! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Replying here instead

Hi, T'fish. I'm unwilling to add further to the wall of text at ANI, so I hope you don't mind if I reply on your talk page instead. The only reason I'm replying at all is that I consider yours to be a reliable voice of reason around here and I'm guessing others do, too. I think your judgment is faulty in this case, and I'm concerned that your reply to me at ANI might give passersby who trust your discernment and lack the inclination to wade through the substance of the complaint the wrong impression of what's going on.

Despite several efforts by me and others to keep the ANI complaint on topic (i.e., on one user's talk page behavior), the page quickly degenerated into a free-for-all involving rehashed arguments about content, unsupported allegations and blatant attacks against certain editors, and threats of reprisal—and North8000 played a key role in that happening. Despite all that, in the interests of harmony and conciliation and in the spirit of WP:AGF, I supported North's proposal, figuring it would have the same effect in the short run as a page ban and that it would allow him to emerge from this with a little more dignity. I was well aware of his constructive contributions in other areas of the project, and I saw no reason to hold out for banhammer or even trout when a voluntary proposal to cease and desist had been made (even if that proposal was rather absurdly posed as a time-limited offer with a sunset clause). Unfortunately, since making the proposal, rather than stepping back North has remained in attack mode, repeatedly threatening reprisals if his offer is not accepted and appearing contemptuous of several of his critics. I cannot in good conscience maintain my already tenuous support for his proposal under such circumstances. AGF requires reciprocity or it is meaningless.

As long as I've said this much, let me say something a little more general in scope. What has happened at ANI with this discussion is not new. The drive-by insult-slingings, the idiotically shallow remarks uttered by contributors who clearly haven't bothered to even read the complaint, the uninformed drivel from ANI habitués, the unwillingness of the admin corps to keep the discussion on track—all these things are indicative of the morass of dysfunction that ANI is and has been for years. I am particularly bothered by the abuse hurled at editors perceived as LGBT or affiliated with WikiProject LGBT Studies; that such remarks have been allowed to stand suggests that ANI, and by extension Wikipedia in general, has a very real problem when it comes to its treatment of a certain subset of its contributors. It has become something of an elephant in the room, and I believe it needs to be addressed. Urgently. Rivertorch (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Rivertorch, thank you very sincerely for the kind things that you say about me. I know, from the editing we did together at Suicide of Tyler Clementi, that you are a thoughtful and sensible editor, and I appreciate the thought and effort that you put into your explanations to me here. Your detailed comments deserve a detailed reply, and so that is what I am going to attempt here. I also appreciate your desire to avoid adding the the wall-of-text at the ANI subpage. Please feel free to point anyone else to our discussion here, because everything I will say is for public eyes.

I've gotten to know North through working with him at WT:V. He and I originally were on opposite sides of a major policy issue, but I found that I could work well with him, and, with time, I've changed my own opinion on that issue. I've gotten along really well with him, and I actually enjoy engaging with him there. I find myself hoping that he will comment, and I look forward to hearing his views.

A couple of months ago, I commented at an AfD about a page about the Mitt Romney dog-on-the-roof business. I remember seeing a comment by North there, arguing more-or-less that Wikipedia should never cover something like that, and finding that comment a little odd (though certainly not disruptive).

Also a few months ago, I responded to a content RfC about the Boy Scouts, where the question was about how to characterize that organization's position on membership for gay people. I saw that it was something with North on one side, and several other editors on the other side. Once again, I found myself scratching my head over what I read North saying. I live in the US, and I regularly hear news coverage about claims of discrimination by the Scouts, from reliable sources. To some extent, sure, I can agree that we should make sure that we correctly source and correctly quote what the organization itself says, but North's arguments struck me at the time as being a little over-the-top. I could see how other editors would have found it annoying to discuss it with him, and I had (and still have) trouble answering the cognitive dissonance that it gives me when I compare those discussions with the good ones I have at WT:V.

I think Wikipedia needs to be careful when we have a page where one editor holds steadfastly to one approach to NPOV, while the other editors there all insist on the opposite approach. Often, that one editor is just being tendentious, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. But sometimes, it can be where I found myself at Talk:PETA a few years ago, now long-archived. I was alone against some very determined POV-pushers who were more wiki-experienced than I was, and I was stubbornly determined too. My views then are now consensus at that page, and I wouldn't want to have had the "system" shut me down.

Going back to the Clementi page where you and I have worked together very productively, you may remember a time when I thanked you for being "the voice of reason" and you joked that people don't usually say that about you. As you'll remember, there was another editor there, with whom I (and most other editors there) repeatedly disagreed, and there were times when I felt very annoyed with that editor, and you were helpful in finding some compromises. There are some similarities, if you think about it. It's easy to take these things personally, as I did a couple of times there. It's human nature. But it doesn't help Wikipedia if these things become ongoing personal feuds. I recently commented in some detail at an ArbCom case that also dealt with issues about LGBT people, and a lot of it was about personal feuds. One of the arbs said this: [3]. For me, I couldn't say it better than that. Maybe your mileage differs.

I've read all of the ANI subpage. North basically argues that "homophobia" should literally mean a phobia. Well, probably there's a good argument that the page should include a section about the etymological origins and usage of the word. But I think he is largely wrong, because the word is widely used, including in reliable sources, to mean the same thing as "biased or prejudiced against homosexuals", so it's appropriate for Wikipedia to cover the concept in that way.

I get it, that's it's a pain when North keeps making that same argument. He's even more wrong when he claims that the editors who disagree with him are part of some movement to push a particular agenda, when they actually are just arguing for what they understand to be NPOV. When I read the ANI subpage, though, what I see is the people North considers his accusers also making the same arguments, again and again. They are wrong to accuse North of pushing an opposing agenda, when he actually just thinks that he is arguing for NPOV. This is where that diff I provided from SilkTork comes into play. It's a personal feud at this point. Sometimes, it's better to feel that you don't need to respond every time (as, indeed, you did by coming to my talk page instead of responding there). Let North say his thing, and don't respond. There doesn't seem to be edit warring over the page itself. Otherwise, follow the advice that I've seen several editors give, and open a content RfC or something similar.

That's why you and the other editors should accept North's offer. Yes, North is wrong to make it sound like there's a deadline after which he'll withdraw the offer, and he's wrong to make it sound like there are conditions that imply he isn't doing it to concede anything. But that doesn't matter. If he keeps to his offer, you won't have the satisfaction of anything like an apology or a punishment, but you'll have peaceful editing, which is all you are entitled to. The opposition to his offer is just prolonging the feud. When North talks about boomerangs, I agree with him. He's right about that. And I suspect that if someone started an ANI complaint against me, I would feel rather sensitive about it, so it's a good idea to allow for that when evaluating his tone, his apparent "attack mode".

I think the reason you don't see clearer action from the administrators is that a closure of the discussion would end up being "no consensus", because that's what it is. Most administrators would not want to tell individual users at that page to shut up, or to clerk the contents the way that Arb Clerks would do in an arbitration. You've got Kim promising to block North if he reneges, and I think you can count on that. You aren't going to get a better deal. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Just in case you think I'm ignoring your reply, I'm not—just very busy and am not sure it would be useful at this stage, especially since this is practically an invitation for the worst of the ANI nonsense to spill over here. ("Hey, everybody, if you haven't had your fill of drama here, come on down to my page!"

) You've raised a number of interesting points that probably merit further discussion. Short version of the bottom line for me, as I see it today:

My modus operandi when I encounter a dispute is to assume good faith, listen carefully to what the other person is saying, try to identify any common ground, seek compromise if it's possible within the framework of NPOV/NOR/V, offer constructive suggestions for moving forward or ending the conflict, engage with the party or parties in user talk space away from the site of the dispute, and be as patient as I possibly can be. I did all of that in this case. For my pains, I've been excluded from the trio or quartet (the number seems to be variable) who comprise North's shit list, for which I guess I should be thankful, but at some point yesterday or the day before, the last remnants of my patience were exhausted. As I said above, AGF requires reciprocity, and I'm seeing precious little of that. I do not approve of the battleground behavior, the refusal to acknowledge the problem, the implication that any problem is with the complainants, the unsupported counteraccusations (which are either juvenile or Orwellian—I can't decide which—as well as being offensive), and I will not sign off on a "solution" whose terms are dictated by the person who is continuing to conduct himself in that way. I've been called naïve, and maybe I sometimes am, but I'm not a pushover; I do have limits. However the matter at ANI is resolved, it don't suppose it will make any appreciable difference whether I support the proposal or not. Rivertorch (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I see a close is currently in progress. I won't learn what it is till much later today, but I'm not expecting much. Both you and I have raised some broader issues here that probably should be pursued regardless. Rivertorch (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, NE Ent asked 28bytes to close it, and that's what's happening now. And not a moment too soon, as far as I'm concerned. It's a very good thing that it's coming to an end for now, whatever that end may turn out to be. As for the link I gave to my talk page here, I don't believe in talking about other editors behind their backs, so that's why I did it. And you should see User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 18#Your question, as for what I'm willing to host here! At this time, I really hope you understand that my comment that originally started our discussion is long-past moot. It doesn't matter how you or I might have !voted, and I have no problem with you disagreeing with me. As you pointed out, you really were never part of that shit list. You've behaved admirably through all of this, and my reply to your "oppose" was definitely not a personal criticism. I don't know if our discussion here is going to accomplish anything, but I consider it to have been very constructive. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

And while I was writing that, the closing decision was posted. For whatever it's worth, you will see that I predicted it correctly. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Rivertorch has behaved admirably though the entire process. When that is in place, even the strongest disagreement is small stuff. North8000 (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. And continuing my insistence on transparency, I'll point Rivertorch to my comments on North's user talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review of Flying Spaghetti Monster

I have listed Flying Spaghetti Monster for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Flying Spaghetti Monster/archive1. any input on how to improve the article would be very much appreciated. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's already a lot of pasta on my plate, and whenever I can think of an improvement, I go ahead and make it myself. One suggestion I'll make here is that you should check everything for the little WP:MOS details. I won't say anything at the peer review, because I'm too involved, but I'll pitch in when there's an FAC. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Information

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 09:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I've already completed the survey, and it's part of the category for submitted surveys. Is there something else you are asking me to do? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that you did create a sup-page already. Mostly I tried to avoid making this mistake. I apologize that you are one of about two mistakes that did get past me. I am glad at seeing you did participate. cheers, My76Strat (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

All good, then. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening COTM

The current monthly
WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening collaborations are:

The next collaborations will be posted on January 1, 2013.
To propose future collaborations, please contribute here!

V • T

From: Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Flying Spaghetti Monster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Menorah (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

crucifixion in the arts

why'd you remove my entry? i'm new to this so help me out here. Art is subjective so I'm unsure how you can comment on the import of a piece? but, i'm looking to learn not start a fight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.192.178.153 (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

APPARENTLY I WASN'T SIGNED IN; chopperbob67

thanks for any advice and guidance

First of all, please let me assure you that it wasn't meant as anything personal on my part. (My own first edit to Wikipedia was reverted!) I see that you have already discussed this with OrangeMike, and his understanding of Wikipedia policy is accurate. Please let me try to explain the issues in a manner that I hope will be helpful to you. The best way to have your addition of that kind of material accepted by other editors is to be able to cite secondary sources (you can click on that blue link to see what that phrase means), independent of yourself, that offer artistic criticism or news reporting, and indicate the importance of the work in other people's opinions, such that it's important enough for Wikipedia to include it. For how to provide that source information, please see WP:INCITE. If there are no secondary sources commenting on the art work, it is very unlikely that Wikipedia will include coverage of it. To understand why Wikipedia treats information this way, please read WP:NOT, and especially WP:SOAP item #4, as well as WP:COI and WP:SPAM. I know those links look like a lot of alphabet soup, but I hope that, if you read what it says there, you will have a better understanding of what Wikipedia does and does not do, and why it simply is not practical or reasonable to include edits like that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Belief in ghosts

"65% of people believe in ghosts."^{[citation needed]} Why not the template. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 11:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Sidelight12, I'm not sure what you are asking me. As far as I can tell, it is unrelated to the talk section above, so I gave it its own header. But I really have no idea what you are asking about, so please explain that to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you asking why that editor didn't simply get a CN tag? See WP:BURDEN; it's a judgment about whether sources exist, and just need to be added, or whether they are unlikely to exist at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I was lightly suggesting that. I thought the quote from that page was funny. There's also a better sources template too. I think it gives the chance for someone to contribute more, than to possibly get discouraged. Sidelight 12 ^Talk 02:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, it was a little too cryptic for me, sorry! Yes, in general, I agree with you, and I take WP:BITE very seriously. In fact, I recently played a pretty active role in revising the wording of WP:BURDEN to make clearer that one should consider doing it that way. However, as with most things, this isn't an absolute, and sometimes it makes good sense to recognize that the source is just not likely to be out there at all. If you look at the last footnote of WP:BURDEN, you'll see a quote from Jimmy Wales that illustrates that perspective pretty vividly. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Religion#Image

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Religion#Image. —Sowlos 17:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
—Sowlos 17:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I've been a little busy in real life, and I'm playing catch-up with things that have accumulated here, but I'll try to get to it soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

WP articles as teaching exercises

Hi Tryptofish. I have some concerns which you might be able to help me with, or point me in the right direction for raising. The article Behavioral ecology has recently been used as the focus of a teaching exercise with multiple students making submissions. Of course this should not be a problem in principle, however, in practise it has raised several concerns. First is the clash of styles. The students are probably working independently but simultaneously on different sections, and appear to be submitting these without reading what other students have submitted. This has led to different styles of writing, unnecessary repetition, lack of explanation of technical terms, and most worryingly, different referencing styles. I have tried to standardise some of the references but due to the large volume of submissions, I had to admit defeat. I sent a message to the teaching assistant and s/he assures me that the students will address this problem in the coming days. I am raising this concern because it would seem that 'prevention is better than cure' for such future teaching exercises using WP articles. My last point is that, regretfully, I feel some of the submissions may be direct copy and paste of some sections of text books. I can not check this as I do not have the sources apparently being used, but the style of writing suggests some of these submissions might be in breach of copyright. All the best. __DrChrissy (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to address the copyright issue first, because Wikipedia considers that issue to be such an important one. You can get help evaluating the situation when you don't have access to the source material yourself. There is a detailed how-to at WP:DCV. I would recommend that you make a post at the Wikipedia:Copyright problems noticeboard, and editors who are experts on how to deal with this stuff will (eventually) come to help you with it. If you find that the class instructor is not being sufficiently helpful, there are also things you can do at the page. I would strongly suggest putting a politely worded comment on the article talk page, including links to Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Sometimes, students respond very appropriately to such messages; sometimes, they are oblivious. An assertive way of getting their attention is to put Template:Copypaste on the page.

Now for the broader issues. Class projects are a mixed bag. I've seen pages where students did great work; I recently gave one particularly excellent student a barnstar. I've also seen pages like the one you are dealing with, and it's a pet peeve of mine. As a former university professor myself, I hate it when instructors use Wikipedia as an unsupervised dumping ground for students. Don't feel that you have to clean up everything yourself. (I've been there!) You can put Template:Cleanup on the page, and there's a whole army of editors who love to copyedit and will find the tagged page and take care of it. And remember WP:There is no deadline. My rule-of-thumb for student editing, and I think most editors see this the way I do, is that students should be treated exactly the same as any other editor, no better, no worse. No better: classes don't WP:OWN a page, and if you see a problem you are free to act on it. No worse: WP:BITE applies, and it's never a mistake to begin by patiently explaining your concern on the article talk page. Good luck! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Great advice as ever - many thanks__DrChrissy (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome! As it happens, I just found out that Wikipedia:Education noticeboard also exists, and a quick read reveals that these issues are cropping up in many places. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Any relation?

Excuse me, Sir, what is a tryptofish? darwin^fish 00:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC).

Tryptophan plus "fish". In effect, a red herring, in that it's just a made-up name that doesn't mean anything. I selected it to be a name that doesn't reveal anything private about me. But I am familiar with Parodies of the ichthys symbol. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

[Bewildered] Thank you for the clarification. Is User:Red Herring an alternative account of yours? darwin^fish 10:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC).

Darwinfish, leave the user alone! Don't be so stupid! darwinbish ^BITE 10:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC).

Hmm... sounds like it's time for a water change. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Schizophrenia references

Hi Tryptofish, I noticed that you deleted some references stating that they are primary sources from the schizophrenia article. They are actually review articles; you can check by clicking on the 'mesh terms' in pubmed or reading the abstract. I agree with your reasoning about UNDUE and making the article more focused, so I am happy with your edit. I am just mentioning this as I have moved some of the deleted content about cannabis and psychosis to other articles.--MrADHD | T@1k? 01:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out to me, and for your entirely reasonable conclusions. They seemed primary, or at least kind of low-level review, to me, but I'm glad that we agree on due weight. I think we have to be careful not to give excessive weight to arguments that cannabis causes schizophrenia, until such time as there's a lot more acceptance of that hypothesis in mainstream science sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Apology

Though I've apologized in general. I particularly want to apologize to you for my rash and unjustified statement. Regretfully, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, and I actually never felt a need for an apology, not by a mile! That you would think of doing so just goes to show that you are a class act and a fine editor. In fact, I think we all know that there are some users who would, indeed, like to slip that sort of thing in through the back door. I commented that I was not one of those, but I always understood the spirit in which you made those comments, and was never offended. Happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Holiday cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt ^{my talk page} is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.

Thanks so much! This message was especially well-timed, in that I was just dealing with a less-than-cheery user on a talk page elsewhere.

--Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated statements in images

Hi Tryptofish. You have probably seen that on Pain in animals an editor has included an image of an animal rights group poster that claims '"All animals have emotions and consciousness.', although there is no discussion of this in the text. This statement clearly can not be substantiated as not all animals have been tested, but is this sufficient to propose removal of the image. Incidentally, I have already deleted the same image from Animal Emotions, but I am not conducting a campaign against the image.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

ooops! I deleted the image from Animal cognition__DrChrissy (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection if you delete it, and I don't feel strongly either way. I thought about deleting it myself, and then just kind of blew it off. A case can be made that the image correctly represents what the group says, even if what the group says is not supported by mainstream science. Anyway, I certainly don't care about saving the image. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was the fact that it can obviously be verified as 'what the group says' that stopped me deleting it. I think I'll leave it for a while and see if it causes others any concern. __DrChrissy (talk) 00:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I see now that another editor has deleted it, pointing out the this image has been spammed around a lot, which I think is true. So, that should settle things for now, and I'm quite satisfied. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Good to hear - sometimes pays to wait a little.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Technical Mysteries

Hi Tryptofish. I attempted to start a new section for the Talk Page on the Ramachandran article. I provided an explanation for the the small change I made concerning Ramachandran's education in Thailand. The explanation I added somehow wound up on the bottom of the existing Talk Page. Is there some special technique for starting a new section? I also notice that the parenthetical explanation I gave for the edit is not on the edit summary. Maybe my computer was effected by the Mayan Apocalypse....Neurorel (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Neurorel

I went back and tried to figure it out, and I'm not 100% sure (so maybe the Mayans really are to blame

). It looks to me like the bottom of the existing talk page is the right place for your comment. If you want the earlier talk page sections to be archived, that's not urgent, but a bot can do it, and if you want, I can speed up the time settings for the bot. Let me know here, and I'll do it for you, and you can see how I did it. Beyond that, it looks like part of the comment you wanted to make got lost while you were trying to save it. (Another bot added your signature.) I'm not sure how the end of your comment, and the edit summary, got lost, but you should feel free to go back and add whatever information is missing, by making a new comment. By the way, I have no issues with the substance of the information that you added to the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability is a fun topic

Just wanted to say, perhaps more explicitly than I did at WT:V, that I very much understand and sympathize with your frustrations with how potential changes have been handled there. I'm currently neck-deep in a V-related RFC, but even before that I was trying to follow V-related discussions, and it seems that, unfortunately, we tend to end up with a large number of well-intentioned editors commenting on each others' suggestions, but in a disorganized manner that I think could reasonably be called "intimidating" for anyone new to the conversation, or even people who simply can't monitor it regularly, especially given that this policy is one where even differences that appear semantic can ultimately be heavy with meaning.

As far as editors yelling at you or otherwise behaving inappropriately...that's not something I'd put up with myself. I'd likely give them a couple of warnings, point them to WP:CIVIL, then head over to WP:ANI if they won't take the multiple hints. In fact I've been tempted to do that with regards to certain editors involved in the RFC (and the discussion at WT:V), but I'm concerned about suppressing their opinions...though I suspect they don't appreciate my restraint.

Anyway, hopefully the discussion will ultimately result in positive changes (though I'm enough of a cynic that I have my doubts) and we can devise a more constructive process going forward. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I am really very deeply grateful that you took the time to tell me all of this here! You are right, and I'm sure that in time things will actually settle down. As for ANI, I'm taking the attitude that I can eventually shrug incivility off, and it's better to lower the temperature than to raise it. Ironically, one of those editors went to an administrator complaining about me, but the administrator (someone with entirely trustworthy judgment about such situations) quickly saw through it and quieted it down. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem! As an editor who's been stressed-out by WP business myself lately, the least I can do is try to empathize with folks in a similar situation...I know it's what I want when I'm on the receiving side, and sometimes I think editors get too involved with the issues and forget that editors are also people.

I'm glad other editors' incivility hasn't reached critical mass for you...hopefully it won't get to that point. I certainly didn't appreciate being called disruptive or told that I was lacking in common sense by editors who didn't share my viewpoint...I was relieved when other editors finally chimed in supporting (if not wholeheartedly endorsing) my perspective.

I'm a little amused that you got to be on the receiving side of an ANI filing, given that I've been tempted to tell the editors calling me disruptive, "If you've got a problem with my conduct, take it to ANI". I have no patience for editors who throw around terms like "disruptive" but aren't willing to take any actions to back up their claims...probably because they know they're in the wrong.

Heh, sorry if I got a little ranty here. But yeah, I'm happy to lend an ear and help out where I can...I'm not entirely sure how compatible our views on WP:V actually are (I was more concerned with your stress levels than with your feelings on policy, which I don't know off the top of my head), but I think the most important thing is for editors to recognize that (usually) everyone involved does mean well and (usually) everyone's perspective is valid in some way. Cheers! Doniago (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

All good! (As a minor clarification, that other editor I mentioned never got to ANI, just to an individual administrator's user talk.) --Tryptofish (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ion channel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ATP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You have been nominated!

I thought that you deserved something a bit extra for all of the amazing work you've done for the project.
I've nominated you for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation!

Lova Falk talk 16:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow! I'm incredibly flattered! You mean there actually is such a thing as "paid" editing? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Isn't a gift much more precious than a paycheck?

Lova Falk talk 16:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

And thank you for your helpful edits as well! I had a nice revision to a section of the page in the works earlier today, but I lost it due to copying over the clipboard, so I downloaded a clipboard manager, xNeat. Maybe I'll give it a go again and see what I come up with. Thanks again! Your edits have been helpful in the area as well. I hope we can get it up to a respectable enough status so that it's kind of "required reading" for all parties involved. Biosthmors (talk) 21:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I hope that, too. And I hate it when text gets lost in the pixelsphere! It's just about my worst Wiki-fear. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your tireless efforts to improve an important article on a sad topic, and for the unfailingly good humor your displayed while participating in a grueling series of related discussions, I present you a rusty bauble and wish you a happy new year. Rivertorch (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Rivertorch! I've said it before: you are often the only voice of reason at that topic. That fact makes this honor all the more valued by me. Thanks again, and a happy new year to you too. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

yohimbine

Regarding your revision at the article psychoactive drugs about yohimbine...

I was going to leave an edit summary but I had too much to say. First, what sources are you talking about? That material isn't cited. Second, check out yohimbine for an explanation of the hypertensive crisis. If it was a NE antagonist it would definitely not contribute to a hypertensive crisis. If anything, it might cause hypotension (which is also caused by adrenal insufficiency).

However, I think the confusion here has more to do with the set up of the article. Why are we even talking about NE "releasers" and antagonists? We should be talking about alpha and beta receptors. Yohimbine doesn't act directly on NE anyway (nothing does because NE is a neurotransmitter, not a receptor), so it's wrong to call it an NE anything (antagonist or agonist). Yohimbine definitely increases the action of NE (via antagonism of alpha). Furthermore, remeron, which is listed as a "releaser", is actually an alpha antagonist. People don't really talk about NE agonists/antagonists, they talk about alpha/beta (and by people I mean sources), except when we are talking about reuptake. I think we should re-structure the entire part dealing with norepinephrine. Do you agree? Charles35 (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

My short answer is no, I don't. If we are going to consider a major reorganization of the page, we should be discussing it at the article talk page, rather than here, so that other editors can weigh in. Please feel free to start that discussion there, if you would like, because something along those lines is certainly a possibility.

I'm traveling at the moment, so it will be a few days before I can put my hands on some good source material, but I'm very confident about what I'm saying about yohimbine in particular. You should be able to find it in any good quality pharmacology textbook. Its primary pharmacologic action is as a receptor antagonist at alpha-2 noradrenergic receptors. These receptors are commonly located on presynaptic nerve terminals, of neurons that release norepinephrine. The effect of norepinephrine (the naturally occurring agonist) at those presynaptic alpha-2 receptors is to inhibit further norepinephrine release from those nerve terminals. It's a kind of feedback control. Yohimbine blocks (antagonizes) norepinephrine's effects at those receptors. That blocks the inhibition of release. A double-negative: release of norepinephrine is increased. So, biochemically, yohimbine is acting primarily as an alpha-2 antagonist. But, functionally, it's causing more endogenous norepinephrine to be released, where it can have a larger effect on postsynaptic (typically beta-1 or beta-2, less frequently alpha-1) receptors. I'm really certain of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

My point is that sources don't call it a NE antagonist. They call it an alpha antagonist. This is what had me confused initially and I'm sure it will trip up several other editors/readers. Nobody talks about NE that way. Charles35 (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I can certainly see that. I guess, strictly speaking, it's an "alpha noradrenergic antagonist" (binds to alpha receptors, thereby antagonizing the effects of NE, because NE cannot bind). I'd certainly be fine with changing "NE antagonist" to "noradrenergic antagonist". If we're going to break it down by receptor subtypes, we'd have to look at how complicated it gets. Some agonists and antagonists have actions at both alpha and beta receptors, for example, whereas others are more selective. You might, perhaps, also want to discuss these issues at WT:WikiProject Pharmacology. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I have a lot of things to say, but I only have time to leave a short comment. I understand your functional model that the article utilizes. What I don't understand is why you don't consider yohimbine an agonist? It may bind to alpha or beta or both and block norepinephrine from binding, but then it definitely exerts its own effects (which are considerably potent and are definitely consistent with an increase in the action of norepinephrine). So, under your functional model, why do you consider it an antagonist and not an agonist? Charles35 (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The correct usage of the words "agonist" and "antagonist", in the context of drugs and receptors, is in terms of their binding to, and action upon, receptors. You can think of it as a molecular terminology, as distinguished from a functional or physiological one. That's not my personal, idiosyncratic way of putting it. It's what every textbook of pharmacology, biochemistry, or physiology will tell you. An agonist binds to the receptor protein and causes a conformational change in the receptor protein, leading to activation of whatever the receptor does to the cell, the same as the natural transmitter or hormone (NE, in this case). An antagonist binds to the receptor, and (basically – I'm leaving out a lot of nuance here) does not cause the conformational change. That prevents the natural transmitter from binding and having an effect. In this case, that's what yohimbine is doing. So, no, it's not exerting effects of its own, at least not on the molecular level. But it is binding to the presynaptic alpha-2 receptor very potently, and therefore very potently blocking the feedback of NE onto presynaptic alpha-2 receptors, the effect of which is to very potently increase the release of more NE from nerve terminals, and that released NE then has clearly functional effects on postsynaptic receptors of subtypes other than alpha-2. So, one could say that yohimbine is a functional NE agonist, but it isn't a true, molecular one. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

And this reflects the problem. Functionally, it is an antagonist, but molecularly, it's an agonist. Well, molecularly, there is no such thing as an "NE antagonist". Molecularly, there are only alpha and beta agonists and antagonists. The model used in the article is a functional one. And as you said, one could say that yohimbine is a functional NE agonist.

Also, if that's the case, then why would you consider the other drugs listed there antagonists? Take propranolol for instance. I think we can all agree that they act very, very differently on noradrenergic (alpha/beta) receptors. They actually have opposite effects. So, if we are speaking "functionally", if we consider yohimbine an agonist, like you said, then propranolol is an antagonist. That sounds right to me. I think (although I am not an expert and it seems that you might be) that it must be wrong to classify both the same way. Charles35 (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you have it entirely backwards. I'm afraid that I'm not here to teach you a pharmacology class. Please feel free to ask someone else about this. I'll recommend WT:WikiProject Pharmacology. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not here to learn, I'm here to fix a wikipedia article that I suspect has misinformation, but alright. Me having it backwards illustrates my point. Whether propranolol's the antag and yohimbine is the ag or vica versa is something I am not sure about (and the issue is further complicated with our cloudy tangent that is probably just as misinformed). But it doesn't really matter because either way, propranolol and yohimbine do not have the same mechanism of action and do not belong in the same class of drugs. And again, the article does not cite a source for this. Charles35 (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)