Jump to content

User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 35

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37

February, 2018 – July, 2018

Upsetting the applecart

Whew! The applecart is still intact. --Atsme

But there are still a lot of bananas hereabouts. --Tryptofish

And nuts 🥜 🌰 & a few loose loose screw Atsme📞📧 22:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm asking you this because you are, as I recall, skeptical at best about the "less explicit" Trump hook(s), so if it flies with you I think that will really tell us something; if not, of course, we'll just go ahead anyway. I've had an idea: how about if we add a second hook in the same set (on April 1, of course):

... that Hillary's face is now being printed on $5 bills?

or (as our friend Nagualdesign suggested in response to that idea) a combined hook:

... that Trump is directly connected to Russia, and Hillary's face is now being printed on $5 bills?

ND had the smiley at the end too, but I don't think that can fly under any circumstances. Also, for his combined hook he'd drop the map, and I think that would throw the whole process out of whack. And... without the image it wouldn't be in the first slot (although last slot has its attractions as well). So overall I prefer my original idea of two separate hooks. Anyway, what do you think about these ideas? I think it would be (a) hysterical and (b) make it clear that "we" (Wikipedia in general and its resident joke squad in particular) are nonpartisan hookers. EEng 02:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I want a parade! I want to be able to dress up like this!

--Tryptofish

I was thinking of a parade that was more along the line of honoring the defenders of our homeland. How about similar to when the Philadelphia Eagles won the Superbowl without the violence, or maybe something more Hollywoodish like the Oscars (without the sexual abuse), to honor those who are the best at being somebody they're not. --Atsme
EEng, this is your lucky day! 👍 Like! I actually saw the Hillary thing a day ago at your user talk, and I love it! It works for me whether you combine the two or not (but even if combined, you must have the map with a caption!). Here's why: even the naive reader cannot be misled into thinking that we are saying that she committed a crime. (In other words, saying that someone committed treason is a big deal, whereas saying that someone's image is on paper money is a small deal.) So go forth, my friend, with my explicit blessing, and make Wikipedia great again! (And do have an apple. And hell no to smilies. ) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
PS: If you haven't looked yet at who is running in the Steward elections, you should. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
PPS: Actually, I'm not sure whose talk page I saw it at, but I saw it and I have documents to prove it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, we also have documents, Mr. Dr. Editor...and we don't care if what we have contains sensitive information that may harm WP's (inter)national security. We demand that you make our document known and publish it in the form of a MEMO...and NO, it doesn't need ArbCom's approval because they are part of it!! We want it published on VP. [FBDB] Atsme📞📧 22:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I will, of course, release my memo. But I disapprove the release of your memo. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Please send me a memo to that effect. Atsme📞📧 22:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I have all the best memos. My memos are so great that you'll get tired of all the memos. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, well I have more memos than you lot would know what to do with!! Most of them take the form of Need to query all of these objects and put their data into the CDATA and SELECT f.MSLINK, f.model, f."NAME", f.DESCR, f.DESCR2, f.OWNER, t.X AS "LONGITUDE", t.Y AS "LATITUDE" FROM HEADEND F, table(SDO_UTIL.GETVERTICES(SDO_CS.TRANSFORM(f.ogc_geometry, 8307))) t WHERE f.owner = paraOwner; and Don't forget to to create public synonyms on new SPs and grant execute to the querystring loging, but still. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Try saying that three times fast. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
That that that! nagualdesign 23:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm I can't believe that I walked right into that one. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
You're still good, Tryp - he typed it, he didn't "say" it...at least not within our hearing distance. Perhaps he knows someone who sent a self-addressed memo they can forward for proof - perhaps something along the line of I just heard nagualdesign say that that that! three times out loud and he handled it exactly "by the book." Atsme📞📧 16:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

A couple of things; I heard about the election on Sam Sailor's talk page. Might that be where you saw it? Here is the voting page in question. I'm a bit confused as to who is eligible to vote, to be honest. Regarding the applecart, I actually suggested using an exclamation mark too, like this:

Did you know... that Trump is directly connected to Russia, and Hillary's face is now being printed on $5 bills!?

I think emojis are great when used in moderation, and so does my cat. nagualdesign 23:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Awwww...be kind. A 🤗 once in a while works wonders. We all have those episodes when we feel like 🤯 😫!! Atsme📞📧 16:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
About the election, no, I learned about it from the big banner that displayed after I logged in. About eligibility, I assume that if you've been here a while, you're eligible, but they apparently curate every single vote, so you can just vote and see what happens. About the hook, only with a map and a caption, or I'll send you to Guantanamo. Smilies suck. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
😂 OK - Guantanamo may not be such a bad thing considering the perks...pecan pie and Strawberries n’ Creme Oreos!!! Atsme📞📧 00:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I done voted, yessum. nagualdesign 23:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Good, now vote again. (wink) By the way, the reason that I pointed it out here is that I think EEng will be particularly interested in who one of the candidates is. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Of the ten candidates, I've only ever encountered one. TNT seems to have plenty of support though. Perhaps our paths will cross one day. nagualdesign 23:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I only vote on the candidates from en-Wiki, because I really feel unqualified to offer an independent opinion about editors from other wikis, whom I've never heard of before. Obviously, that "one" was the one I was referring to, and I opposed him and supported TNT. (No secrets revealed there, because all votes are signed, like an RfA.) It's been my observation over the years that editors from all those other wikis tend to dislike anyone from en-Wiki, partly because those of us who are ugly Americans rarely bother to learn other languages (and some of us, for that matter, barely learned English), and partly because... Americans. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Good, now vote again. What are you, a filthy Democrat? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Whistle britches...some folks might think you're a racist asking such loaded questions, and all. The dems I know are squeaky clean...I have lotsa friends who are dems and they all smell good. Atsme📞📧 16:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
In all seriousness (okay, in all honesty because this certainly isn't "serious") the most outspoken Democrat I ever knew was a full-on hippie girl that I (very) briefly dated, and she didn't believe in showering every day. Or even every week. (Hence the "briefly" part.) Funny part was that I was enlisted at the time. A balls-to-the-walls, snake-eating, mean ass killing machine with a double helping of huah dating a smelly hippie chic. Confused the hell out of everyone who knew us. Oh, and I dearly love your suggestion to the right. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
You certainly know how to pick 'em. I think you should start a catalogue at User:MjolnirPants/I used to date where you can document some of your more questionable life choices. You could make half of them up and we could all have fun guessing which ones were actually bona fide (pun intended). nagualdesign 17:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
You could make half of them up and we could all have fun guessing which ones were actually bona fide Who says I'm not already? ;) Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
In truth, all of my "I used to date" stories have been true. So far, anyways. I'm not opposed to coming up with a good whopper if the situation calls for it. Unfortunately, I used to have really bad tastes in women and a bit of a problem with commitment. Truth is, I've actually made a point of not telling the worst stories. Email me if you want to hear one of the really bad ones. I'm going to hell, I know. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
You disgust me.[FBDB] Maybe you should keep mentioning them now and then in increasing order of depravity on the proviso that we should guess whether they're made up, with the punchline being that none of them are. nagualdesign 17:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
The problem with that is that, as imaginative as I can sometimes be, I could never out-weird the reality. I honestly have no clue what could possibly be more disgusting than the time I accidentally   [censored]   my ex with a   [censored]   and she ended up   [censored]   until she   [censored]  . And to make things worse, she wasn't even mad about it. She... kinda liked it...
Of course, all of this could just be cover for the fact that I really am making all of them up. You never really know. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
When I logged in today, there was one of those red alert things that told me I had 14 new messages on my talk page. I'm relieved to find out that I hadn't died. (Actually, I've made a godawful number of category-related edits in the past two days, and wondered if I had pissed off someone from the Category Police.) Don't you folks know that the Wikipedias is serious bizness? And I'm a fish, so get that bleeping cat emoji out of here! [FBDB] --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Because I use my alt so much and don't always get on my main regularly, I've occasionally logged in to see 30-40 messages on my talk page and started to freak out before I realize half of them were me on my alt arguing some pedantic point or making some lame joke. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Tfish, I'm aware re steward's elections. It obvious he won't be elected, so I didn't see the need to pile on. He's got enough trouble, and as long as he's not bullying people I have no desire to add to it. EEng 03:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
That's what they said about Trump. nagualdesign 04:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
^^^_^^^ Atsme📞📧 17:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
No problem, EEng. I only mentioned it the first time for, well, obvious reasons. Others started commenting about it, but I didn't mean for it to come off as if I were pinging you repeatedly. What you say is a good course of action. And again, I like the hook that you asked about, way up at the top of this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's the perfect salve to the claim that we here at the Wikipedia Insane Asylum and Home for the Deranged are motivated by partisanship. So, a favor... we'll need to get the article to GA. It's in good shape already but I'll give it a going over, after which I'd like you to give it a look too. Help me remember it's got to meet the goofball DYK criteria too. OK? EEng 18:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@EEng: You're saying that Edmund Hillary needs to get to GA status, right? What's the process for that, just give the article a good once-over, then plop a template on the talk page to request a review? (I've not worked much with that, as you can see.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm happy to inform you that the review of you GA nomination has begun.
Well, something like that, though if you just wait passively for a review you'll end up as seen at right. I'll take care of that. First we need to check it ourselves against Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria. I'll start with item 1, and if you know how to use the copyvio check thingamajigs that would be a great way you could help out, if I may suggest (part of item 2). EEng 18:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh, all right, I'll give it a once-over. But those abbreviations in the infobox, for knightships or whatever, look like some kind of secret code, or maybe somebody trying to talk after a severe stroke. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Honestly I'd like to hold you in reserve for a final check. EEng 18:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I already made two small edits, but I'll hold off for now. Just let me know when the check is in the mail. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

February 14th

(1860-1880) Museum of London
Happy Valentine's Day!
It wasn't easy to come up with an innocuous Valentine's Day greeting to share with collaborators on Wikipedia, so I went with "evolutionary".

Nobody will ever win the battle of the sexes. There’s too much fraternizing with the enemy. ~Henry Kissinger


Atsme📞📧 13:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Brilliant quote! Consider it pinched. nagualdesign 19:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Atsme! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Precious five years!

Precious
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I've been called worse

I think I've been dieting too much.
Sign on office of Dr. Shitpot Fry

Acanthonus armatus. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I still think you are a cryptid. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 20:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
As long as I don't have the smallest brain of all vertebrates. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I think they got the etymology of the binomial translation all wrong...when Albert Günther saw that fish, he yelled, "Holy Shitpot fry! That's one big assed bony-eared fish!!" Atsme📞📧 21:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
You shoulda heard what I yelled back at him! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh ma goodness - that image looks exactly like a Shitpot fry!!! Must be a picture of you in your younger days. Atsme📞📧 23:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't have a big ass. I'm a bad-ass! (insert fart joke here) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

For clarity...

Sorry that I didn't make my point clear at NPOV/N, but in retrospect, I can see why it would be misunderstood, especially considering I filed it at the NPOV noticeboard. When I said "multiple issues in the named article beginning with its title, and the context of the article as it relates to the title" I was referring to the context of the article vs what the title implies. There has been quite a bit of debate over it. Quite a few others also believe the title is misrepresentative but the RfC closed as no consensus to move. Another RfC was opened to choose a name before the other closed because there was support for a different alternative but it remains in limbo for the time being. The context of the article actually focuses on the racial views of others and how they interpret Trump's views. Trying to add his actual quotes and things he has done which demonstrate his real life views has been a struggle to get into the article. I can only imagine what it must have been like trying to write Hitler from a NPOV - and it was promoted to GA status!! ^_^ Atsme📞📧 02:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

A straightforward thinker. See where it got him? ^_^ Atsme📞📧 19:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

For that matter, see Jeremy Bentham#Death and the auto-icon. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I only commented on the pagename because it was a straightforward thing for me to comment on. And I'm not the editor you need to convince. I've been watching your user talk page, of course, and have been wavering about whether or not I should butt in there. Since you've brought it up here, I'll tell you what I think. I think that you are pushing too hard on this issue, and it is likely to come back and bite you. And by "bite you", I mean a risk of a topic ban. If nothing else, you should simply state your view of how you think policy should apply. Never frame it as a reply to another editor, and don't repeat yourself. Even if someone else directs a comment at you. And if that's too difficult, then just walk away. I know that's not what one would do in most content discussions, but it's what you need to do here. You are currently on the losing side. You don't have to like it, but it's the fact of the matter. This is a classic case of WP:There is no deadline. If you think the page sucks, let it suck for now. In time, things will work themselves out. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Actually, this would be truly terrifying! Just imagine if they all turned and starting singing simultaneously! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Gosh darn - I should've seen it coming. It's all right there in the image caption which indicates to me you've always had a method to your madness, including your choice of careers...you are terrified by the thought of a macabre looking head and want to be laid to rest knowing that your remarkable brain and the handsome vestibule surrounding it will be enshrined in honor of your incredible career, and that the exhibit will closely resemble the living person (discounting the WP and fish-related accomplishments that probably won't fit on the plaque). The first hint for me should've been your denial of the image I posted with the caption that they let you out of the home long enough to attend the SfN. :-D Atsme📞📧 21:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh, you got me! Actually, I resemble that remark! On the other hand, I think I might go out like this. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Pick yer tune...I'll make sure it's programmed into Billy. How about "Shall We Gather At The River"? Seems appropriate for a fish. Atsme📞📧 22:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
There are so many to choose from! [1]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Disney Mouseketeer inspired Barbie at Barbie Expo Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
Harvard Glee Club in the early days
What are the chances of an uninvolved editor coming to your page and figuring out what we're talking about? 30 to 1, or less? Hell, probably more. It's hard for EEng to figure it out sometimes when we're talking directly to/about him. I bet there's a sizable bald spot on the top of his head where he constantly scratches as he reads and thinks. Atsme📞📧 22:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Opens bag of popcorn and says nothing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I didn't know that they had a club for fans of this! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Is that like the Mouseketeers? Atsme📞📧 01:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Only if Barbie had real good SAT scores! (Barbie in a Mickey Mouse hat, now I've seen it all.) --Tryptofish (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I hope EEng knows we're just cheesing teasing him Sorry, Mousketeers sidetracked me. with the utmost ❤️ & respect. 🍿 Here's more popcorn for you, Tryp. Atsme📞📧 18:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
In fact the Mouseketeer image isn't completely inappropriate. In its early days (until about 1919) the Harvard Glee Club was completely cheesy. EEng 19:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Sounds Gouda to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
OMG - I'm dealing with 2 Meunsters!! Atsme📞📧 20:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't mean to make you Bleu. But if you've got 'em, Edam. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmmmm

Wikipedia has thousands and thousands of pages. You read all that?! WOW! CrazyMinecart88 (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

5,579,771 pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Phase precession

On 28 February 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Phase precession, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that phase precession is part of how the brain codes for location? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Phase precession. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Phase precession), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

--Tryptofish (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
4,660 page views. Not bad! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Creative vandalism

I just lol'ed over this: [2]. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know fish by name

I took some pics of fish and uploaded four of them. Click on "the desert" on my talk. If you know these animals more personally, please change the description(s). It was great to "be" with them without getting wet and disturbing them ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Those are splendid photos! I'm sure that numbers 1 and 4 are the Indo-Pacific sergeant. Number 2 is probably an angelfish of the genus Pomacanthus, but I can't figure out which species it is. And number 3, I don't know. Atsme watches here, and maybe she would know more. Also, you might want to ask Epipelagic. I hope that helps! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! What do you think, Epipelagic? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Number 3 may be a brassy trevally --Epipelagic (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
It looks similar to this to me, only that this has no description ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Could be. I'm a lot better with fish that are small enough to fit into an aquarium! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
As an aside, Abudefduf struck me as a rather unusual genus name: it has an interesting derivation, from Arabic, which you don't see in Latin binomials that often. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much, all of you. Will do something about after sleep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Atsme, great id's, thanks! I'm facepalming myself for getting the tang wrong, as an angel, but you nailed it. I'm most familiar with Yellow Tang and Purple Tang, both of which have mouths that are more protruding, so it threw me off that this one doesn't. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
File:Star Wars The Force Awakens Kylo Ren.jpg
"Don't underestimate the Force." – Darth Vader
"Edit Wars:The Empire Strikes Back" – Tryptofish (aka Obi Wan the Goby)
Advanced open water-NITROX-photog instructor for 2 certifying agencies (back in the day), so I was forced to learn fish id, and then they forced me to travel the world's oceans, dammit - all expenses paid. 😆 Those are some of the little things we typically take to the grave with us. I can't imagine a better use for that knowledge than right here on WP helping others, and sharing what little I've learned. I will also make note that there are far better fish ID editors/scuba editors on WP than I, including the very knowledgable RexxS and Pbsouthwood. I adore Gerda, the most "precious" of all, and am happy to help when I can. Atsme📞📧 00:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Someone should force me to go on a vacation with all expenses paid! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
{{{{{{THE FORCE}}}}}} Atsme📞📧 20:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Just ignore that last F-up, Tryp. Jiminy Cricket - my touchpad is so sensitive it just needs to feel heat and picks its own edit. Atsme📞📧 21:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
No worries! Looks like the touchpad confused rollback with thank. I guess the wrong kind of force was with you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you never know when you have to force...I took 2 teaspoons full of Metamucil and feel much better now. Atsme📞📧 23:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
At this rate, my talk page is turning into a more compact version of EEng's talk page. So sad, so sad. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Fish eats rabbits! Rabbits are yummy!

Munch munch munch. the rabbits are coming!

Fish eats rabbits! Get off my lawn and go back to EEng's! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Build a wall!theHypn0toad 18:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm gonna build a beautiful wall! You've never seen such a beautiful wall! (Fish has wet back, too.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
How do you do, good sir?

Munch munch munch. we have nibbled up all of EEng's lawn already, your grassys look so fresh and tasty!

No grass for you. Just this. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
HELP!!!! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
HELP!!!! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
HELP!!!! --Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

It's time to bring the {{{{{POWER OF THE FORCE}}}}}. Atsme📞📧 19:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Gosh. For a fish to look that ugly, God must have ordained, that to compensate for its looks, it should taste really tasty. I've got some basil, coriander, parsley, tarragon etc that I need to use up. That image is making me feel hungry. --Aspro (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
It "is not a food source for humans", but hungry rabbits have rod and 2.5 miles of line, they will eat them all. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Where I live (UK) we have Monkfish which are also Lophius complete with a little lure sticking out of its head and look just as ugly. Taste a bit like scampi (langoustine). We eat them but that may be because our rabbits are not very good at swimming. --Aspro (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Of course the real reason they are not a food source for humans is probably because no one can be bothered to go fishing for them with several miles of line :) Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. These fish are bottom dwellers, One doesn't drag a line low down and across the sea beds where they live, because the line would then get tangled up in the weeds etc. Leave that to the fishermen from Spain etc., who do bottom trawling and in the process destroy the breeding grounds of marine life in return for a short term profit. --Aspro (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
On a related side note, Unsustainable fishing methods is looking a bit forlorn. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Wikipedia is still work in progress and it is up to us improve it. One reference that may help is [3]. Go on. Get stuck into improving the articles. --Aspro (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh, hello Tryptofish. Apologies for briefly hijacking your talk page. --Aspro (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I log out for a few hours, and come back to have 10 new talk messages – and people calling me a bottom-feeder, no less! Well, OK then. How many people does it take to eat one spoonful of British food? Answer: 4. One to be the victim, two to hold the victim down, and a fourth to force it down the victim's throat. That's what you get for calling me ugly! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
That's not many!. Prince of Thieves (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Defense of the 19th century hospital image of supposedly 8 women including 'idiocy' for mental disorder

Could you respond at the talk page please? Jingoizle (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I did. For those following along at home, this is about Talk:Mental disorder. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I saw that you retracted your comment here. I've restored it, because I feel that it's perfectly OK, but I appreciate your good will in removing it. I'm very happy that we were able to work out a solution at the page, that both of us are satisfied with. Happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For calling a spade a spade and your work on that AfD in general. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
A very big thank you for that, Tony! It means a lot to me. Honestly, that whole thing has been like a ride through the fever swamp. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Edmund Hillary

Please be sensitive to the spelling used in other nations. Travelled and totalled are the New Zealand English versions of the words. Akld guy (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mean to be insensitive. I was asked to copyedit it for a GA submission, and simply didn't know about that spelling. Please correct it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Already done. Akld guy (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Good, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
And watch yourself in the future, Tryptofish. Some kiwis bruise easily. EEng 20:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Believe me, I've seen much worse. In just the last few hours! This was fine with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
And not only that, they don't tell you which words are spelled differently, either. EEng 21:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, it actually does have that already, I now see. I just hadn't known about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • OK fans, I've done what I can do for it. Let me know if you need me for anything more. Please also note that I tagged "Nup La" in the Expedition section to be clarified, so that should be dealt with before going to GA. fixed (But are you going to have a section about his e-mail server?) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Userpage Barnstar, misplaced on the user page

The Userpage Barnstar
You have an amazing userpage,Tryptofish.All of the .GIFs were what really won me over.From,CrazyMinecart88

Do u like it? Me at my happiest! 12:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I like having a sense of humor, and of course I'm pleased when anyone finds any of my edits useful. And there is certainly a lot of banter among editors here on my talk page. But ultimately, Wikipedia is about creating encyclopedic content, not a social networking site. I saw that Chris left you a message on his user talk page, and he makes good points. If you are going to stay around, you need to put most of your effort into content editing, or you won't be welcome here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Redirecting phasic transmitter

In its talk page, you wrote,

"It would be easy just to add a sentence to the section on the target page, about the difference in time course, and that would be enough to constitute the 'merge'. Then, this page would simply become a redirect to that section (as would Tonic transmitter), and that would be that."

I agree, that would be that. But when I just navigated to the page, I found myself inexplicably dumped instead at Neuromodulation#Volume_transmission. Indeed, when I then searched that page for phasic I learned that the only occurrence is in the lead:

"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Phasic transmitter)."

It's not good when people find themselves redirected and have no idea why. I'd fix this problem if I knew enough about the subject to be confident to compose something like this:

"Such transmitters are called phasic when ... and otherwise called tonic.

Could you please fix.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention to this. The discussion you refer to was four years ago, and I really don't remember it anymore. I'll look into it, and see if I can make it clearer. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
@PaulTanenbaum: I've made these edits: [4], [5]. Please tell me if this makes it sufficiently clear. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Yup, that did it thanks. I've merely switched from italics to bold to help those who are similarly puzzled about "How'd I get here?" see and understand their redirection. Regards.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Good! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
You can't imagine how disappointed I am. I saw this section heading, and I thought a "phasic transmitter" would be about something like a Star Trek-style teleportation system. (Must be time to get some sleep...) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah well, maybe there's a tonic for that! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

CBS, DLB and acronym soup

Thanks for weighing in at corticobasal syndrome (CBS). When I first waded in to dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), I found a mess of missing articles, with things frequently incorrectly linked. We had no Lewy body dementias (LBD) or Parkinson's disease dementia (PDD) or CBS (among others I've forgotten), and REM sleep behavior disorder was also a mess. That our Parkinson's disease (PD, featured article) didn't mention PDD seemed problematic, and throughout our suite of articles, it is difficult to determine if distinctions have been made between DLB and LBD, PD and PDD, and CBS or CBD. So, it has been slow going, and that other issues surfaced (always around the lead) didn't help.

Anyway, if/when I get further along with DLB, I will ping the world for review. For now, I am still just chunking in facts, so the article is pretty rough, and I will go back and smooth prose once I get more of the basics in place. I had hoped to be done with that article by now, as a distraction before we started radiation therapy-- the detour into WP:MED conflict was unexpected.

I have understood you to be disappointed, and since I don't include you among those contributing to the "walled garden" mentality at WP:MED, I value your opinion. If you want to elaborate further, I'm listening, or you may email me if you prefer. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Sandy! It's good to hear from you, and I'm glad (from your own talk page) that things are going well in real life. (That, of course, is what really matters.) And thank you very much for the kind things you have said about me in recent days.
Please let me make it clear, so you understand exactly, that I personally do not share your view about the "walled garden". I hold most of the regulars there in high regard, although a few of them are certainly abrasive from time to time. (But then again, so are some of the editors who dislike those regulars.) I don't want to argue with you about that, but please understand that I do not consider myself to be on either "side" and I will oppose any efforts to treat the WT:MED editors as wrong or bad.
I'm unsure what you meant about me being disappointed. If it's about the videos thing, I think it was a major stinkfest, but the tendentiousness was about equally distributed between both "sides", with neither "side" coming off particularly well. (Again, that's something where my opinion differs from yours.) But I'm very happy that the outcome seems to be that the videos are being deleted, which I regard as a happy-ish ending, and as something that should end the matter for the time being. Water under the bridge, time to move on. (However, if there is a future effort to have a more useful RfC, I'll be very happy to take an active role in getting it going.)
But if you meant the CBS page, no I'm not disappointed at all. I just meant that I'm not in the mood to do any more DYKs anytime soon, and I (a PhD and basic scientist in real life) don't have much to offer about the neurology. But I'm watching the page and will help if I can. As for the other neurology pages, they are too much like real world "work" for me to want to get deeply involved in. (I tend to like to edit subjects that have little to do with anything I've done in real life, more of a hobby that way.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
It's funny about real life-- it seemed so awful at first, and we've just gotten used to it. Life goes on :) I find myself being thankful for things that I would have dreaded a few months ago. Sort of like ... At our age, who doesn't have a limited life expectancy, anyway? It's just that we have a name for our life-limiting conditions.
I meant the videos, because I noted you had made several comments about the affair, and wanted to make sure that if you were disappointed in me, you would feel comfortable saying so. I hope you will have an opportunity to get to know Colin, too.
On the CBS page, no, there is not much more I can do with it. It's one of a whole lot of stubs I had to fill in to be able to write about Lewy bodies, and I hope I've filled them in without errors. In the past, I would have asked for help at WP:MED. I could do a lot more on PDD and LBD, because I have a lot of sources for them, but my plan for now is to finish dementia with Lewy bodies-- because it matters to me-- and move on. The things I enjoyed about here ... aren't here anymore. And now I know ... life is short! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
About the videos, please don't worry. I can have a different opinion than yours, without being disappointed and without holding a grudge. Would that we had more editors who do likewise! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I just got sad news about a wonderful editor. Given the talk about life being short, I figured that I would make note of it here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I did not know her, but I am sorry for you, all who did value her, and her family. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Could you explain the edit summary here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I was being catty. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Today only

Be sure to !vote in all the RfAs, and please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Cleanup needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

For your consideration...

If I may say so myself, one of my better edit summaries: [6]. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

(By the way, I graduated from Neuromedin U. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC))


Thanks for saying hello

Just wanted to stop by and say hello. I am looking forward to working on the aquarium fishes project. If you have think of any good work for a new guy just let me know! Looking forward to working with you in the future. --VarietyCichlid (talk) 09:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

My pleasure, and welcome aboard! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
If you don't mind I just did some editing one the Thick-lipped gourami page. Wondering if I am on the right track to remove the npov flag or the (written like a guidebook) flag. VarietyCichlid (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm just about to log out now, so I'll give it closer attention tomorrow. The tag in the aquarium care section actually isn't about WP:NPOV, but about WP:NOTHOWTO (think how bad it would be for Wikipedia to give how-to advice for medical procedures!), and is still valid but can easily be fixed. The how-to issue is a perennial one for aquarium-related pages, but the best solution is at WP:AQUAHOWTO. I also want to point you to WP:ENGVAR. That should do until tomorrow. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, I've done a fairly major rewrite of the page, and you can see what I did. I hope that helps. You asked about a page that could be good to work on. I can suggest Flowerhorn cichlid, if that interests you (just a suggestion). The photos are really good, and it strikes me as an interesting page that could become a very nice one, but the text and the referencing are pretty bad, and any improvements would help. Also, I'm pretty sure many of the other gourami pages could benefit from a rewrite, especially in terms of "not how-to". --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for everything! Sorry that was about a month ago. I forgot to check back here on your talk page! I will look into flowerhron cichlid. Just wondering if you can expalin how you normally gather your sources? I guess I am just worried about researching/putting in the work and everything getting rejected due to citing issues/bad sources. I will make sure I look back here :)VarietyCichlid (talk) 11:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi! Actually, I juggle so many things that I often lose track, so I'm glad that you reminded me. About edits, you should always feel free to ask me to look at them if there is anything you feel uncomfortable about. But you should feel free to WP:BEBOLD, and the worst that would happen if somebody doesn't like a source is that they would revert you, and then it could be fixed with a better source. (And it's not like there are a ton of editors looking at aquarium fish pages anyway.) We have a guideline at WP:RS that tells you everything that you need to know about distinguishing a good source from a bad one. For aquarium fish, that pretty much boils down to: no blogs or talk forums, and no commercial websites (at least as a general rule). In part, I use books that I've gathered over the years, and in part, it's just a matter of Googling (or your preferred search engine) whatever you want to look up. And if you use Google Books or Google Scholar, you'll be in particularly safe territory. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

I've been grateful for your direct and indirect support during the tawdry affair that led to my absence. I took a look at the WP:NLT page, and it seems that the usual cynical resistance is still alive and well. Tony (talk) 09:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

It was my pleasure to do what little that I could, and I am genuinely delighted to find out that you are back. As you know, you and I had not crossed paths very much before then, but I have a very strong belief in standing up against careless or improper blocks (goes back to User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 27, and continues up to the recent Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive297#April fools day related question). Anyway, bottom line, welcome back! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Scintigraphy

Crap, that was such a slog! Did you get tired of watching me struggle with it? I don't think all the pieces are yet in the right places ... now I ended up with some diagnostic stuff back in signs and symptoms. Maybe you can make that work better? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I started working on that right after you left the talk page message, and then got an edit conflict. But I think I've now made it clearer. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Faith healing

Hi Trypto, I saw this edit on the talk page, and wanted to chime in here and since I'm not sure if you just removed to not comment on editors or because you looked closer at the article history. Right now, I'm either at two reverts over a 48 hour period or three if you include the separate removal of really old non-MERS stuff. No intent of even approaching/gaming 3RR in a 24 hour period though. Sorry if some of my intermediate spelling or formatting edits of my original edit made things look worse than it actually was. That being said, I'm definitely trying to go easy on hard reverts and avoid edit warring, but I'm also trying to hold the line with a bit of misleading standard PSCI stuff that is buried in the talk page. It seems like the content is close to being functionally resolved in terms of what sources say (though it goes against what those claiming FH wasn't pseudoscience wanted in the RfC), so I'm hoping to get the content fixed up rather that deal with the behavior problems related to pseudoscience at AE. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I redacted it because I felt it would end up being an invitation to other editors to give you trouble, and because I just generally felt that I should not have said it. But you need to understand that I am very serious about everything else that I said. You know I'm just going to try to be honest with you or anyone else. Here, I think that you are seriously in the wrong. And since you mention AE, I think that you will be seen negatively there if it goes there, because of that edit you made. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I guess I'll rehash things more on the talk page to try to recenter, but since my recent edit was undoing an OR violation, there shouldn't be any issue with it at AE. Generally when editors misrepresent sources, that misrepresentation gets removed. It's a convulted mess on the talk page because of all that, but the kind of stuff going on there is exactly why the DS are imposed in the topic. I'll cover more concrete content stuff on the talk page responding to one of your posts and see if we can get something figured out. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Portals

The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.

You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.

There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.

Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.

It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.

The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.

A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

Let's do this.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I just earned another degree...

ProfThis user is a Professor of Absent-mindedness because she professes it, I think, or maybe not.

Atsme📞📧 19:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Great! So, to jog your memory, you are now invited to the next faculty meeting. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Science, unrelated to WP

I just learned the other day that the Perineuronal net exists (from this article) The ocean of what I don't know is so, so big. And it is so great to stumble over this kind of thing. This changes everything I thought about the brain and how to think about basic science results and what that might mean in people, where this thing is present... Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's very interesting indeed, and thanks for pointing it out to me! I've been aware for a long time of the extracellular matrix, but I have to admit that I had never heard before of the concept of it giving rise to a "net". It's certainly something that could play a critical role in axonal projections, and thus, synaptogenesis. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
exactly on that synaptogenesis thing.. plasticity.. etc. zoiks. i wonder if this is present in normal in vitro experiments in neuroscience. Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure one could get these molecules to be expressed in vitro, but the question would be getting them to assemble the right way in three dimensions. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

WP, unrelated to science

While you're here, there's something that I've been feeling uncomfortable about, and I think you have broader experience than I do in tracking socks. I've noticed a seemingly new editor on my watchlist ([7]) (great username, by the way, and a bit complementary to yours!) who gives me the feeling of a sock of an experienced editor evading a block. They showed up recently, and the first thing they did was submit their user page to AfC. Obviously a newbie mistake, albeit very obvious. But simultaneously, they made numerous edits based on a very detailed familiarity with WP:MOS, and that smells off to me. I just can't place who the sockmaster would be. When you have a bit of time, please look over their contributions and see if anything rings a bell. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Seems like they are making somewhat random changes now, building up a history in the account. I agree this is ...fishy. Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, yes. I have a feeling this is someone who has been blocked, but I just cannot figure out who it is. Do any of my talk page participants know of any editor who was heavily into MOS and who got indeffed? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
NPOV teamwork at D&S thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! I am really getting sick of editors who canvass or other things like that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Your neutral at GMG's RfA

Hey Trypt :) I was going to write in the RfA requesting you to reconsider your neutral. I was also going to write in the RfA that I'm ready to give you a better reason than the reason (or rather, excuse) GMG has forwarded. And then, I would have written the reasoning that as your username has only 2 letters in common with Neutral and 5 letters with Oppose, but 6 letters common with Support – you need to be in support. But then I thought that if I wrote this there, I'd be badgered till the Moon for badgering you :D But I didn't want to waste this train of invaluable logic :) So here I am wasting my evening away leaving this silly message on your talk page :) Really, I'm okay with your neutral. Just wanted to drop in and say hi. Hope all is well with you. Warmly, L0URDES 22:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi! A neutral is not an oppose, and I already said there that it's just for the time being. At least you didn't call me Shitpot Fry this time! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
:D Never again shall I call you that L0URDES 04:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, that took an unexpected turn for both of us, sadly. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunate... I don't recall having changed my !vote from support to oppose in the past. So yes this is a first. L0URDES 00:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, so it goes. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Vitamin B3

An article that you have been involved in editing—Vitamin B3—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. SusanLesch (talk) 04:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Help us design granular blocks!

Hello :-) The Anti-Harassment Tools team at the Wikimedia Foundation will start building these granular blocking tools in a few weeks and we've asked WMF designer Alex Hollender to help us make some wireframes so the tools are intuitive to MediaWiki users.

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T190350

We have a first draft of how we think this tool should work. You can read the full proposed implementation here but here are the significant parts:

  • Granular blocks (page, category, namespace, and file uploading) will be built on top of Special:Block. These blocks will function as if they were regular blocks and allow for the same options, but only take effect on specific pages.
  • We will add a new checkbox for "Block this user from the whole site" which will be checked by default. When it is unchecked the admin will be able to specify which pages, categories, and/or namespaces the user should be blocked from editing.
  • Granular blocks can be combined and/or overlap. (For example, a user could be simultaneously blocked from editing the articles Rain, Thunder, Lightning, and all pages inside the Category:Weather.)
  • Only one block is set at a time, to adjust what the user is blocked from the administrator would have to modify the existing block.
  • Block logs should display information about the granular block
  • When a blocked user attempts to edit an applicable page, they should see a block warning message which include information on their block (reason, expiration, what they are blocked from, etc.)
  • If a category is provided, the blocked user cannot edit either the category page itself and all pages within the category.
  • If the File: namespace is blocked, the user should not be allowed to upload files.

We like this direction because it builds on top of the existing block system, both a technical and usability wise. Before we get too far along with designs and development we'd like to hear from you about our prosposal:

  1. What do you think of the proposed implementation?
  2. We believe this should be an expansion of Special:Block, but it has been suggested that this be a new special page. What are your thoughts?
  3. Should uploading files be combined with a File namespace block, or as a separate option? (For example, if combined, when a user is blocked from the File namespace, they would neither be able to edit any existing pages in the File namespace nor upload new files.)
  4. Should there be a maximum number of things to be blocked from? Or should we leave it up to admin discretion?

We appreciate your feedback on this project's talk page or by email. For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF) (talk) , Trust and Safety Specialist, Community health initiative (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Roses are red,
Good message links are blue,
My proofreading stinks,
So here's a good link for you SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

.

RfA

You should if you have any interest at all. I’d support in a hot second. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Tony, that's very nice of you, and I appreciate it very much. I've been asked in the past, and my answer continues to be thanks, but not at this time. I'll take this opportunity to tell you and whoever else may be watching that I've been thinking about it off-and-on, and I suspect that at some time in the future I will say yes (and probably run for ArbCom some time after that). But I fully expect to be around Wikipedia for a long time to come, and I just don't feel any urgency about doing it soon. I don't define my worth based on hat collecting (in real life: been there, done that, and want it behind me), so I see it as no big deal. And I believe that other things should be a higher priority for me first. By other things, I essentially mean content work, something I constantly feel that I should be spending more time on, and keep getting distracted from. There's a ton of stuff that I've been wanting to do for a long time, and just haven't gotten to yet. It would also be important to me to feel like I am at a point in time when my off-site time demands leave me with enough time to take on new things here without having to cut back on one thing to do another. I'm just not there now. Sometime later, I expect that I will, but I can't predict how soon. But I'm not closing any doors, and I truly feel flattered by your message.
Semi-related, I've been noticing over the last several months that, very frequently, you and I have been finding ourselves in strong agreement about various things. I've been meaning to mention that to you. Obviously, it demonstrates that we both have excellent judgment! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I figured you'd say something like that, but the "I plan on it one day" is a happy surprise .
Re: being in agreement, it's either great minds think aline or crazy attracts crazy. I'll let the peanut gallery decide which... TonyBallioni (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, thanks for asking anyway. And there's a giant economy-size peanut gallery that watches my talk page! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Interesting...

...ever get a brain freeze? I read some very chilling comments at AE that gave me brain freeze. But since you're a fish, I'll liken it to Bycatch, which is often the result of longlines and bottom trawls. Those methods work great for catching certain fish species but at what expense? Who cares if a few dolphins get caught in the net - they shouldn't have gone near the longlines - and that's the reasoning I find most disconcerting. What happened to every individual has meaning and all have equal worth? I never expected equal worth to be the equivalent of "worthless". Atsme📞📧 00:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't know about "every individual" around here, but certainly every sperm is sacred... -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Atsme: remember all these times when I've been warning you about the danger of getting caught up in the US politics mess? If you want to use the metaphor of bycatch for that, that sounds about right. But in no way do I see anyone as worthless!
I realize of course that you are talking about my comment in one AE thread about the need for multiple topic bans. And you are thinking about it in terms of what someone else, not me, said in another AE thread, where they named you as one of the potential recipients of a topic ban. Please hear me on this: I did not name anyone, so I most certainly did not name you – and furthermore if there comes to be a formal discussion of topic bans, I will try to defend you, insofar as I can.
But there is only so much that I can do. As you see, one administrator sees it otherwise, and I remember other administrators expressing similar views in the past. My guess is that, if a bunch of topic bans come forth, there will be a lot of them, probably a dozen or more, and you run a big risk of being one of them. I very much do believe that a dozen or so editors need to be removed from everything about Trump, Republicans, and Democrats. I'd prefer that you not be one of them, but it's not up to me. It's got nothing to do with personal worth. It's got nothing to do with worth as an editor, overall. And it's got nothing to do with which "side" is right or wrong. In fact, it's not even about what is fair. It's about a peaceful editing environment, and whatever it takes to shut down all the battleground-ness. I've warned you more times than I can count. It's up to you what you do. But if you really care what I think, I think you need to be careful. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
No, it had nothing to do with what you said and everything to do with all editors. At least one editor saw the danger in it. Good day, Tryp. Happy editing. Atsme📞📧 17:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I assumed that it was about what I said because you directed it at me. What other editors think is largely beyond my control. None of this is my fault. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
You didn't comment on that case at all so I had no reason to connect you to anything. I incorrectly assumed the statement (↑see diff) would have sent ripples throughout the pedia...if not it should have. I may end up bycatch today but it could just as easily be someone else tomorrow. Worse yet, who in their right mind would want to step up and defend a fellow collaborator against a pile-on and put themselves in jeopardy? That presents all kinds of implications, right or wrong. I would have felt exactly the same if it happened to any other editor. Atsme📞📧 17:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I assumed you meant this: [8]. I think a lot of editors are tired of how the pages have become so battleground-y, and would be just fine with a lot of topic bans. It's fine to defend another editor if you think that they deserve it, but one really has to be careful about not letting that sound like taking sides in a content dispute. As I've said numerous times before, appearances matter. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Tryptofish, I was surprised to see an Admin make what I presume was a casual remark like that. I say I presume, because I am not aware that you've done the ton of detailed research that would be necessary to draw that conclusion, let alone to quantify it. The problem with that kind of statement, in my opinion, is that it's inflammatory without providing any immediate benefit. It tends to lead readers to imagine that you're supporting sanctions on the same 12 users they would imagine in their own minds should be banned. Frankly, if we had a dozen Admins who kept up to date on these politics articles, they would feel confident handing out lesser sanctions on the spot without cherrypicked diffs and AE drama. Then everyone would self-correct and there would be very few problems requiring AE. SPECIFICO talk 17:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not an admin (see the talk thread just above this one). I gave my personal opinion, and I've had enough experience both editing and watching other edits to have made it. I think it looks like you are getting off easy on that AE complaint. Simple advice: comment only on the content, never on the editor. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't feel to me like you understood the point I tried to make. It's clearly our norm here not to make undocumented assertions about conduct. If you wish to come to my talk page we can discuss your concerns about me, please do and bring up anything you like and you can explain why you disagree with the 2 panels of Admins at AE whose judgment you reject. But I don't think it's a good idea to make undocumented WP:ASPERSIONS and I see that we've had very little overlap in our editing here [9] from which you would have formed any first-hand experience. I certainly didn't know anything about you witness my calling you Admin. The ASPERSIONS thing is important because so many editors do form casual or uninformed opinions that color their views. SPECIFICO talk 19:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
When you said "I was surprised to see an Admin" and then "I am not aware that you've done", I thought that you meant me both times. Now I understand that you were referring to someone else the first time. Thank you for clearing that up. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

This does not follow directly from the above, but the following diff just showed up on my watchlist, and it's kinda priceless: [10]! (I don't mean that as a comment on the editor who made the edit, just as how it inadvertently captures the editing environment.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much

The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT

Script question

Remember the script "Show preview and changes" that was touted last year? I think EEng brought it to our attention. Do you remember the name of it, or where I can locate it again? I'm pretty sure we discussed it on your TP. Atsme📞📧 17:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, here is the diff of me adding it to my common.js file: [11]. You would just make the exact same edit to your own common.js file (and then maybe exit and restart your browser program for it to load). For what it's worth, I've had it for about a year, and I have never gotten into the habit of using it. I still do "preview" and "changes" separately, but maybe that's just me. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Me, either! In fact, the only time I've used it was to eliminate a bug in the script that causes all the text in my edit window to disappear after I reach a certain length of sentence. It appears to be working now that I removed and replaced it, but we'll see. It could be that another script is what buggered it. Thanks for the help, Tryp. Atsme📞📧 18:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I use it regularly with no problems except if you're editing an old version of the file (i.e. by going into the history and clicking up a version other than the current version) it gets confused what it's diffing against. EEng 19:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
It's an odd thing for me, that there's nothing that I find wrong with it, but I just feel more accustomed to doing it the older way. By the way, EEng, you had asked me to ping you about that non-responding admin, which I think doesn't really need anything done right now, but let's let this serve as the reminder. Are you, in fact, back? If so, it sounded quite interesting, so do tell, if you want to. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'll say this. Japan is the greatest country in the world. I left my glasses in a seat pocket on a train, someone found them 400 miles away, and the railroad brought them back to a local station so I could pick them up on my way to the airport! Yay!!!
Well, if not now then when are we going to do something about this arrogant prick? 'Cause that's what he is. EEng 21:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Taking the second point first, my view is this: [12]. Now as for your glasses, wow, that is absolutely spectacular! That's truly lovely! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I see, yes, we'll keep an eye out and pounce when the time is ripe (unless of course he answers satisfactorily, which he won't if history is any guide). EEng 21:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. I just checked his global contributions again (that stuff takes forever to load), and he still has not come back to any Wikimedia project anywhere. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
It appears that no matter where EEng goes, he makes spectacles of himself. Atsme📞📧 22:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but he is an editor of great vision. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
A far-sighted one, too. EEng 23:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
But unreliable feelings and rather bad taste. (No comment on olfaction.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Meh, it depends on how you look at it. Atsme📞📧 00:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Just learned...

...that we have a WikiJournal of Medicine and WikiJournal of Science. Atsme📞📧 14:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I've actually never paid much attention to Wikiversity. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

True Facts

Still laughing...Frog fish. There's a whole series - wish I had thought of doing this type of presentation instead of serious ones...would have been so much fun! Atsme📞📧 19:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Go to Frogfish, and click on the order, Lophiiformes, in the infobox. Boo! The guy narrating that video sounds chemically impaired. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
If you're talking about the 4 video links on the right near the bottom, the first one is the comic narration by Ze Frank - it's part of his "True Facts About...." series like the ones I linked to here and on my TP. Hilarious! The angler fish video got 19,120,652 views!! The Nat Geo & other videos are more along the same type of narration I used. Atsme📞📧 20:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

"pruning"

Sorry, its too much slash and burn, too quickly, to evaluate. This in particular removes significant, heavily-cited academic work on the subject. -- Netoholic @ 23:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not done yet. There will be plenty of time to review it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD, you make a bold edit and are reverted, your next step rather than re-revert is suggested to take it to discussion. In this case, I suggest that instead you revert back to the June 1 stable version and work on your edits in a sandbox until finished. Otherwise, this "in use" may be seen as a disruptive tactic and refusal to revert to the stable version may be seen as edit warring. -- Netoholic @ 23:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Nonsense. Feel free to raise your concerns at the talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
The onus is on you, per WP:BRD, I'll also add that making threats of AE can be seen as WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics, and such AE reports can lead to WP:BOOMERANG consequences, so I would strongly suggest you self-revert so that you are seen to be operating in good faith. -- Netoholic @ 23:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

[13]. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

  • @Netoholic: I have concerns about the way you went about challenging and reverting these edits. First, a revert should be based on a legitimate objection that can be resolved through discussion. I'm not sure how one would engage in a content discussion based on an overly brief edit summary or too much slash and burn, too quickly, to evaluate. Second, there is no need to work in one's sandbox before contributing to an article. Editors are allowed to edit articles directly, even if those edits are extensive, and you should speak with an admin if you believe that such restrictions are needed for this article. Third, "In use" is a legitimate way to prevent edit conflicts while making extensive edits. You should take it to to the appropriate noticeboard if you believe that it is being abused. –dlthewave ☎ 02:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I'm having trouble locating your lengthy criticism. What are your specific concerns? –dlthewave ☎ 03:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
To editor Dlthewave: - Talk:Political views of American academics#Revisions -- Netoholic @ 03:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Dlthewave, for the supportive comments, much appreciated. I hope that discussion will focus now on content, and take place at the article talk page, where I have outlined some of the points where it would be helpful to have input from more editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Dang, just saw the article. Someone has been busy! PackMecEng (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. At this point, that someone's head is starting to spin from all the editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Einstein = fish

I somehow thought of you when recently seeing this .[1] And, greetings! —PaleoNeonate – 08:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Shubin, Neil (8 October 2009). Finding Your Inner Fish. At: 48 minutes, 30 seconds: University of California Television (UCTV).{{cite AV media}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
Thanks! I'd like to find out whether I have an inner Einstein! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for your efforts on what used to be Liberal bias in academia, I took a stab at cleaning that one up way back and got burnt out. Tough topics like that are hard work, but they're also often the ones that need the most cleanup... Fyddlestix (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks very much for that, indeed! I furthermore am delighted to see you as well as some other editors showing up at that page, because it is really important for multiple eyes to be on it. I'm on the brink of getting burnt out, myself, and maybe I need something a lot stronger than coffee! What is truly awful is having essentially one editor taking ownership of the page to push a POV, and the cure for that is having other editors, and more than one at a time, call BS when that happens. I was getting to where I wasn't going to touch the page anymore unless other editors showed up, and having your help now is exactly what I needed to get back in. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Waiting for images to hopefully be uploaded....

....before I add a companion essay for Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man except with a focus more along the line of either there's no other way but up, up, up or it's not backing down when you take the higher road...or ??? Atsme📞📧 14:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, Popeye, I'll be watching. [FBDB] --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
You're just jealous cuz I can see fish underwater simply by looking at pictures of fish with my right eye closed, and don't need a mask, snorkel or aquarium. Atsme📞📧 19:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Aye, aye! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Where there is a see...there are pirates!! Atsme📞📧 01:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
So next time, I'll climb the Reichstag dressed as a pirate. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
B)lol* No, no, no - see the image - and add a mask to hide your identity - or you could use a pirate's patch over one eye instead of the full mask. Atsme📞📧 01:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

RFC sorting

Its not a historical topic - 2012, cmon. Also the sci sorting is for "Maths, science, and technology" which statistical evaluation clearly falls under. -- Netoholic @ 21:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It is about changes over time from the 1990s to the present. But I guess every last detail has to be a battleground. Facepalm Facepalm --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
That's not "history" - if that were the case, literally everything we include is "history" in that it was printed in the past. RFC sorting is meant to attract interested editors, but also not to oversaturate the categories and annoy those other editors instead. Your instantaneous revert of me shows the battleground mentality. -- Netoholic @ 21:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be ancient history to be history. If you are concerned about annoying other editors, then I suggest you get off my talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Neil Gross shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You are displaying WP:OWNERSHIP behavior in regards to this article, by not listening to the advice from uninvoled editors on the BLP noticeboard and by edit warring to keep in the positive information about Gross while removing the critical peer reviews. If you want to work to balance the section without the "back and forth", we can work to summarize it, but that would mean 1) sourcing information about his studies to secondary sources, and 2) removing all the quotes and accurately summarizing both the positive and the critical aspects into prose. But that cannot be accomplished while you are on the current path. I suggest you step away for a while, come back fresh, and approach from a neutral vantage point. -- Netoholic @ 20:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

And... blocked. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

VPI: Phasing out

You implying something? Remember, land animals such as toads like myself evolved from you uni-tasking fish. Behold the new generation hath risen up. #phaseoutgills theHypn0toad 22:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, it's about this: [14]. But I'm not naming names. Except maybe this. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hope you can access...*lol*

Too funny!!! Atsme📞📧 20:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I watched it – and then I told those damn kids to get off my lawn! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for your work on the Political views of American academics. AnaSoc (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the kind words! I appreciate that a lot. And in turn, I am just as much enjoying working with you on that page. You've been very nice in the discussions, and the way that you have broadened the historical scope of the page is a major improvement. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Question about a source

Would you take a peek at this material and advise as to your thoughts about the reliability of the main source? Atsme📞📧 14:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

PS - about the source itself, see the main page and scroll down just past the bit about What students are saying...it tells why it should be a trusted source. 15:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I think whether or not it is an RS depends to some extent on what one wants to source to it. As a broad generalization, I would say no, it's not a good source, at least for characteristics of colleges and universities. I'm not at all persuaded by the part that you told me to scroll down to. It's like if someone (or some group of people) had a website that is about the restaurants they went to and what they did or did not like – we wouldn't say "restaurant X has food that tastes bad" based on such a source (except maybe for an attributed opinion if the source were something like one of the highly notable restaurant guides such as Michelin, which I don't think is comparable to a find-a-college website). (Compare WP:RSSELF.) I suspect they are probably accurate for saying that College X is a Sea Grant College, but I would much prefer to source that to either the college's own website or to the website of the Sea Grant program. I think it's very unlikely that the website provides any encyclopedic information that could not instead be gotten from a better source. Beyond that, I would need to know more about what page we are talking about and what kind of statement is being sourced. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, I'm 100% with Tryp. I thought I'd already commented in this thread, but I see now that I left that tab and forgot all about it.
I do that a lot, actually. <le sigh>ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I deliberately gave my answer above without looking to see what it might be about. Now, I've checked your (Atsme's) talk page, and found two things. One: if this is about Talk:University of Mississippi#Only flagship or one of two? (and I realize that maybe it isn't), there have got to be much better sources than College Raptor for how many flagships there are there. Two: oh shit! I've been warning you that something like this could happen; clearly you have more pressing things to deal with now, than sourcing a page about colleges. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
The source I asked about cited Sea Grant - I thought of it more as a 3rd party source rather than depending on the primary source (Sea Grant) talking about its own program. Nevermind, it's not important. Thx. Atsme📞📧 01:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
It's OK to use a reliable primary source for a fact, such as being part of Sea Grant. Going to independent secondary sources is for matters of opinion or assessments of importance. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Resident fauna of AP2

Regarding these toxic AP2 editors you'd like an ArbCom case against, have you tried discussing their behavior with them? Geogene (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

To some extent, yes I have. But please do not think that I'm going to be the filing party for such a case. And it's not just me saying that. Is there a more specific point you are making? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I have. And it's not helped one bit. Tryp, I'll happily be the filing party. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I was the filing co-party for the GMO case, and it's no fun. My strong advice: start by taking the editors, one-by-one, to WP:AE. Maybe now there will be admins ready to topic ban them (and thanks for your added comment after mine at WT:AE). If that can happen, that would be far preferable to a full ArbCom case. Whatever you do in that regard, please keep me in the loop, and I'll be more than happy to give advice about the best ways to navigate the very complex complexities of WP:AE and/or WP:RFAR, which are two entirely different things. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
No, you would just keep bringing it up until somebody else does. That way it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. But I see MPants just volunteered. Geogene (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) OK. Just in the last few hours, I've been called clueless and patronizing, which is a pretty good indicator of what will happen when anyone talks to those editors about their conduct, as well as the environment that will accompany anything about it at ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I should have been more clear, I will be happy to be the filing party if an ArbCom case is needed. But as I said already, what's needed right now is for admins to wade in, ban hammers swinging freely. Start using short blocks to stop heated discussions and (not as) short topic bans to calm down heated editors. Let folks know that our civility policies will be enforced.
I'm not sure that running to ArbCom is necessary or even helpful at this point, but I'll be more than happy to do it if that's what it takes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I have low confidence that any admins will stick their necks out without a formal request at WP:AE. At AE, it's up to the admins what they will do, but short blocks will only interrupt the problem for a short time, after which it will resume. We really need topic bans: "indefinite" but appeal-able in six months. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Thanks for the clarification. Geogene (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Whoa Sherlock...you're missing important clues

Sherlock thinks that it's best not to continue this discussion any further. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

With all due respect, you've got it all wrong, Tryp. You don't know half the story - all you've seen is the dead body - there was no smoking gun. That's all I'm going to say besides read the diffs without the mindset created by the subtitles - they are all taken out of context, and none of them prove anything - just plain discussion - it's the subtitles that make it seem like more. Look at the interaction history of the person you support, and the motivation behind it - it was wrong - think about what happened to you and how you felt knowing it was wrong while those around you said you were wrong. You have always judged me guilty before proven innocent - you need to drop the preconceived notions. There's no way you or anyone else studied the full context of those diffs - EdJohnston said If there are no smoking guns, I wonder if you have a case at all. EdJohnston (talk) 3:08 pm, 28 June 2018, last Thursday (2 days ago) (UTC−5) (I can't seem to locate the diff but I have a copy of the discussion) He was right - there was no smoking gun and no case - I was blindsided, and now I'm just trying to heal so I can come back with fresh eyes instead less the knotted-up stomach because of what was done and how it was done. It would be terribly wrong for you to start a crusade to RIGHTGREATWRONGS based on preconceived notions that are only half true. Just food for thought. Atsme📞📧 15:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Atsme, I'm happy to see you back, and I feel complimented that you would even care what I think. I know full well that I can be wrong – I'm pretty sure that it happens quite frequently. I know that you are feeling awful, but because each of us is different and unique, I cannot know exactly how bad it is. Every editor is different, and every dispute is different.
I trust that you know that I continue to want to be your wiki-friend, and I want to see you around and editing actively for a long time to come. I wish that you could give me a bit more credit for, in fact, having looked very closely at the reality of what has gone on, and having commented after having given it careful thought. But if that doesn't work for you, so be it, and I am sorry.
For whatever it may be worth, my sincere advice is to not fight it, and to give it some time. But of course that's up to you. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't take a neuroscientist (of the highest caliber, as what I consider you) to understand what just happened in this case, but I understand why the facts can be evasive. The evidence is there for all to see, who want to see it, specifically the inundation of innocuous diffs, all of which were taken out of context - but that's life. It saddens me that you were unable to recognize what actually took place...but I understand guilty until proven innocent which is not unlike ONUS. I get it. What hurts me most is that editors I once trusted and believed in, turned on me, but I'm lucky it only involved one topic area, right? (not talking about you) Is that how we should see things? I imagine you've heard similar responses during your ordeal. - take the unjust "punishment" and STFU. 😂 I remain optimistic that it will all work out for the better - God Save The Queen, and whatever other mantra best serves. I recognize that I am a single eentsy teensy editor among the grand scheme of things, and I have always respected consensus. I also believe that the latter should not prohibit/deter an editor from trying to improve an article. WP is either destined to be an encyclopedia or a soapbox or possibly just a mirror of NOTNEWS - pick one - and don't be surprised when disruption occurs. --Atsme📞📧 00:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
AtsmeIf you are talking about me, then please understand that I truly, honestly believe that you will be happier and do better here without editing in that topic. And as I have said a number of times: I don't believe for one second you are the only one who shouldn't be in politics right now. That list includes me, and quite a few "liberal" editors, as well. I too, continue to want to be your wiki-friend, and I want to see you around and actively editing for a long time to come. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I try to avoid articles relating to political parties myself, although at times I have edited minimally some affiliated articles for things like reporting their climate change denial or pushing for creationist teaching in science class, which I think is very important to mention when reliable sources do; and of course watchlisting them when they're known for frequent COI PR edits... —PaleoNeonate – 03:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I am out of this discussion - not anything about what I was referring to. Good night. Tryp - you can archive this because it has gone in the wrong direction - NOT what I was talking about to those who posted here. Atsme📞📧 05:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Given the multiple references to the time, years ago, when I was blocked, I think it's important to remember that my initial reaction at the time was that it was no big deal and that we should just move on. It blew up only when other editors, not me, criticized the block and then the ArbCom of that time responded by circling the wagons and deliberately making false attacks against me (anyone remember "unclear diffs"?). Anyway, Atsme, I sincerely wish you all the best. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Archive 30←Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tryptofish/Archive_35&oldid=1190148499"