User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

January, 2016 – March, 2016

"but didn't you used to be on... ?"

I have blocked all of those memories out, in order to regain a portion of my sanity. Also, Arbs get to post any place they want, so I wouldn't have needed to know that rule anyway... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I hear you, totally! In fact, if you see the comment that I made higher up on my talk just before your comment, I'm kinda feeling the way that you did. By the way, I want you to know that, when I saw you take some time off not too long ago, I felt very badly about it – and I was very happy when you came back. I consider you to be one of the most clueful Wikipedians that I know. (And I thank you also for accepting my decidedly IAR deletion of a sentence at another page today.) Anyway, several weeks ago, I was wasting some time looking around some of the more obscure corners of the Wiki, and I stumbled upon Floquenstein's Monster, and I got quite a chuckle out of it! Happy editing, and may we all retain our respective sanities! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Phylogeny of the Actinopterygii

Obscure? Little monster? [Bishzilla gets quite a girlish blush out of the romantic memories.] bishzilla _ROARR!! 22:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC).

See that! I knew that if I uttered the magic incantation, another monster would be summoned! My apologies for saying "obscure". I should have said something implying uncommon and desirable (perhaps like a well-aged cheese). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Zilla! The monster asks me to say "hi". Careful, Tryptofish, if the 'zilla thinks you called her a piece of cheese, you're doomed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Mmmm, fondue! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

It's possible that User talk:Floquenstein's monster#Condolences and consolation is my finest contribution to Wikipedia. (Oh, crap, that wasn't in character, was it?) On your exploration of the "more obscure corners of the Wiki", did you stumble upon WP:Hidden corner of Wikipedia? Anyway, thanks for saying all those nice things. --Floquenbeam (talk)

I had already found the first, but not the second. And you are very welcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Thank you for the looks in the obscure corners. I put political ice-breaking openly on the Main page ;) - Incantations rang a bell. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Shameless advertising

I created a new essay, Wikipedia:Revert notification opt-out, with an accompanying userbox. It came from an idea that I got, about how to maybe make editing more peaceful. I recommend it to my talk page watchers. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Please slowly lift your hands from the keyboard and back slowly away from the computer.  :-) Viriditas (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Am I about to catch a virus? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

You're dangerous, Trypto, just dangerous. You're playing with fire recommending a revert notification opt-out; this is living la vida loca. Am I required to wear sunglasses on this talk page now? Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, of course! Isn't my magnificence blindingly bright? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• You might find this discussion [1] interesting. (Nothing happened in the end, though.) Perhaps you might propose making don't-notify-on-reverts the default for new users, and even (more daring) clearing that checkbox for all existing users too (which they can of course re-check if they want). EEng 06:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for adopting the oozerbox. I went to that link and nearly !voted before realizing that it was from the past. The first see-also in the essay shows the documentation on meta about the notify settings, and (insofar as I can make sense of it) it seems to say that the default for new editors now is with it turned off. I actually thought of making exactly those proposals before I ended up writing the essay instead. What made me decide against proposing those things was the realization that editors will endlessly argue about changing any defaults, as in don't move my cheese. I decided that it would be less aggravating if I simply go with a recommendation to change one's preferences, or not, as one chooses. I also made a thread about the essay at Village Pump Idea Lab (I'm too lazy to link it, but you can easily find it if you want to), and some editors have replied that they like getting the notifications. Chacun a son guerre de edit! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I've got no time to edit, with all these people lighting up my talk page! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no cheese. Viriditas (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

But is there a cabal? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You betcha! You can find them here playing games and toying with mere editors. BTW, I just discovered something amusing: our article on immaterialism is completely unsourced, while our article on eliminativism is fully sourced and is a Good Article. There's a joke in there somewhere...@EEng: I require humor assistance.... Viriditas (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Did you know ... that immaterialism is based on nothing, and eliminativism is... Oh, forget it. I'm not a magician, you know. EEng 04:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I never heard of elimativism before, but I am happy to learn that it isn't a philosophy based upon the large intestine. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Scatomancy. EEng 19:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I should have known not to ask! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Yay!! everybody pardee Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Martinevans, I genuinely like that music! Yes! But sometimes, I've really got to wonder about you and YouTube. I picture you searching it 24/7, kind of like Mr. Eng editing P. Gage. (P. Gage might be a good name for an MC.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Haha, yes it's fun isn't it. And a clever video. Scatman John is virtually unknown in UK, alas. I tend to find what I want on YT in about 30 seconds - if not, I just give up, haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• I tried to live The Vida Loca once, but I woke up in New York City in a funky cheap hotel. Thanks Viriditas, for the advice about the spoon - explains why I have wet muesli all down my sweater. Ricky Martin 123 (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

And for all you fish lovers.... News just in.... Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes indeed, male editors who visit this talk page had better be careful! Actually, I'm familiar with that species, and I think the reporter got it confused with piranhas, or the locals are having some fun with the gringos. Pacu are primarily herbivores. And, what do you know: Pacu#Incorrect claim of testicle-biting! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

No one's getting their teeth on my Brussels sprouts, thank you. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

If they are green, perhaps you should check with a physician. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah right. I'll check my directives. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Your ping on OUTING

Thanks for the ping. It will likely be several days before I can give and in depth thoughts on the matter. My RL time will be taken up by the a little weather problem we are having here on the East Coast. I may have some time to putter about in down time but most of my attention will be on more primitive HF radio nets rather than this new fangled Internet thingy :) Have a good weekend and if you are in the NE blizzard corridor stay safe and keep off the roads Jbh^Talk 23:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and no problem at all. I just wanted to make sure that editors would be in on the discussion, but I'm not in a hurry. I will especially make sure that I don't conclude anything until I hear back from you. Stay safe and warm! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

Hello, Tryptofish. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. prokaryotes (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Lotsa fun. For my own convenience, noting that the discussion is at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#OR on GMO articles. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out what the discussion was actually on. I didn't see mention of it at articles until after this. I've got something I've been working on to at least put a nail in the coffin of the claims that there isn't a majority of scientists/organizations, cherrypicking, etc. I may not be able to get around to that for awhile though (family issues are limiting my available time), so this may not be the greatest time for all these editors to come out of the woodwork. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate whatever you can do. I feel like it has been a year of these editors making trouble at bad times for me. I wish I didn't keep feeling like every day when I log in, there is a new GMO eruption. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

WT:Harassment#Outing

Hello Tryp
Sorry for not replying earlier; I've not been around much recently.
I've had a look at the outing issue you mentioned; I don't know if I have grasped the whole of it, but I'm afraid I may be on the side of the demons on this one. Any way I have posted a question at the current discussion, and made a suggestion which I hope is helpful.
On a personal note, (you've asked for specific examples) I have been involved (on and off) in tracking a very persistent sock-puppeteer whose aim in life seems to be to post fascist propaganda throughout the site; I recently came across a link to an off-wiki blog of his. Am I understand if I mention this in a public discussion I am guilty of “outing”? That seems a little handicapping.
I'm a bit concerned about the idea of evidence being passed by private e-mail, rather than in the public domain, and acted on without being revealed; and this on a site that prides itself on openness. In a court of law evidence is sometimes heard in camera, with an impartial judge deciding if it it can be admitted or not, but if it is then admitted it then becomes part of the public record; I think we should at least do the same.
Also, I'm not clear why if someone has made a public statement off-wiki about their WP activities why that statement cannot be referred to on-wiki without sanction; doesn't that qualify as “self-outing”. These may have been dealt with already.
To try another example; I was reading an off-wiki article which contained a link to a WP talk page; on the talk page an editor had commented that a particular journalist edited WP and provided links to his off-wiki webpage and to his userpage. Now that looks like outing, though as the journo was editing here under his own name, and had provided biographical details on his userpage that matched the website, (putting himself in the public domain) It is possible the editor concerned would get away with it. But (getting to my point) under the proposed amendment, I would now be liable for blocking because I have mentioned it; even more so if I provided a link (even if only to the original article; or even, particularly because of that).
If these examples are of use, I can add them to the discussion; if not, then not. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this thoughtful and helpful message. I took a quick look at what you posted at the policy talk page, and I'll reply here first, and there next. I really do intend everything I am proposing as only a proposal (ie, not a demand!), and as such, everything is a work in progress. And what I am starting to learn very clearly is that there are some important distinctions that need to be made, because otherwise you and I might think that we disagree, when in fact we agree a lot more than what might first appear (so welcome back from the side of the demons!).

Starting with that sock-puppeteer (and I trust of course that you are making use of WP:SPI), my opinion is that it all comes down to whether or not that blog reveals personal information about him that he has not voluntarily revealed on-Wiki. If, hypothetically (and here, it sounds like not), he links to the blog from his page here, then anything you link to is fair game, because he disclosed it by linking to it. If he edits here under his real name (either using his real name as his username, or saying on his userpage what his real name is), then again, everything is fair game, for the same reason (it's not outing if it's self-outing). Where you could have a problem is if he discloses none of that on-Wiki, but the blog contains personal information such as his real name. In that case, linking to the blog could get you in trouble.

I understand your concern about private email, which would be your recourse in case the above scenario might be outing. But Wikipedia isn't a court of law, of course, and I didn't create the idea of privately emailing it. That was in the policy before I got involved, and I'm not proposing to change it. It's the way things are, already. And I'm not sure it's that big a deal, because you don't have to email anything to anyone you distrust, and it's really just a way of you saying "I've got private evidence that the sock-puppeteer is violating policy", and then an admin says "I confirm that the evidence is real", and that's all you need to get the problem user dealt with – and it's not like the private information is going to be used for false accusations. (If someone is seriously concerned about false accusations, they can always ask for a third, private, opinion.)

If someone posts offsite about their onsite activities, it's probably OK to link to it. The main issue I have heard of is that of false flags, where someone is impersonating the editor.

As for that journalist, if he were editing here under his real name, then there is nothing in the way of outing to point out other public information about that person. Once an editor voluntarily reveals their real name, then using that name is not outing. Furthermore, the journalist provided, voluntarily, additional biographical information. So, no, you should not be blocked for that, as far as I'm concerned. What would, instead, concern me is if an editor edited here anonymously, and someone followed some offsite breadcrumbs to dox the editor, and then post a link on-Wiki to, or say on-Wiki that a search would easily lead to, the website where the editor's personal information is found.

What I'm starting to realize is that my earlier proposals have unintentionally given the impression that I wanted to make it blockable for editors to do the things you and I are discussing, that should not be blockable. I hope to come up with better language, that makes it clear that there is nothing wrong with linking to something offsite based on what an editor has voluntarily revealed onsite. And there is nothing wrong with providing information demonstrating violations of COI or paid editing policies. But there is something wrong with telling people how to find personal information, like real names or home addresses, if an editor has never provided links to that onsite.

If you want to discuss any of these examples any more, let's do it at the talk page, and not here. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have thought a lot about these issues. If you like please see the discussion on my user page here, if you haven't seen it before. The short story is that there is a very real tension between the community's very deeply held value of privacy and our deeply (but not as deeply) held desire to preserve the integrity of WP, and COI work needs to mind that boundary very carefully. Any changes to OUTING should also keep both of those values (and their relative strength in the community) in mind as well. I'd be happy to discuss any draft proposals.... Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, in addition to (I think) three simultaneous threads about it here on my talk page, I'm also herding cats at an epic discussion at WT:HA, and you, like anyone else who is interested, are very welcome to join the discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Our fragile intellect -- redux

Remember Our Fragile Intellect? I just read that rapper BoB believes the Earth is flat, and is arguing with Neil deGrasse Tyson about it. How can one get an education in America and not understand how and why the Earth is not flat? Is this an indictment of the US educational system or something else? It seems that everywhere I look, in every corner of the globe, ignorance is increasing, not diminishing. Is the collapse of the Galactic Empire near? I think Wikipedia articles should focus more on how and why things work, and give readers the knowledge and tools to test and verify ideas for themselves. We need to transform the bad habits and tendencies of people to blindly believe in things without evidence into a new way of thinking about the world. Viriditas (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

More. Viriditas (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I could probably make a joke about how my own noggin is increasingly fragile – but seriously I agree with you very much, and I am happy that you posted this. As you know, I come at editing partly from my background as a scientist and science educator, and I am painfully aware of how the public often makes decisions that are contrary to reality and their own best interests, and I do believe that Wikipedia should tell our readers the truth instead of what they want to hear. Some of it is an indictment of the educational system, and some of it (contra Crabtree) is the result of all of us retaining a genome that mostly evolved while we were primitive humans, living in small nomadic groups, and looking for supernatural explanations for things that puzzle us. I think you may find that, even in the content areas where you and I disagree, I am coming at it in the good-faith belief that scientific accuracy is important here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

More to my point, take a look at the lead section for Flat Earth. It needs a single short paragraph explaining how we know the Earth isn't flat, along with information how anyone can verify it for themselves. This is a huge problem with many of our articles. They speak in vague generalities and communicate very little in the way of real information that people can use and apply in their daily lives. Viriditas (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, would that there were more time to improve pages. Ironically, we do have WP:FLAT. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking of editing that page to bring it into compliance with my concerns. Could I ask you to review it and give your feedback when I'm done? Viriditas (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean Flat Earth or WP:FLAT? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Mu. Viriditas (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

thumb|As of 2016, anyone can launch a camera with a balloon and prove the Earth is a bumpy spheroid.

Well, I know that's a Greek letter, and one of the subtypes of opioid receptors (and not to be confused with what a cow says), but you've stumped me on that one. But anyway, I can answer you this way. The essay page is already on my watchlist, and you should feel welcome to let me know about the mainspace page – and in either case, I'll be happy to give you feedback about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry for confusing you, my friend. It is entirely my fault as you can see from the order of replies in the thread. "Mu" up above refers to mu (negative), which I used to jokingly acknowledge the confusion I engendered. Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

No worries! I may very well have a flat head. (By the way, I saw Tyson on "The Nightly Show" refuting BoB, and he was awesome!) In any case, about feedback, definitely yes. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I would like to start adding material like the above image. Viriditas (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Looking critically at the image, I can see two potential issues. One is that you should have a source. The other is that it looks like some sort of satellite, and as such, it would be pretty unlikely that just anyone could launch it. And I'm not sure that someone launching something homemade could really get high enough to see much curvature. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a balloon with a camera, not a satellite, and anyone can do it. See for example, Amateur Radio High Altitude Ballooning. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, editing Wikipedia, I sure do learn new things all the time! It would be a good idea to link to that page in the image caption. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Many grad students at US universities have experimented with this kind of thing, so it's old news at this point. It first took off in the early 1990s. My point is that it is easy to prove the Earth is round and I would like to see a supported statement saying as much in the Flat Earth article. Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

(I knew grad students who didn't need a balloon to get that far out! (joke)) Anyway, I fully support your doing that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The perfect cure...

Wish this new drug had come along when we needed it most. It is manufactured by DNC-RNC Pharmaceuticals, and the product name is Tryphorgetin, accent on Try. It's more than just a drug - it's a way of coping. It's part of my daily diet, intentional or otherwise. Atsme^📞📧 22:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It took me a moment to get the pun (I think I got sidetracked by Tryptofish, tryptophan...), but I got it, and I'll try to remember it! By the way, did that problem with hoverboards get resolved? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

They decided to keep the hoverboard and will employ precautionary measures to never leave it plugged-in unattended. In the interim, the evolution of the hoverboard is upon us, [2]. Re: the puns - did you pick-up on the acronym for the fake pharmaceutical company? The majority of their clientele are politicians which fits them far more than us but I thought the play on words was worth sharing. (sorry got distracted before I finished my sentence.) Atsme^📞📧 17:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Distracted? That's the first sign of starting to forget! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I did get that. Perhaps they actually deal in Kool Aid. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Paywalled sources

Hi Trypto. I extend this offer on a very limited basis, but I am willing to email a copy of a study that you can't get access to given our recent conversations if it's something we're collaborating on closely. I obviously can't do that for anyone that asks as that would be abusing my university's privileges, so I have that stipulation in place. I know you prefer to avoid email contact related to Wikipedia and keep everything on-Wiki. I tend to keep a similar policy, both for my own privacy given some recent events and preventing claims of cabals, etc. I'm willing to make this exception with respect to sources when it helps the project out though. Just thought I'd extend the offer. You're perfectly welcome to decline. Otherwise, my email is set up to receive messages if you send one from Wikipedia. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

That's very kind of you, thanks. But I don't think I need it. I am happy to AGF that you are reporting accurately on the full text, so I feel no need to check for myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No worries at all then. I'm going to try to get back into the consensus discussion this weekend as I might have a potential additional source that looks promising, but haven't had a chance to get off mobile to access it. FYI, I'm not sure if you intended this edit as a ping or not. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. About that edit I made, I intentionally did not bother to actually make it a ping. I figure that either they will read it, or they won't. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

On OUTING discussion

I'm leaving a note here because the discussion on the TP seems to have moved on but I did not want you to think I have ignored the question. I think the 'case by case' serves as a reasonable outlet - kind of like codifying IAR. We do not have any good structures for handling things like undisclosed paid editors and allowing them to create a shield by placing PI on the pages where the advertise places an unreasonable obstacle to dealing with them. I have little sympathy with allowing people who violate out ToU using our policies against us. If I were to propose a solution that used the wording you want we would need a designated person/group, authorized by the WFM, to handle that kind of information and then issue blocks for violation of the ToU. Without something like that, making things harder for COI/UPE enforcement is not in the best interests of Wikipedia. (If there is a place in the ongoing discussion where you think this would fit please feel free to copy/link it there.) Jbh^Talk 16:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I've often wondered (1) where the WMF truly draws the line regarding COI, (2) how much of the total annual donations to WMF come from pharmaceutical companies, industry, private business, individuals, advocacies, governments, etc., and (3) if such donations influence any of the decisions made by WMF and how it views COI. I cringe whenever I see Google Red Bull search come up with its own WP promo box at the top of the page. Is there even a list of donors that is available to the public? Atsme^📞📧 17:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Atsme: There is something here and here. I do not know how accurate or the lists are though. Jbh^Talk 17:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Jbh, quite an interesting list indeed. In the event you weren't aware, the two links you added are the same. Is there another source different from the one (two) you provided? I tried putting myself in the shoes of the decision makers and beancounters, and quite frankly, it appears to me that the "best interests" of the project would be to accommodate the most important funding entities because without them, there would be no add-free WMF. Maybe it's time for WMF to rethink their strategy because using the Red Bull article as an example, WP isn't ad-free in the truest sense of the term. Atsme^📞📧 18:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Ooppss... the other link is [3]. It is the parent page and lists up to 1 Jan 2014. Jbh^Talk 18:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is, indeed, the site to use for promotion of all kinds. Simply being on Wikipedia gives businesses, products and people a level of legitimacy in the eyes of the general public. This is why anything that weakens or complicates our ability to deal with paid editors is a determent to the long term viability of the project. COI and undisclosed paid and promotional editing is bad. Sooner or later the money to be made getting PR information into Wikipedia will overwhelm volunteers' ability to keep it in check. Jbh^Talk 18:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: You are still welcome to comment there, of course. It hasn't really moved on, so much as I have been holding back for a bit. Partly, that was because you had asked me here to wait for you to come back! But it has also been partly because I've been swamped with another issue on-Wiki. I intend to examine and discuss the "examples" some more, and then see where we stand, but I do intend to continue – with something. I agree with your assessment of a few days back, that the other sentence, about case-by-case, throws a "spanner" in the works, and that it won't be sufficient to just add a few words as I had proposed. Instead, I want to have a careful consideration of the examples, and to then look at a more extensive rewrite of the section. Obviously, any rewrite would require consensus, so I plan to propose it in talk, when I better understand what it should be. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Sometime in the next day or so I will read through the thread and examples. The page is on my watch list but please ping me when you put a proposal up. I think it will be difficult to get consensus to change much because of the COI/UPE problem. You might consider defining the range of where case-by-case might apply, such as where the ToU are being violated but that is likely to get push back from the other "side" so maybe keeping it as it is, vague is the way to go.

Ethics vs sustainability of the project get all muddled once wiki-content becomes monetized. My personal feelings is that volunteers deserve all the privacy they can get but once the editor starts acting with commercial interest they are no longer a volunteer they are using Wikipedia to make money. I know that is not policy but that is where I am coming from. Jbh^Talk 22:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said in the first paragraph, except that I am skeptical about vague. I'm not going to make a new proposal anytime soon, for exactly the reason that I need a better understanding of case-by-case first. I'm sincerely sympathetic to the need to shut down monetized interference with editing, but I also feel strongly that even the most non-compliant editors do not deserve to be held up to public ridicule nor to loose the requirements of the meta privacy policy, that WP-EN cannot override. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: I've changed my mind about some aspects of it, and commented about that at WT:HA#Example 3. What do you think about it? Please reply there, rather than here. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Vani Hari and her echo chamber

Hi there Tyroptofish,

I'm going to assume that you're an admin here, and that you're also on Facebook. I'm rather new here (surprise) so I would prefer to have this chat in an open group where non-Wikipedians can discuss what's going on with "the buk wot I rote" and Vani Hari's page. I'm one of a large and active group (approaching 10K members) banned by Hari and I know many of us have concerns with some of the facts on that page. I'm not here to beg you to include Fear Babe on the page: Kavin, Mark and I feel that should be up to others. However, some of the discussion regarding the book seems confused and we'd be happy to supply and editorial review copy to an a site admin to save having to buy one. The reviews on Amazon are polarized between those who have bought and read a copy and everyone else. In our defense, I should point out that every single claim made is based either in commonly accepted science or cites the scientific paper or journal it was derived from. Here's an Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Fear-Babe-Shattering-Haris-Glass/dp/069250981X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1454268422&sr=8-1&keywords=fear+babe#customerReviews

Other members away from the writing team may wish to question some features on the page: such as the fact that Hari was listed as one of the most influential people on the Internet, which, while true, is far and away short of the real story. Also, the metrics behind her petitions are dubious. She made the list simply based on page views: I don't believe there was any attempt to fact check what influence, if any, she had excerpted on any businesses save, perhaps, for Subway over azodicarbonamide. The group (and Fear Babe) contains numerous references to Hari flip-flopping over facts, making specious claims and even outright lying.

Her tweet about the flu jab (being used as a tool for genocide!) was live for a number of years and ONLY removed when the first chapter of The Fear Babe was released as a preview. As of this writing, her utter anti-science bunk remains live.

I do hope you find the time to join us - even if you don't make yourself known - I'm sure you will see that while a hell of a lot of people have been attacked by Hari, most of us are not really up for editing Wiki pages either because we don't understand the format (waves hand) or aren't really up the job (waves other hand).

While I'm happy that the page as-is, is broadly right, I think there is rather too much questionable data there which has come via supporters who operate offsite. Some of them show up to review Fear Babe and claim to "support Vani" even though they have no real clue what they are supporting. Sadly these people sign her petitions (it takes but an instant) and that makes her appear more influential than she really is: these poor people are little more than zombie PCs in a DDOS attack.

More recently companies have started to ignore her and she is no longer given the unfettered access mass media that she once did. This is a good thing but it's difficult to "prove" sufficiently and include on the bio page (if that were even an option?) hence those of us who care about these issues would appreciate the time of someone who understands how Wikipedia works and is sufficiently versed in a scientific discipline to know that we're not trying to leverage the site for our own means..

Facebook group is here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/BannedByFoodBabeOpen/?fref=ts I do hope you will join us. The admins are very strict on keeping everything clean and not libelous. -- Marc

Marcdraco (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! First of all, no, I'm not an administrator, just an experienced editor. Also, no, I am not on Facebook, nor do I intend to be. In fact, I'm very sensitive about privacy issues as well as about not doing anything related to Wikipedia editing that is not transparent to anyone editing here. I do have the Hari page on my watchlist, and I keep my eyes open for anything that strikes me as not complying with Wikipedia policy. I'm afraid that's all that I can offer you. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Valentine's Day

In Europe, Saint Valentine's Keys are given to lovers "as a romantic symbol and an invitation to unlock the giver’s heart", as well as to children, in order to ward off epilepsy (called Saint Valentine's Malady).

I found this unusual passage in the lead section of Valentine's Day which seems to run afoul of WP:LEAD, NPOV, and MEDRS. To begin with, there is nothing in the body about this. When we visit the cited footnote, we discover why: it is rarely practiced at all, and it is claimed to be practiced by a very small church congregation alone. I can't imagine why this is in the lead at all. Any thoughts? Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I logged on, saw the section header, and read the opening quote, and, at that point, I was about to say that you were being way too nice to me! (What, no chocolate?) LOL! Anyway, about the page content, this isn't exactly my area of content expertise, but I looked at the page, and the sentence does appear to be sourced, and I don't see a big problem with it. Perhaps there is an issue with verb tense: do people in Europe still do that today, or is this a practice from long ago? You would probably do better to ask at the article talk page, instead of asking me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I asked you because of your interest in science education, medical claims and the like. Using charms to ward off epilepsy sounds a bit odd, especially when it's practiced by only a few dozen people. Anyhoo, glad to see you are in better spirits. Viriditas (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I can certainly see how it would be counter-scientific to treat epilepsy by giving someone a symbolic key. But I read that content as very clearly placing that practice in the context of invoking religious intervention to magically cure something. Now if the page had said that it actually works, then I'd be saying something very different! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

To me, the phrasing "to ward off" is an efficacy claim, but IANAL and I care little for legal arguments. Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I read it more like warding off evil spirits. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I see what you mean now. Viriditas (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

RfA vote

I struggle with the narrative that is getting built up there, that Brianhe is a campaigner not anchored in the realities of working in a community with diverse views. There are people like that here, sure, but Brianhe is not one of them in my experience. He is committed to addressing one of the causes of bad content flowing into WP, yes - nobody puts as much time into things like getting into the weeds of cleaning up the Orangemoody and other sock-farm messes unless they are - but he is not a campaigner. I struggle with this narrative. Are you sure about actually opposing? Jytdog (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I take every RfA very seriously because I recognize that I am talking about a real human being, with real feelings. And I did indeed struggle with this one in particular, because (as I said there) there are a lot of good things about him. But I am comfortable with the decision that I made, and have become more confident in it after sleeping on it, so yes, that's my position. I do wonder whether he has presented himself as more of a crusader than his actual COIN work would indicate. But stuff like holding violators up to the daylight (perhaps not an exact quote) strikes me as more punitive than preventative, and it really rubs me the wrong way. And in fact, as you know I have criticized you for zealousy in your own COIN work. It's not about punishing wrongdoers, and I am extremely sensitive about handing the "block" button to anyone who might be self-righteous about it. Because, just like RfA candidates, editors who get blocked are real people too. (By the way, I am having some worries about how the whole "Defender of the Wiki" thing might be relating to you, so please feel free to ask if you want my opinion.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

you mean the way the vote kind of turned after I !voted? or if it is something else... say what you like please. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, and please understand all of this as being said with good feelings towards you, and with the desire that things should go well for you on Wikipedia. I don't mean to be beating up on you or anything, just offering friendly advice. No, it has nothing to do with the RfA, and I didn't notice any change in response to your !vote there.

Consider how the Elvey thing at ANI is clearly not going to result in anything. And consider how much you have recently been getting complaints from editors who disagree with your COIN work, and how much other editors are arguing with you at AE. And consider that, in the context of there being a pretty big gallery of editors who are unabashedly out to get you, and the fact that ArbCom warned you that a return visit could result in a site-ban. Overall, I think that you are mostly right and the other editors are largely wrong. But that does not matter. The fact that people are looking for excuses to site-ban you does.

I think that the reason the Elvey complaint isn't going to get a result is, frankly, because you opened it, and most administrators saw that and decided not to get involved. It's a bum rap, but there it is. As I see it, the best thing you can do for yourself is to steer clear of controversy for a few months, just focusing on content improvement. Let other editors deal with the editors who might be violating policy. It's rarely necessary to prosecute the editors who do stuff wrong, even if they deserve it.

My advice: for the next several months, focus almost exclusively on content editing. If you run into an editor who is being a jerk, try a simple, short, and extremely polite comment to them, and if that doesn't do any good, don't reply at all, no matter how much you want to. Just shrug it off and walk away. Don't open any complaints at ANI or other noticeboards. None. And don't chime in at complaints opened by other editors, unless you are directly pinged. Just stay away from drama, and never allow it to be your responsibility to bring anyone to any kind of dispute resolution or noticeboard.

I'm not saying that's right or just. Just that it's your best insurance against a very-possible site ban. That's my advice, and you can of course take it or leave it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

You don't have to add the disclaimer at the beginning - after all this time I understand where you are coming from. On the RfA, it was shortly after I !voted that the tide started turning; may just be a correlation of course. I hear you on the no drama thing and appreciate you taking the time to say it. Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh I wanted to say - Brianhe is super reasonable when actually doing work at COIN and he is very, very open to talking. The crusader narrative is ugly and inaccurate. His essay is very unfortunate and make-hay-able, but it doesn't reflect what he actually does. But yet, there it is. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Good, and I hope that was helpful. About Brianhe, if it goes against him, there is always a second chance, and there is a good likelihood that he could clarify those issues and get my support and others' support. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Marc Tessier-Lavigne

Since you are interested in neuroscience, you may want to review our biography on Marc Tessier-Lavigne due to recent news about his upcoming appointment.[4]. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting! I'm over-extended with other things, so please let me know if there is a specific editing question that I could help with. @Looie496: maybe this is something that would interest you? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

A cursory overview suggests the article is probably okay. I really don't even think of him as a neuroscientist, rather as an ex-neuroscientist who left academia for the business world. Looie496 (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciated. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Religion and genetics

I have a hunch that the propensity for someone to be religious has a genetic component that can be influenced by the environment. Is there any research on this? Viriditas (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

EEng's organ (according to Tryptofish)

Church organ

As everyone knows, religious propensity is sited in the Organ of Veneration. See right. EEng 21:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Q: Why did Bach have so many children?

A:He didn't have any stops in his organ. In fact, he wore out three organs fuguing. EEng

I just found god gene hypothesis. Any status updates on this research? Viriditas (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that humans generally, without regard to any given gene, are predisposed to adopt religious explanations for things that we encounter in life. But the hypothesis that this can be reduced to single gene is ridiculous. That same gene (VMAT2) has been implicated in everything from schizophrenia to impulsive gambling. All it proves is that a ton of brain processes converge on the dopaminergic pathways, along with converging on a variety of other circuits. There may well be a whole array of genes that contribute cumulatively to certain personality types, and these personality types may include certain predispositions to seek faith-based explanations for things, but there is no way that it will, like eye color, reduce to just a few genes. Actually, there is a good precedent for this in the history of schizophrenia research, where very recently, for the first time, some convincing evidence is emerging for some genes that really do play a part in the genesis of the disease.[5] These genes regulate axonal pruning, a brain developmental process that occurs in early adulthood, the age at which symptoms typically appear (and perhaps also the median age of Wikipedia editors), as well as regulating a range of other things, notably in the immune system. But previously, a long road of candidate genes have been proposed and subsequently discarded as possible schizophrenia genes, much like VMAT2 here. It may well turn out that the real gene family regulates, in turn, some of the other genes, however. The tl;dr: when someone tells you that just one gene accounts for something complicated in human behavior (as if, come to think of it, there is anything simple in human behavior!), it's time to call BS. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree. When you mentioned schizophrenia, I was reminded of Julian Jaynes and his old theory of bicameralism. Can you remember that far back in time? :-) What do you think of his idea that religion is a vestige of a bicameral mind? This also dovetails into a GA I'm reviewing related to the North Korean cult of personality and the belief that their leaders are gods. If you could go to NK and study the brains of Kim's followers, would we find anything interesting? Would there be any noticeable changes in the brains of NK children who were brought up to worship Kim as a god compared to the brains of kids in the south? Viriditas (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Ha, no I never heard of Jaynes nor bicameralism before. I took a quick look, and I'm underwhelmed. We know a lot more about functional interactions between different parts of the brain from various imaging techniques that we did all those decades ago, and it's nothing like what Jaynes thought. What he described is actually a lot more like sleep versus awake, and what he compared inaccurately to schizophrenia is actually somewhat like REM sleep and dreaming. But he put the horse before Déscartes (sorry, I couldn't resist) by, instead of claiming that only humans think and other animals are automata, limiting it only to modern humans and placing early humans with the non-humans. I'm surprised that various racist ideologies didn't latch onto him more than they did. As for Little Kim, no I don't think you would find anything by examining their brains, insofar as "worship". After all, that is something that is imposed, rather than a predisposition from birth. But the stress of living in NK could perhaps lead to some measurable brain changes. Prolonged severe stress raises cortisol levels, and that can cause visible loss of brain tissue, which is a very serious issue about poverty and a host of other things. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. :-). But before you write off my NK hypothesis, this interesting article suggests we might find measurable differences. Let me know what you think. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) In light of what you wrote above about "Our fragile intellect" I recommend Neuroskeptic to you. See here for their comments on the use (and mostly abuse) of fMRI imaging. Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, I see that a prediction that I made to you in another section of this talk page turned out to be entirely wrong! So much for me being a reliable source! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I actually think that fMRI, when done carefully, is a wonderful tool. However, that source from Viriditas strikes me as a classic example of why Wikipedia prefers secondary scholarly sources for medical and scientific information. That's a very preliminary result that got some blog attention because of its "sexy" implications, but the actual claims are pretty limited (about "communications" between brain regions instead of anything anatomically or structurally different – and fMRI does not really tell you about communications so much as correlations). I'm still underwhelmed. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Tryptofish, do you think your obvious morphological bias neglects other ways of looking at and understanding brain function? :-) Viriditas (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Naw, it's really more like a bias in favor of evidence. (And if you saw my own morphology, you'd be very biased against it.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the original query, Richard Dawkin's book The God Delusion devotes a good bit of space to the idea that religion is a product of natural selection -- although you wouldn't know it by reading our article. The book by Daniel Dennett, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, which was published at roughly the same time, also goes into that issue extensively. There is also a modest academic literature on the evolution or religion and religiosity, in particular a book called The biological evolution of religious mind and behavior, available in PDF form here. Looie496 (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, those are good points. I've read both those books, and I do remember that about them. On the other hand, it seems to me that those arguments suggest that all humans have that evolutionary characteristic, as opposed to there being some allele that differs between religious and non-religious persons. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

	Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Why would this humble someone? EEng 06:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

EEng, why would anyone expect you to understand the concept of humility? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I see another fun banner in the making! Atsme^📞📧 01:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I humbly accept it, thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:AE case

Just a note that I opened up a case on Semitransgenic here since you were involved (should have a ping anyways). I saw that you gave them a warning that you'd open a case on them the next time something happened, but that's what I said to myself before the events you were the brunt of popped up. Too much of a history to keep letting it be at this point unfortunately. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for doing this. It sure is one thing after another in this editing topic, sadly. I am pleased to see that by the time I got there, things are being taken care of in the right way. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Harassment workshop

Greetings! You are receiving this message because, at some point in the past, you have participated in a discussion around the topic of harassment. The Support and Safety team is holding a series of consultations gathering feedback on the best potential solutions to the problem. The next stage is a workshop where we hope to narrow the focus to individual actionable ideas and explore how to bring some of these ideas to life.

• Please join us at the Harassment workshop!

Best regards, the Support and Safety team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, Tryptofish. That was meant to go to your Meta page :( Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks! No problem. It was just sufficiently odd that I wasn't sure what was going on. Thank you for working on this. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Snowball dancing with scientists

Had to share this in case you've never seen a distinguished panel of scientists dancing with a medium sulphur crested cockatoo, [6] - it's the same bird that danced to Queen's Another One Bites The Dust. Oh, it also dances Gangnam Style. Atsme^📞📧 16:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Ha, thanks! I found it interesting that the video with the panel shows the owner of the cockatoo dancing, and the cockatoo seeming to imitate. That makes me suspect that the music videos showing the bird up close were also made with the owner dancing off-screen. I had really hoped that the bird was a natural-born choreographer, but I now suspect that this is imitation instead. (And I realize that I just went and made a serious moment out of a lighthearted one.) Anyway, it really does crack me up! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm...can't be parroting so must be cockatoodle-doing. Atsme^📞📧 06:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

--Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

And Tryp - ever stop to think that maybe the owner was imitating the bird rather than the reverse? Unlimited possibilities.... Atsme^📞📧 22:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Uh-oh! You're on to me! I'm an editor imitating a fish! Which is, of course, why my edits are so fishy. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah ha!!!! I suspected it all along. You swallowed my bait hook, line and sinker. Atsme^📞📧 22:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Fortunately, I didn't swallow Martin's brussels sprouts (talk section higher on this page)! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Poopers! I was about to order an aquarium and stock it with pacu until I read your disclaimer. Now I'll have to settle for a Pacific Northwest tree octopus. Atsme^📞📧 00:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Myself, I have a land shark. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I had to post this in response to your land shark - I'm still laughing hysterically. To really appreciate the image, you may need to click on it for an enlarged view. I hope you enjoy the humor as it was intended...

THIS is what it all boils down to?

Old Coot Award Display it proudly!

No matter how hard we try to keep up, the day of reckoning is gathering steam; a time when we finally realize we're just not young enough to know everything. And like so many other old coots before us, we go through the motions taking whatever comes our way hoping for the best, wearing a painted smile while honking our coot-y horns knowing we gave it our best. Atsme📞📧 02:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Pure pun-ishment. [7]

And here I was hoping for a gallinule! (Actually, my eyesight remains good enough that I figured out what was going on without needing to click on it.) Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Part 2

Ask and it will be given to you...

All things considered, I had to wait for the gestation period then waved my magic wand and voila! Gallinule, not coots!! Although, you old gallinule doesn't have the same ring to it as you old coot, I still managed to kill two birds with one stone - (1) you are getting what you had hoped for, and (2) there is an obvious moral to this didactic sequence: Don't put all your eggs in one basket. Any cuckoo will confirm. 😜 I also figured that since you're an aquariphile who spends time watching fish swim around, you'd have the patience to wait for the eggs to hatch. Atsme📞📧 15:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Fish, watch out!

Wow, what a menagerie I have! (Actually, we all know that Wikipedia is quite a zoo.) I just found another species, to the right, and I've duly instructed my fishes to watch out! (But is it really correct to call her a female kingfisher? Wouldn't she be a queenfisher?) Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Ha! Good point (on all counts). You have duly alerted us to the gender gap in birds; therefore, it's only fair that I mention the gender gap in fishes...is it correct to call "him" a male queen angelfish? Atsme^📞📧 02:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Good question, and for that matter, what to do with damselfishes? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm...maybe the current system of binomial nomenclature needs some serious review. Some of the patronyms aren't exactly politically correct. Ha! And here is where it probably all began, [8].

Precious anniversary

Three years ago ...

brain and heart
... you were recipient no. 402 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Question concerning the reset of a notability tag

Dear Tryptofish, I hope that perhaps you can help me with a notability tag, since I haven’t found much information how to solve this issue. The notability tag was added to a professors page by the user Prokaryotes on 07:19, 14 December 2015. The German professor works in the field of plant biotechnology. Prokaryotes first deleted several references in the article about Professor Ralf Reski, added a questionable paragraph and in the end put the notability tag on the professors page. Do you think it is possible to reset the page of professor Ralf Reski to the version prior to the changes of Prokaryotes dated from 16 May 2015? Maybe there will be a better solution for this? If you know it I would be very happy to learn from you. Thanks in advance DrEsra Dr. Esra (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC) User:Dr._Esra

Thank you very much for your thoughtful question. Under many other circumstance, I would not want to simply roll the page back, but instead, engage in discussion with the editor who made the changes in question. However, in this case, I went ahead and rolled it back myself. (Of course, if there were any parts of the edits made by Prokaryotes that you would like to restore, or to restore in modified form, please feel free to.) My reasons for taking this action center on the fact that Prokaryotes was subsequently topic banned from editing in any topic relating to plant biotechnology or the people who are involved in it, because of disruptive editing. Therefore, if another editor has objected in good faith to those edits, as you have done here, it is entirely appropriate to undo them. In addition, the edits seemed to me to have the net effect of presenting the professor in a somewhat less positive light, so our WP:BLP policy is also an important reason not to give the edits the benefit of the doubt. It looks to me like Prokaryotes' concern was in part about the possibility that the page might have been too promotional, in the sense of linking to too much of the professor's works, although it did not seem to me to be a problem; but perhaps you should look the page over in that regard and make any changes that seem appropriate to you. In any case, I feel quite comfortable with reverting in light of the topic ban, and I hope that this was helpful. Please do not hesitate to ask me if you have further questions. Thanks again, and happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:Harassment#Outing, again

Hello again
I came across this a couple of days ago (I wandered into a weird corner of the project; brrr! anyway...) I came across this which I thought might interest you, if you are still collecting examples of Outing. This AfD seems to have a clear case of it by the look of things, marrying up a then-current username to a real person; but I am hard-pressed to see this as anything other than a kind of public service announcement. Your thoughts? Xyl 54 (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Certainly a bit bizarre: I looked at it, and at first was puzzled when I looked at the page that was "kept", because it is about someone else entirely, who happens to have the same name. It took me a bit of reading to see the issue, but yes, I do see where one editor in the AfD discussion said "However, it seems to me that the subject and author user:Zanthalon are the same person, which makes this vanity." And I see that Zanthalon was later banned indefinitely by ArbCom, and given the edit history, it's no mystery why ArbCom did it (vanity being the least of it!). The AfD was way back in 2005, and I guess that edit got a pass back then, even if it wouldn't get a pass today. Today, I would figure that identification of the editor would have to be done privately, not posted at the AfD. There are so many ways in which that discussion looks like something from ancient Wiki-history. As for whether it was a public service, I don't think so, because deleting a page and later banning an editor are not really things that do the larger world that much good – and I reject the idea that WP:RGW is a valid reason to out any editor. I don't think an example from 2005 really provides much guidance about community norms today. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Bizarre: You said it! But I'm pursuing getting the confusion fixed elsewhere. Just a point, the public service angle was meant internally, for WP editors; as the AfD was in 2005, but the guy wasn't shown the door until 2007, it seemed to be a good thing to have the COI/dodgy agenda connection flagged up.

But like you say, it's an old story. Anyway, my regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Good, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

In light of your efforts on OUTING, please have a look at this. I went right up to the line there and it has been looked at by at least two admins and a CU/oversighter, and nobody has come down on me yet. I think it will stand. Jytdog (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is nothing if not inconsistent. (I have an uncomfortable feeling that someone watching my talk page will see this, and then try to make it come down on you, so good luck.) If by any chance you have any comments to make about my proposal at WT:HA, I would welcome those comments. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

But you can't rely on its being inconsistent all the time, that's for sure. EEng 02:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

True. It is inconsistently inconsistent. But consistently insistent. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I considered the possibility of someone making mischief and am not concerned. I am confident this posting is within the bounds of OUTING in spirit and letter. In my COI work I think a lot about the OUTING line and I just wanted to show you a concrete example of something that negotiates that line closely. It is important that this kind of work remain possible within Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. I was about to post the following, before getting an edit conflict with your reply, and you can see that I already came to the same conclusion:

(edit conflict) Actually, I looked at it more carefully, and I am very convinced that everything you posted was fine. (I also see some oversighting of that editor's talk, so obviously I don't know what that was, but I do see the oversighter saying that she considers you to have done nothing wrong, so that settles it.) Following the links that you posted, it is absolutely clear from things that the editor voluntarily made public, that a straight line can be drawn from the username here, to "The Cap'n", to the real life name. You didn't do any doxing at all. In my humble opinion, the changes I have proposed at the policy page actually make it more explicitly clear that what you did was good, not bad. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I am glad you think so too. There two separate "tracks" there. One is based on the users' own pointing within WP to their own posting off-WP. The other has three components: a) the user's disclosure of part of their name in WP (in this case it is their first name, but quite often people pick usernames like Bpeterson492): b) the user's disclosure of their role at an outside entity in WP: and c) a link to a page at that outside entity showing that (whole name) is that role at the company. I want to note that sometimes in my COI work, for step b), instead of relying on actual disclosure of a role at an outside entity, I will instead rely on a pattern of editing that is clearly promotional with regard to the outside entity; I tend to handle those yet more delicately.

In any case, both tracks were appropriately used and by that I mean: i) brought in the context of addressing a behavioral issue that was disruptive (in this case recruiting in violation of WP:MEAT) and ii) done in an appropriate venue.

There are many ways to go wrong with this sort of thing, and a narrow path in which it is OK. The appropriate use is a big part of it; using this sort of stuff in a civil discussion at a user's Talk page to address a behavioral issue with that editor, and then at an escalated discussion at a noticeboard is OK. Use to hound an editor, or write nasty things to another editor about the subject editor, or in the context of a content dispute in an effort simply to "win" that content dispute (not in some context of clearly addressing a behavioral issue), would not be OK. I think it would be useful to explicitly mention some of these things in the OUTING policy. On the other hand I don't want to introduce a bunch of complications to the discussion you have been so carefully managing over there... I am in no hurry and can wait til you have closed this round, or I could introduce some of these ideas now. What do you think? Jytdog (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with 100% of what you say there, thanks. I've decided that I will open an RfC before attempting to implement anything, so I think it would be a good idea for you to start to lobby for any changes you want during that RfC, or after, depending on how ambitious your ideas are. For now, in what I'm treating as a feedback-and-revise phase prior to opening up a more polished version to the RfC, you are right that I hope to avoid further complications. However, if you see editors criticizing me for going too far from the status quo in some direction, you should feel free to opine that I'm actually not going far enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Great. I decided just to give a little quibble now. I will not derail what you have been trying so hard to get done and will see if i can help keep it railed. railly. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

And if there's one thing Jytdog does well, it's railing. EEng 02:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all. And with that, I think it's time for me to archive my talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Mediator Barnstar
		I know you and I don't always see eye-to-eye, but I want to say that I appreciate your role in the discussions over content regarding genetic engineering in food. I wish that there were more editors of your caliber active in the area. While my gruffness may be off-putting to you, I believe that with more editors like you around I wouldn't have as much occasion to fall into those bad habits. Cheers! jps (talk) 12:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that a lot! Believe me, I know where you are coming from – dealing with the anti-GM POV-pushers is often exasperating, and I actually have been pleased that you have started editing in the content area, where defending science and common sense can feel rather lonely sometimes. But please remember that everyone's conduct is under the microscope at all the pages where DS have been imposed by ArbCom, and there is no shortage of users who are looking for any excuse to go after you, as the situation at AE clearly demonstrates. (By the way, I think you referred to Petra as Peter there, so you might want to correct that.) Anyway, I wish you happy – and civil – editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Question about anecdotal...

If I may impose on you for a bit of your scientific expertise. I'll begin by saying that I am not necessarily fond of the word anecdotal but at this moment I can't think of a different way to accurately state the facts devoid its use and without the result being misunderstood or worse, misleading. See [9]. Atractosteus spatula is highly derived so I would think referencing its potential length based on what the fossil record may indicate is, well....a long shot. It would be like saying an iguana can grow 20 ft. long. Does it have something to do with genome mapping? My case in point is that there is no scientific evidence that confirms "today's alligator gar" can grow to 10 ft. beyond the existence of "case studies", if you will, such as a report by an angler, or a field biologist who reported what an angler described, and so on. There is actually more evidence that indicates alligator gar probably reach a maximum length then grows wider and heavier. Atsme^📞📧 20:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I just looked at the page and some of the sources cited there, and here is my take on it. In short (pun unintended): I agree with your choice of wording on the page. In biomedical research, "anecdotal" is almost pejorative, because good scientific evidence ain't anecdotal. A large controlled study beats a report about one patient. But here, it's the right way to say it. For instance, this source says that they typically grow to 6.5 feet, and this source puts it at 8 feet. So, overall, those numbers probably represent the normal high-end, per sources. Beyond that, reports of bigger animals are just that: anecdotes of single observations. So I agree with your wording. I can't think of anything where it would have to do with genome mapping, except to the extent that there is always some genetic variation (think: bell-curve distribution) in any species' genome, so there are probably "taller" than average gars and "shorter" than average ones. Maybe present-day gars are shorter on average than they were in the fossil record, and perhaps that reflects an evolutionary change over time, or perhaps an environmental one, or perhaps a combination of both (as in habitat destruction tends to kill particularly large individuals, so individuals who stay a bit smaller are selected by natural selection); but that's just speculation on my part. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I hope you do not mind me butting in here. I agree that the word "anecdotal" is usually considered to be pejorative in terms of science. But, there are some exceptions. The veterinary literature (and maybe other areas I am not allowed to mention) is massively populated with "case studies". These are considered to be legitimate reports of something that has happened to a single individual. This is potentially the beginning of developing a scientific argument for a condition, method of treatment, etc, if other reports are subsequently published. I have heard it said "multiple anecdotes lead to scientific evidence" - which can be true, e.g. the unusual presence of an animal in an unexpected location. In the present case, I think we are discussing how long can an alligator gar can be. Scientific studies will describe the normal distribution of this, but there will be outliers due to biological variation. If a source states that gars can be longer, then if this is a reputable source, I would accept this as being non-anecdotal. If it was a blog, "my mate caught one even bigger", this is clearly anecdotal. Because the information in he article was stated by a museum, I felt this was a step above anecdotal. I think we (me!) are falling into the horrible quagmire of WP requiring verification rather than than the truth, something which really frustrates me sometimes. ...and they are such magnificent animals! 00:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrChrissy (talk • contribs) 00:04, March 10, 2016‎

I don't mind at all! You had me in complete agreement with you until you got to the WP:V part. You say that anecdotes can be the beginning of a process that leads to more complete data, and that's certainly true for scientific purposes – but for Wikipedia purposes, WP:CRYSTAL properly denies editors the power to decide these things before the sources have done so, before that more complete data has actually emerged and been documented and agreed upon by experts. My quick read yesterday was that the cited sources for the perhaps-anecdotal reports of 10 feet seemed sufficiently like "fishing stories" that, on the one hand, they are reliable enough to cite at least as anecdotal reports, but on the other hand, not reliable enough to cite as over-riding the more general sources that give upper limits around 6.5–8 feet. You need sources that say that those 6.5–8 values have been replaced by 10 feet, and I'm not seeing sources that say that. These animals certainly are magnificent, and I was quite interested to read about them. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thank you for your input, Tryp. Not sure if you've seen the video How Wolves Change Rivers but I thought it really hit home regarding the intricacies of maintaining balance in an ecosystem, and why it's not nice to fool Mother Nature, a phrase I imagine you've heard while growing up - wasn't it a margarine commercial? No one can accurately predict the future by design - stuff happens - and they can't possibly know the potential of longterm detrimental effects even the slightest modification can have on an entire ecosystem...until after the damage is done. Example: moving a few crayfish from a stream in Ohio to a stream in Texas or Minnesota - the invasive rusty crayfish (Orconectes rusticus) - or what the linked video demonstrates years after reducing the wolf population. I'm beginning to think that humans may be the only factor in an ecosystem that won't be missed. *LOL* Atsme^📞📧 00:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy - isn't that kinda like saying if you tell a lie long enough it becomes the truth? *lol* Having been part of some of the original documentation on alligator gar for public dissemination, back when it was considered a trash fish and no one cared about them, there was little to no documentation of any kind available - or at least nothing that I could find - and considering quite a few university ichthyology classes used the videos for teaching, I'd have to say information was truly lacking. I do know there were all kinds of horror stories about alligator gar attacking people and being 14 foot long with photos that made them appear to be - all fish stories. When I first produced the PBS documentary and was in the field shooting interviews with fisheries biologists, ichthyologists, scientists, zoo aquarium curators, and even bowhunters there was not one shred of viable evidence - not even in the case reports. One of the ichthyologists told me that it probably sounds exciting to say they can grow to be 10 ft. long - it makes things more interesting - but when called upon to state it for the record, they all agreed that alligator gar grow to about 8 feet give or take a few inches and then they start spreading out and gaining weight with very little changes in length. Paddlefish are similar in that regard (humans are, too *lol*). They simply don't live long enough to get longer and with the ever-increasing loss of habitat, pollution factors, and other environmental concerns, there is far more concern over their survival than there is over how long they can grow. I've been keeping up with these ancestral species since the late 80s, (that's as far back as I will admit to 😁) and to date, there hasn't been any solid evidence presented that alligator gar can or ever have grown to be 10 ft. long. If you happen across such information, please let me know and we'll update the article. Atsme^📞📧 01:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Atsme, I agree with both of your comments. When I first started watching the video about wolves, I was filled with dread that it would be another tragic story of things going badly – so I was very pleased by the happy ending! It appalls me how our species uniquely has altered the biosphere. As for the 10-foot number, there certainly is a human tendency to want decimal numbers in preference to numbers like 6.5 or 8. If someone were to embellish on a fishing story, they would probably prefer 10 feet over 11 feet. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Tryp, I said it out loud a coupla times - that gar was 10 feet long! Yes, it does roll off the tongue better than that gar was 11 feet long! It's the "te" sound, kinda like you old coot vs you old gallinule. 😝 I do understand what DrChrissy is saying - he inadvertently shifted me into gear to find solid answers. I'm still of the opinion that the conservative approach is best. All that research brought back a lot of memories. Back in the early 90s, I filmed an alligator gar harvest at Choke Canyon Reservoir before there were any commercial restrictions on them - in fact, they were still considered trash fish which meant there were no limits. Texas Parks & Wildlife had just initiated a monitoring program for that lake but it was more for the bass fishermen than the alligator gar. TP&W was getting a lot of complaints from bass anglers about gars eating bass and they wanted something done about it so TP&W opened the lake to commercial harvest of alligator gar. The fisheries biologist who was handling the logistics for me at that location was an avid conservationist and knew quite a bit about alligator gar. He said there was no way the gar were reducing the bass population in that lake. He said it was a combination of cormorants and illegal netting but fishing sells licenses and licenses pay the bills.

We tagged along with the commercial fishermen while they checked their jug lines. It was pretty amazing to see those huge fish fighting on the end of the line. I got footage of them jumping straight up out of the water trying to shake the hook. By noon, they had harvested a large number of gar and had to get busy cleaning and icing them down. I filmed what I could stomach of the cleaning. They used machetes to hack through the ganoid scales and tough hide. I couldn't believe the yield of white meat that came from a single gar - nearly half their body weight. They cooked us some fillets for lunch on an open grill so it was kinda like camping out (minus the cold beer). They boiled some of the fillets in a pot of water with crab boil, and it was actually quite good with drawn butter. They also grilled a few fillets with lemon butter & garlic, and deep fried a pan of battered gar balls (not what you think *lol*) which looked like hush puppies and also tasted really good. Granted, it was a difficult situation for me because of my personal feelings about those amazing creatures, but one of the things you learn early on in that line of work is to maintain neutrality. The wife of the lead fishermen gave me some gar jewelry (earrings and matching necklaces) that she made from the scales, and showed me pictures of lamp shades that were made from the hide. It was all quite fascinating. It wasn't until about 7 years later that we realized our work had finally paid-off and in a big way. We dispelled the myths about alligator gar, garnered widespread public attention to their plight, and helped develop a whole new understanding about those magnificent creatures. The alligator gar went from being a free-for-all trash fish to being a sportfish with limits and other restrictions. I knew we had achieved our goal to save the species when, a few years after it aired internationally, I started getting calls from Nat Geo, Discovery, Animal Planet, the Aquarium of the Americas, etc. for information and also to license footage. What a great feeling, Tryp. Biologists with USF&WS and a few of the state game & fish departments I worked with also kept referring call-ins to me. *lol* And no, I didn't volunteer any information about my lakeside meal.🙄 Atsme^📞📧 03:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

That was very, very interesting! I enjoyed reading about it! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Careful. You only have Atsme's word that these things really happened, and even if his narrative is accurate it may be an isolated incident unrepresentative of the general situation. EEng 00:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Psst, EEng, Atsme is a she! Gotcha! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

So he or she says. EEng 01:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Anecdotal and photographic evidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Personally I never click on "photographic evidence" links regarding peoples' genders. EEng 02:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Haha!! But with a minor "uh oh". Please don't tell me we're required to use inline citations for our public-private discussions. To save time, I could point you to the documentary which will validate my story but that might be misconstrued as self-promotion so I'll end it there. EEng, if I haven't already mentioned this to you before, I'll say it now - your humor, particularly what you've written on your user page, is much appreciated. It makes me laugh just to think about it. Brilliant!! I tend to frequent your page whenever I'm feeling down because it helps keep things in perspective and brightens my day. I've prescribed it to others, although not as an official medical prescription because the theory behind it would absolutely fail MEDRS. Ha! While I've tried very hard to maintain GF collaboration from a neutral position, some insist that I take a position and stand for something. Ok, here I am standing for things that make us laugh, learn, and appreciate each other. There - I've stood for something so nobody can say that I'd fall for anything. 😆 Atsme^📞📧 01:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the approbation. I'm glad to be of service in my own modest way. I suppose you know I got blocked recently by a humor-impaired admin, forcing me to invent the {{fbdb}} template. EEng 02:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I hereby declare this talk page to be a humor-impairment-free zone! Thanks, y'all! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Finger Figure this....

I'd like to see an iPhone show of hands after you read this. Ironically, I always thought finger length was an indication of something else. Atsme^📞📧 03:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, wow, I am so sick of the political "discussions" about this. On the other, um, hand, the story you linked to really isn't about overall finger length, but about the relative lengths of one finger to another. That, in contrast, is something I've heard about before, and there may even be (a little bit of) truth to it. I seem to remember something from several years ago, about it predicting sexual orientation. Fortunately for me, I just have fins. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

This user is right-handed.

Couldn't resist. Atsme^📞📧 01:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

And very accomplished with smilies, as well! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• And as for Donald Trump's fingers, I guarantee to you there’s no problem, I guarantee!. EEng 01:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Actually, I just checked some photos and it appears Trump's Fq is in fact < 1, implying (according to the OP link) increased verbal aggression, more physical aggression, and more risk taking. On the plus side, it's also associated with improved sense of direction, which will help if he has to learn where countries other than Mexico and Canada are on a map. EEng 01:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Uhm, EEng#s it sounds like you might be too close to the subject to edit his BLP, especially if you're making such bold guarantees. At the very least, please use inline citations per MEDRS since the topic covers (or uncovers) human appendages, ^{or should I say "digits"?} and provide comparative photos if available. Atsme^📞📧 04:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to miss you all when my indefinite block comes through. EEng 05:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to open mike night at my comedy club! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Who does this hand belong to? It's one we've all seen (or used) before as it typically precedes the indefs. Note the length of the digits and how loudly the middle digit speaks to us. Atsme^📞📧 02:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know who, but perhaps it would be more accurate to revise it so that only that middle finger is raised.

Speaking of anatomy, hey EEng, I just remembered that I haven't checked back with you since you said you were going to have a PET scan to see if there were any hamsters in your back. How are you feeling, my friend? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I had an epidural steroid injection in February, which reduced the pain about 80%; then another earlier this month, and it's like nothing ever happened. It'a amazing. Thanks for asking. EEng 21:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Good! I'm glad to hear it. Better living through chemistry. Maybe a few more such steroid shots and you'll be able to take up bodybuilding. And by fortuitous coincidence of timing, I just solved (I hope) a silly problem at Mr. Gage's talk page, where apparently we had made life unbearable for those all-so-solemn maintenance categories. As a fish and dog person, I'm not much of a cat person, so nocats is ok with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

That prior editor's CAT scan was a classic example of an unnecessary procedure. EEng 21:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

For once, I made the exact same diagnosis of it as you did. But on the other, um, hand, almost immediately after I got the "thank" notification from you for that edit I made, I got another "thank" notification from him. So maybe everyone is happy now. Scat, cats! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

scat cat. EEng 22:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Tryptofish's face after applying Uguisu no fun, unfortunately showing no improvement. (Note the witty invocation of fugu.)

No shit, we have a category for that? I prefer scat singing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I held my nose and looked through that category, in hopes of learning something new. So there is Uguisu no fun, which sounds like no fun. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, "we" have such a category, which I just explored a bit. It includes an article on the book Everyone Poops. The article says that "Everyone Poops is essentially plotless", which seemed wrong until I realized it doesn't say plopless. EEng 22:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, no! Not again?! Nave Ram Nits 123 (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Have you seen this?

[10] ...and I quote, The idea is to effectively encapsulate the internet for consumers beyond the range of the net. Each unit comes pre-loaded with a full encyclopedia, recipes, educational lectures and health information. "The single most popular application is Wikipedia," he said. "We are planning on adding software with a focus on farming; in many places people are cash poor but that doesn't mean they don't have assets." Atsme^📞📧 10:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's a website rather than an application, but that's a quibble. I'm pleased to learn that I'm editing using the next big thing! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll be a good editor and not joke about what you're using, innocently adding, in light of our previous discussions with EEng. Atsme^📞📧 22:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't even realize that I had said that! Oh well. (So you gave me a link to a sex site, huh?) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a special day today...

	Easter Blessings
	Some celebrate Easter Sunday as a religious holiday. Others just like to hunt Easter eggs believing that rabbits lay eggs. 😇 Regardless, I came by to wish you a happy day today and hope it's filled with sunshine and beautiful spring flowers. Atsme📞📧 13:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! And likewise to you! I have some lovely spring bulbs not unlike that daffodil blooming right now in pots on my windowsill, from bulbs that I forced over the winter. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Project Accuracy

May I impose and ask you to please consider participating in WP:Project Accuracy (WPA) as a potential member of the editorial review board (or whichever name is finally decided)? The initial plan is to work collaboratively with the various project teams with our central focus being GA and FA promotions, and develop the best method for selecting members from each team to become part of (or at least for now help with) the creation of the WPA editorial review board (or team or committee)? An editor recently suggested a possible name change to "Accredited review" or "Accredited editor". WPA is in its embryonic stages of development and I was hoping you could find some time to participate. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me! I've been on-and-off watching the discussions about it, and now, I'll look in more carefully. I have not yet decided whether or not I support the idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

How could I not? Update - I'm currently in discussions about possibly joining forces with the other proposed project. I initially thought 5 Project Coordinators would be plenty but see no reason that 7 wouldn't work even better...that is if you decide to support the idea. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I've explained there why I am saying no. But thanks anyway, and I really mean that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I respect your decision and thank you for at least considering it. My meeting today was extremely encouraging, and gave me incentive to express more of my initial plans openly. (yes, I love emojis because one tiny picture is worth 1,000 words). ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35