User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 36

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Tryptofish. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

July, 2018 – November, 2018

Template talk:Ds

I don't think it's something on that page, because past edits that looked normal now do not. It has to be something transcluded. Natureium (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I felt like I was losing my mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

So I was wrong, but I figured out why I was wrong. Old versions weren't ok either because today Tidy with replaced with RemexHtml, breaking a bunch of pages. Natureium (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Nevertheless, you clearly understand it better than I do (which is vanishingly close to zero)! Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Sshhh...

Don't let anyone in the home know you're reading this stuff....ok? 😂 ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

And here is where Dr. Tryptofish comes in with the typical throwing cold water on it. (Scientists like me are such skeptics!) First of all, I'm pissed off because, even though I am an active member of AAAS, when I logged in to read the original paper I got a message that my membership only gives me online access to Science, but not to the translational sub-journal thereof, and I'm too lazy to look at the other options. But anyway. It's just an animal model in rats, so it probably won't translate successfully to humans. (Although some humans are of course....) Also, they don't say in the abstract what the drugs they used are, which is just plain weird, and I'm not sure that these are drugs that can be used clinically in humans. So, meh. Now you kids, get off my lawn. But not you, Atsme, glad to see you here! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

It's happy hour, I'm having fun - but I have to ask - could your hypothesis and/or skepticism be the result of age-related dementia? 😂 ^{Don't be mad, I couldn't resist!!! I have to treat my rug burns!} ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't remember. Where are my keys? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Possibly impossible

I'll be very distracted for the rest of today, traveling most of Monday, and in meetings Tuesday. Can you see if there's any oil you can pour on this troubled water [1] (and read the sections down from there)? E Eng 21:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Facepalm What a mess. I'll see if I can think of something to do, but this may indeed be impossible. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I've done what I could. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Which was more than enough. Thank you!

When I was copy-editing and expanding WP:BFE the other week it didn't seem to gel and I wasn't particularly satisfied. Re-reading it in full today it put a big smile on my face. I think I hit the bullseye. I just hope that other editors from both projects found it amusing and thought-provoking too, including one or two admins. nagualdesign 22:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I am so glad that you think so! It means a lot to me, truly. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I guess I'm in good company now. Now we have: Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Tryptofish. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

For connoisseurs of eye-popping DYK hook possibilities

I'm in the very early stages of creating ~~User:Tryptofish/Drafts/Jack Sumner~~. It's an historical biography about someone I just found out about, and WP simply cannot be without it! Caution: male editors are advised to cross their legs before looking at the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I've, um, cut it loose to Jack Sumner in mainspace. The squeamish should beware! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

That's awesome. I've watchlisted it.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

21:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! When I first heard about it (on NPR, where a book author was talking about it), I felt this really had to be covered here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

(By the way, I saw this: [2]. Based on your edits and your way of working with other editors, I never would have guessed it. Congrats! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC))

Let me tell you a secret about Aspies... We lurk among you, waiting, watching, biding our time until you have lowered your guard...

Thanks, actually. Being told that someone never would have guessed that is praise, no matter what many Autism Speaks activists say. Many of us make an effort to understand and adopt the arbitrary, idiotic stuff many people do in order to make friends easier, and it's always nice to hear that my efforts weren't in vain.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

00:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

When I first started editing here about a decade ago (a decade?, good grief!), and the concept of internet trolls was not yet widely recognized and WP wasn't yet experienced at dealing with them, I got targeted for trolling by Something Awful for a truly ridiculous reason. (I had said that I thought it was OK to use an image from a manga on a page, and apparently any reference to Japanese pop culture was reason enough to troll!) A mini-army of IPs showed up and were calling me an "aspie", and I had no idea what it meant until I looked it up. I actually said to an admin that they were calling me and other editors "ass pies", which I thought was what they were saying, and that got a very indignant response from a troll, who insisted he had never said that. So I guess I unintentionally trolled the troll. Today, such trolls would get shut down fast, but back then, admins just did not know what to do. Amazingly, I felt upset at the time; today, I look back and laugh at the ridiculousness of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The internet today is not much better, see the "autistic screeching' meme, which is only 2 years old or so. The negative stereotypes usually associated with nerds and geeks have, in this day where nerds and geeks are considered "cool", been required to be shifted to another group. With idiotic mass-media like The Big Bang Theory presenting Asperger's as something intimately associated with geekiness, it makes sense for most people to shift those negative stereotypes onto Aspies.

Of course, the truth isn't like that, but when has the truth ever stopped anyone? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. That kind of stuff makes me want to facepalm. I never watched The Big Bang Theory, partly because I just don't watch network stuff like that, but also because I had the impression that it would offend me. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I watched it a bit. It was funny early on, and it was refreshing at first to see an updated take on what a "nerd" is. But they milk that schtick until it's dry, and then just keep going. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, back to Jack Sumner, I feel like I am putting out fires on multiple pages today, but I'll try to get around to those citation formats as soon as I can. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Attention hookers: Template:Did you know nominations/Jack Sumner. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

That does not sound like cricket to me. Simon Adler (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Harassment

This is both a misrepresentation and unhelpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 12 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.

this is nothing less than cross-wiki harassment and trolling. You would be wise to retract it. Should I see any continuation or escalation the matter, I shall go to the en:wp administrators to seek a block. As you will be well aware, the matter was already requested to be closed by an admin on Commons, and has not been pursued by the party concerned. Your post on Jimbo's page is nothing more than a personal attack as part of your long running grudge. Deeply unwise. -- Colin°^Talk 21:17, 12 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.

Colin

Colin: You are hereby banned from my talk page (something I have only done to two other editors before you). Do not ever edit this talk page again, or my talk page at any other wiki. I will not edit your talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

A comment

These past few days at Commons have made me realize just how overall good we have it here at enwp, despite the huge room there is for improvement. "Enwp has the worst governance imaginable, until you compare it to the governance of any other wiki." Those people crazy for real. E Eng 04:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Did you see the idiotic response of the 'crat who took a look? They essentially said that the whole affair was just Fæ getting butthurt and that they should drop it. The incredibly arrogance, ignorance, and sheet stupidity of that statement absolutely blows my mind. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I did not see it. I appreciate the comments of both of you, I really do, but in the interests of avoiding further escalation, let's all please just drop it. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll be happy to drop it on your talk page. Not so much on commons, though. That place needs bleach. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure, thanks, and no argument from me. I'm just trying to stay out of that dramah for now. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Help me Pplease

Please mark the Shirin Oskooi article for deletion . She is not notable and we can't have articles on every reality contestant. I am a ip editor since 2004. I can't AFD it ,you can .Please. I see you active based on AFD ,so please afd it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.233.143.77 (talk) 04:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I see that the AfD process has already been started by someone else, so that should take care of things. Thank you for thinking of me to ask. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Glyphosate

Did I do something wrong? Claustro123 (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

No, you didn't, please don't worry. I could see that you were new to the page, and because there are very specific rules that were applied by the Arbitration Committee, it is standard procedure to give those alerts so that you know about it before any problems happen. But I was not criticizing and I was not implying any kind of threat. (By the way, there was just recently a lot of discussion about how to make the message sound less threatening, and I see from your response that this wasn't entirely successful.) Happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Jack Sumner

On 27 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jack Sumner, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Grand Canyon explorer Jack Sumner intentionally castrated himself? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jack Sumner. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Jack Sumner), 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.

Vanamonde (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Preliminary count: 18,341 pageviews for the one day! Looks like a new entry for the statistics page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Official count: 18,731 views: [3]. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Fantastic work at Jack Sumner! What a sad and odd story. Thanks for writing it! MX (✉ • ✎) 01:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that just hits the spot! Yes, when I first heard about him, I knew right away that we needed a page about him. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

General observation: So interesting to see what shows up on an article when it appears on the Main Page. Here, multiple IPs from different geolocations changing it to falsehoods (per sources) in order to POV-push pro-Mormonism, which is something mentioned only tangentially. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

And in case you'd like to add some umami flakes... —Paleo Neonate – 20:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Flakes? Sure! I am what I eat! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead sentence question

Hello yes it's WP:MOSNICKNAME. Giant Snowman 16:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure enough, there it is! Learn something new every day! Thanks so much. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Some advice if you feel inclined?

User:CristieJ is new, and in trouble, and it was my fault kinda thing.

It's almost how I was welcomed to the wiki, and I know exactly how they feel.

Should I do anything? I want to tell them that they really have it wrong, but how, without making it worse?

I stayed away about two years after my initial experience!! -Roxy, the dog. barcus 17:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me. I've looked over what happened, and my advice is basically to sit back and not do anything more that could reignite the dispute, other than just editing that crystal page according to what you think is right. If they continue to come at you after the block is over, and you are in a situation where you ought to respond, I'd suggest starting your response with something approximately like: "Hi ChristieJ, I realize that you and I got off on a bad footing, so I'd like to tell you that it was nothing personal on my part. I'm just doing things according to Wikipedia policy, and that's how policy works. Also, I see that you are a new editor, and I remember from when I was a new editor that it takes a while to get used to how Wikipedia operates." But only do that if they initiate the conversation. If you initiate anything, they will take it the wrong way no matter what you say.

It looks to me like they were entirely on the wrong side, and that multiple admins have taken a look and all come to the same conclusion. So I really do not think that you did anything wrong, and there's no obligation on your part. My guess is that this is a user who is probably beyond saving. So don't feel bad about any of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I shall leave things well alone then. Thanks very much. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 22:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Please explain to me how labeling someone's stance as inconsistent is a personal attack. @Ritchie333: Feel free to join in since I know you can't help yourself. Nihlus 22:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll let Tryptofish answer the first, but in my view I generally am unimpressed when editors say "are people seriously edit warring over this" while edit-warring themselves. Indeed, I have done a few WP:BOOMERANG blocks at AIV which have upset the recipient, but were all upheld as being within policy when discussed against multiple administrators.

The problem is, Nihlus, you seem to have taken this discussion far too seriously and too personally, have made an excessive number of replies, and not really backed up your argument with solid evidence, but just personal opinions. Civility is impossible to define and therefore impossible to effectively enforce. You had the crowd's ear at the start of the discussion, but by bludgeoning it, you will lose any support you might have had.

With all sincerity, I encourage you to go and write part of the encyclopedia. Find a non-fiction book you like, find an article that's in poor shape (and there's millions of them to choose from) and improve an article, adding source material and tightening the prose. If you look at projects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, the atmosphere and general camaraderie from the participants, when working together to improve content, really is an eye-opener of what can happen around here if you've never experienced it. Step away from the administrative side and see what this project is truly capable of achieving. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really going to respond to most of your comment. However, what I really want to know now is what is your goal of mentioning blocks to me now twice in a single day? Am I to take that as a veiled threat? If not, I ask that you please clarify your remarks. Thanks. Nihlus 22:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm simply saying that if you edit war and / or bludgeon discussions, you can expect blowback, which in other instances has escalated to the point of a block. If you stop edit warring and stop bludgeoning, you won't get blocked. Obviously I'm not going to block you - we could probably have a game of how many policies I would violate if I did! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I know which lines not to cross. And I really didn't bludgeon anything as I was responding mainly to replies to my initial comment or agreeing with other people's comments. Active participant? Yes. Bludgeon. Hardly. Although at this point I no longer really care about the discussion or the RfA. Nihlus 22:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I looked back at the edit history before replying, and I see that you were reverted by someone else, so at this point it's three editors who have found fault with your header, including me. For those playing along at home, I changed a talk section header of "Editor's inconsistency" to "Comparison of Editor's comments". Saying to another editor "I think that your comments have been inconsistent" seems fine to me. Labeling a section the way that you did is little different from "Editor's foolishness". My advice to you (not that you asked) is to drop the stick. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

So, it's not a personal attack as you stated in your edit summary but rather a non-neutral heading. That I can agree with but feel changing it without asking is rather curt. Thanks. Nihlus 22:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

If the two of you want to continue the discussion somewhere else, please do. I hope that there will be no bad feelings. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for not hating me, and for blocking the barber's razor.

I feel very strange in having to write such a thank you notice, but you are the very first of the four persons I've so far encountered, who did not want to slay my opinions, my doings, or me.

When I voted to delete in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_with_facial_hair_(4th_nomination) then I did also consider to elaborate my opinions in an more objective manner with some food for thought, but was in doubt if it would get a bit too long, and so I chose to postpone the decision. Seeing how I immediately received a troll-label from a Wiki employee (Rhododendrites) based on throwing half truths into the air about my previous edits, then I will abstain from further elaboration there. But if you think elaboration is something worth bringing to market, then I'm willing to write it somewhere for you to read and use anyway you may see fit. Pladderballe (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I try not to hate anyone, and when I thought you were a new user, I certainly wanted to be supportive. However, I see now that you appear to have been another user who was evading a block. That's unacceptable, as is responding to other editors with insults, as I see you have appeared to have done. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Note

For the next few days, I'm going to have only intermittent internet service, so if I'm slow to respond to anything, that's why. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Should be OK now. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia

Hi Tryptofish. Just wanted to pick your brain more on copying within wikipedia following this addition to the GMO talk page. I know that the minimum is an edit summary note and always try to leave a link back to the source article when I do one. Your edit summary seemed to suggest that a talk page template is required when it reaches a certain size. I ask because I am doing a lot of this at the moment and plan on doing more. There are historical instances too, most of the history section at GMO was copied from History of genetic engineering. I have often justified not leaving a talk page template to myself due to my somewhat arrogant position that I have written most of the information I am moving around anyway, but if I am honest it is also something I find time consuming busy work and I don't like the look of talk pages filled with templates at the top. Anyway you are one of the more versed editors here on not only policy, but the practical implications of policy so thought I should just see what you think. If you think it is necessary I will go back and template the talk pages. Some examples are [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8].

While I am here I might as well get you opinion on how to resolve the correlation between the GMO article with the genetic engineering one. They are essentially going to mirror each other on process, history, applications, regulation and controversies. Maybe GE will focus more on the process, while GMO on the application, but the differences are not going to be much. I don't think a merge would stick, but it would be the easiest solution and one I will make if you think it is worth a shot. Can you think of any points of difference between the two that would make the articles unique? There is a similar issue with GM crops vs GM plants, but at least there are differences between the two concepts. All GMOs are results from genetic engineering and all products of genetic engineering are GMOs. I think I will take it to the talk page at some point, but if you have any rough ideas on how best to outline the articles up I would love to hear them. Sorry for the TL:DR. AIRcorn (talk) 08:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, not tl;dr from my perspective at all. About the copying question, I'm not actually that much of an expert on it, but you could also look at WP:Copying within Wikipedia. (I'm traveling and on a fragile internet connection right now, so I'm not going to look there myself now.) Anyway, I see what I did as "best practice" as opposed to "required". There's no serious problem that I'm aware of with just indicating it in the edit summary, but someone looking for the history later would have to do a lot of searching through all the edits in the page history to find that edit summary, whereas it's a lot easier to follow the link to the diff within the talk page template. I saw that you had moved a lot of text, and figured I would add the talk page thing, but I didn't perceive it as really being a problem.

About genetic engineering, I looked for Genetic engineering in agriculture, and I see that it's simply a redirect to Genetic engineering. That being the case, genetic engineering as a whole is a lot more than plants, and even more so than agricultural plants. I do think we need two separate pages for Genetic engineering and Genetically modified organism, and I think the difference is what you said: emphasis on methods in the former, and on the organism in the latter. That of course is just my individual opinion, so I hope that helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Very helpful. Thank you. AIRcorn (talk) 09:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I meant to thank you a while ago for running a red pen through my edits at Genetically modified organism. Felt a bit like I was back at uni getting graded for my papers. I am hoping to eventually get a G A grade for that article so your edits and requests for clarification are very useful. I realise the proverbial is heading steadily for the fan in regards to related articles in this area and that your time, and patience, is probably quite thin at the moment. While I am a little nervous it will spill over to the GMO article, I think I will keep plugging away there for now. I hope you are able to make further comments, but will understand if your priorities lie elsewhere. AIRcorn (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

That's very nice of you to say that, thanks. I was happy to do that (and after all, I am an ex-professor!). It sure has become a stink-fest in the GMO topic area recently, which is a pity, but if it's on my watchlist, I'll be watching it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Ten years of editing!

Hey, Tryptofish. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Tryptofish/Archive 36,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

My nick is PaleoNeonate and I support this message. —Paleo Neonate – 02:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Do I get a cane or a walker or something like that? I feel soooo old! --Tryptofish (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

E-mail? IRC?

I'm sorry you don't have Wikipedia e-mail enabled, as I would like to be able to talk with you about sensitive matters without people looking over my shoulder. Do you do IRC? Bishonen | talk 06:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC).

I do use smoke signals

, so I've contacted you privately. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Gateway Pundit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antifa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Done --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk page

I know you said you're just starting to look into the recent edits, and it's a lot to go through in terms of talk discussion or content. Because of that, feel free to ask more pointed questions at the talk page if my summary here wasn't clear. There's been a lot of stuff going on that's difficult to keep track of even for being heavily involved, so I'm not surprised if it's daunting for others to dive in.

I'll admit I'm quite tired out from trying to civilly respond to all the battleground and sniping being reintroduced into the topic yet again when I've been intent on trying to deal with problematic behavior without going to AE right away, but I'm hoping things can be settled down. My main content concerns in that regard are the changes to the lead and reintroducing this (i.e., burying the consensus statement). As long as that can be addressed, I'm good with tag removal at this point. The other stuff on talk, while problematic, is only going to bog things down at this point if everyone tries to address all those things at once. If you're going to take a 3O-type role, hopefully those two things give an area of focus to hopefully get something done. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I see that you made a very recent comment about you now stepping back and waiting to hear from other editors. That's a good idea. It's becoming obvious to everyone that you and SS going back and forth with each other is just leading to a wall of text with no one convincing the other. That's why I tried doing a semi-3O kind of thing, and I'm tired out from it myself. I honestly think that neither of you is particularly wrong about this stuff, more a matter of just having some different but reasonable perspectives, so I don't see it as you being reasonable and dealing with someone who has problems. I see it as both of you being reasonable but talking past one another. If there are things that have already been discussed without coming to an agreement, better not to make bold edits that just invite someone else to revert you. When I feel like I really have grasped all of the differences (don't anybody hold your breath), I'm going to try to break it down to having two alternative versions displayed side-by-side on the talk page, and figuring out which is the better one. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Responding on your talk page...

...since it would be kinda repeating myself, just with different emphases to answer your specific concerns, to reply directly at the AFD.

Anyway, the problem is more the conflation of kaijū with giant animals, even though the former term also encompasses (1) smaller creatures (the original, literal meaning of the word is "strange" or "mystical" animal, and a lot of "kaijū films", such as The Return of Godzilla, prominently feature monsters of sub-human proportions), (2) non-organic monsters like Mechagodzilla, which no one calls "giant animals", and (3) "normal-sized" versions of fictional animal species that happen to be very large (Godzilla, to give just the most famous example, is actually, in most versions of the series continuity, the last survivor, or one of the last survivors, of a dinosaur species). Yeah, most monsters called kaijū are animals and are very large, but extrapolating from that that the word itself refers to giant animals specifically and that lists of kaijū constitute lists of giant animals is WP:OR, but I wouldn't call it SYNTH since there is no synthesis of different sources involved.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, Wikipedia... the sum of all human knowledge. E Eng 13:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

EEng, you'd be amazed (or maybe not) at the amount of grief I've gotten over Japanese pop culture over the years. (Many years back, I got death threats because I said that sometimes images from anime and manga could be appropriate images for some pages that discuss what the images show. Don't ask.)

Hijiri 88, thanks for explaining that. What I think is the bottom line is that you and I both agree entirely that this stinko of a page needs to be deleted. I actually did understand what you were saying there about how to understand the term kaijū, but I was just trying to make it clear that I, myself, have little knowledge of the subject. My point about WP:SYNTH is, I still believe, a valid one. There is not necessarily SYNTH per se in relating kaijū to the page subject, but instead the problems with that are what you describe. But there is SYNTH in saying that kaijū and (to use a particularly poor example cited by another editor at the AfD) "Clifford the Big Red Dog" are the same kind of thing. In other words, there are various kinds of fictional giant creatures in various cultures around the world, but once editors start making decisions that this one and that one are the same but that other one is different, and base those decisions on the editors' own ad hoc hunches at the moment, that most certainly entails SYNTH. Thanks, by the way, for your work on keeping an eye on the troublesome editors who are involved in this stuff. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your further suggestion, although I wonder about its usefulness. I know I'm never going to convince Andrew as he's not interested in being convinced, but demonstrating as much to the closer seems like it would be a good idea, since his !vote will be weighted based on his having made it based on personal principle rather than Wikipedia policy or reliable sources; now that you've suggested we both cut it out, it will look like he stopped responding because you told him to, rather than because he had been talked into a corner and didn't have a response (as, for example, happened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of the West Indies (Jamaica)). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Of course that was only a suggestion from me, but my thinking is really just what I said there. I can add here that in my opinion you are in the right and he is digging himself into a hole that will eventually result in him being sanctioned in some way – but: when the two of you get into more than a single back-and-forth, and it starts to fill up an awful lot of the AfD page, it starts to come across as a personal vendetta and actually dilutes the effectiveness of what you are saying. Don't worry about the closing admin; they will know what to do. I just wouldn't want people to start to think that you are going around harassing him. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

And as I check my watchlist, I see now that the result was delete, as well it should have been. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Abbreviation not used in article

Hi. Re: this edit, aren't we essentially doing the same thing in the New York Times article? We note "The NYT" in the lead sentence, but don't reference the paper that way in the article. I imagine there are other examples. With the Gateway Pundit, the site itself seems to use the "TGP" abbreviation when I last looked at it, so noting it seemed reasonable to me. We also list the site in the TGP disambiguation page, which makes me more inclined to include the abbreviation somewhere in the Gateway Pundit article. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

It's no big deal to me either way. It just seems to me to be not particularly useful to define an abbreviation that is never used. But if this is more of an AKA than a simple abbreviation, I have no objection to putting it back. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

File:John Colton Sumner.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I actually had reduced the resolution myself, but apparently not by enough. I'll let the automatic process take care of it. (I hope). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Alas, yes. Replying to bots if the first sign of "wiki-botulism", even when it's to Ron Bot. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Yup. I'll be even more worried if I hear it answering back. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry. There's always a place for you at the First Church of Appliantology. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad it's not the Second. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Atsme, about that squid in the photo, that same squid ate 486 of my siblings! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

You got lucky!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Columbus

Are you going? I'll be at the All American Quarter Horse Congress that whole week, and where I'll be staying is a short 10 min away. How could I resist? ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

No, sorry, although I would have been happy to meet up with you if I were. Have a great time horsing around! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Neigh. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Got to thinking 💭

I hope some of the things I say on the TPs of WikiFriends aren't misconstrued as 100% serious - case in point, this comment. Some of the replies to my comments over time make me wonder. I'm pretty sure our friends in the UK have perfected satire but I've also experienced a few times when the punch line was lost in the translation. 🤔 Oh well, it's too late to worry about it now. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I know what you mean. It's tricky online, because no one can see anyone's facial expression or other nonverbal cues. For what it's worth, I feel like I can tell the difference between serious and not in your comments. But as for other users, their mileage may differ. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm of the mind that if you couldn't tell the difference, we'd not be discussing it now. Have fun when you go "out for the evening" tonight. Make sure you tell the folks at the home where you'll be, and don't forget to take your Jitterbug and Alert 1....especially if things "heat-up". 😂 ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

AE case

You came to my talk page a few weeks ago about concerns you were thinking of bringing to WP:AE. I wouldn't be notifying if that weren't the case, but I just ended up opening a case there. I'm not sure if those were the exact same issues that were concerning you or not, so I figured I'd let you know. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, as I actually have not been watching the page where it happened. Yes, it's what I'm concerned about too. As it happens, I'm about to go out for the evening, but I intend to comment later. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for filling in the AE notification link. I got pulled away from the computer mid edit and didn't notice I had left it until now. Something I just noticed relevant to the notification of DS link though is that it looks like it's not needed. The text already points to the log higher up, so while it doesn't hurt to include it, it can be redundant too. I'm not sure if that's a new change to the template or just something I never noticed before. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, thanks for your more recent comments there too. I thought this was going to be a straightforward case, and I had a busy weekend, so I wasn't around too much to deal with all the stuff going on in the periphery (any probably for the better that I didn't try to address all that at the time). In terms of your comment about defending myself, I would have liked to point out just how bad the comments about me were misrepresentative, but I was stuck at the word limit dealing with the meat of the case itself and not really in a position to open new AE cases either even if technically justified.

All I'll say for now is that I'm also concerned with what editors were trying to justify at the AE given that the principle was written to explicitly as a response to that kind of behavior. The ball seems to be in Drmies court for the main part of the case itself, and I'm waiting to see if Seraphimblade has any guidance on how GMO aspersion stuff could be improved in the future. DS were supposed to make it easier to get that behavior out of the topic, so hopefully your clarification request can dovetail with any comments Seraphimblade has. I'll probably chime in at the clarification after I think about it for a bit, but I'm hopeful something can be worked out so AE works again since I do not want to see another ArbCom case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Without intending to sound too smug, I fully expected it to be closed that way, and I even guessed correctly which admin was going to do it. Anyway, please let me be blunt with you. Filing an AE request is a serious matter, not one to be done when one is busy with other things, and not to be done without having a stronger case than what you presented. As it stands now, it has done more harm than good. You should have waited until a better case could be made. And never base evidence on stuff that happened before the DS alert was given. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

To be blunt as well (I've made my frustration about the lack of action known, but don't take this as taking it out on you), the principle was crafted for exactly that kind of behavior even at that threshold, editors have been sanctioned for exactly that in the past, and a warning had already been given for those actions beforehand. I do take AE cases seriously, and was focusing most of my time on the meat of the case rather than periphery editors with the space I had. I did about as much as I could even without unexpected real-life stuff coming into play. It's dealing with all the other editors that my time became limited, and I did not want to risk derailing the case by asking for an extension to deal with all the misrepresentations of my own comments if I did try to carve out more time. I was trying to ignore most of the tangential stuff and keep my comments focused on the core of the case.

Also, evidence always should be presented of general disruptive behavior even before the DS was given. Arbs were fairly clear at the GMO case that editors should already know better than to do these sorts of things, so my listing was showing disruptive behavior before the alert, and the trend of continuing it even after the alert. It would be a bit different if it was a new editor and nearly all the issues were pre-awareness, but if admins would have questioned that, it would have only been a matter of showing the history of being alert at ArbCom, AE, and their warning.

This gets into your clarification request, but I'm guessing some of the tension (re:bluntness) between you and I for this thread, the community, etc. is that the aspersions principle was meant to really strike hard at this behavior at this level, but the community/admins aren't always up to speed on that. I'm trying to bring that background in to cases for those not up to speed while also keeping it streamlined, but streamlining can also counteract getting the community up to speed. Couple that with waiting until there's even more evidence vs. persistent "low"-level issues even after warnings for when you do present a case (i.e., let it get bad and rile up the topic or nip it in the bud when it's enough of a problem), and there's a lot of areas for uninvolved observers to get potentially lost. I've seen the appearance of reluctance by admins to comment of such cases before this as you brought up, but not to this degree before.

That's why I asked Seraphimblade if there's a better way to present those cases. Going in to this, it looked evidence-wise like other cases, and I was expecting to have to be on the lookout for some of the things that went on at the case, but the sheer amount and degree of it was much higher than previous ones. I'm still trying to figure out how much that obscured the core of the case and what has previously been considered unacceptable thresholds versus things I could actually do to counteract that, but this is a significant deviation that's difficult to preempt or predict unless you're always waiting until the topic is well passed what the principle was intended to prevent. Either way, that's just my clarification of what I was thinking going into it all. I'll agree it's a mess, and I'm looking to see what can be done both on my part and with the community as a whole. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and I do hear you on that. Before replying to you here, I've just spent a godawful amount of time dealing with multiple related pages. The basic reality is that things are going to have to get utterly awful before anything will get fixed. Shouldn't be that way, but it is. Nobody guaranteed that life will be fair, and Wikipedia even less so. To some extent, it just happens by coincidence that the Monsanto jury verdict came in at the same time that AE had already been going through a problem period because of the difficulty of dealing with complaints in the American Politics DS area (flare-ups as the midterm elections approach), and admins getting gun-shy over that. Also, something to keep in mind is that uninvolved admins don't have the perspective that we have. The admin who closed the AE is German, not American, and the cultural attitudes in Europe are different than here: it's a lot more culturally acceptable over there to talk trash about GMOs. (That's why I expected it would be him who would shut it down.) And if (heaven forbid!) one were to look back at the ArbCom GMO case (blech!), it's striking how divided the Arbs were then. Add all of that to the unfortunate trend of the community getting more tolerant of incivility, and this isn't going to be easy to deal with. Please feel free, if you want, to run things past me before posting at a drama board (again, only if you want). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for a venue to clarify myself more too. Yeah, things are going downhill, and I was hoping to nip that in the bud at least a bit. On the "plus" side, some of the multi-page stuff is making it evident there are too many redundant pages. I'm keeping up with that too, but I'm also trying to keep my comments pointed. If it seems like I'm not engaging as much, I'm likely putting things together a bit first rather than immediately responding to everything. With most of the rest you said, I chimed in at ARCA to maybe get a little more pointed on how DS interplay with ArbCom saying behavior is a problem. I've seen some of the AE stuff outside GMOs you mentioned (though I quit watchlisting awhile ago until recently), so that's why I was more interested in the broader question at ARCA rather than making it specific to the GMO aspersions principle.

As for running things by you, I'm always open to suggestions, but I also try to actively avoid the appearance of tag-teaming, etc. given how quickly we've seen spurious accusations about that in the past (also why I actually don't mind the times we disagree). That being said, I'll probably pick your brain a bit more about where things stand at the time more often given what's happened at the case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

OK. One other thought from me. When there are discussions on any of the article talk pages, I'd like to suggest that you try to start by suggesting a compromise, instead of starting by taking the opposite position. It looks better to uninvolved third parties, and it also can lead to less polarization in discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I like to make how I approach editing clear, so here's a little more background. I usually am one to compromise a lot or let something go if it's not a big deal. The issue is one of selection bias in this topic. Many things "controversial" resulting in talk page discussion are going to be tied to some sort of fringe theory. That functionally limits the ability to comprise due to issues like false balance, etc. I might come across as nitpicky, but coming from an agricultural education background, I tend to be familiar with lot of the myths out there that result from unclear language, not being careful about lack of agricultural/science education of the general population, etc. when crafting content (on-wiki or in real life). Usually what I'll do like you can see at the current RfC is say that this viewpoint can't be covered or be covered in this way unless appropriate context/sourcing is brought in that satisfies FRINGE, etc. I usually try not to shut people down outright, but give them a path if they really want to develop a particular subject. I'll even track down sources or craft content to alleviate that sometimes, but there's only so much time in the day as volunteer editors too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, I am relieved that (except for arguments over appeals) the AE case has been concluded, and I sure hope that this will allow editors to move on. Now, replying to what you said, you should of course do as you will, and I do appreciate having an editor around who understands the source material better than I do. But I will tell you, take it or leave it, that what comes across to me is that you don't try hard enough to compromise in the GMO topic area and are too quick to lose patience with other editors, and that you are too insistent on treating anything from the critics of the industry as fringe. I think I am clearly someone with little use for fringe science, so I hope that you realize that I'm just calling it as I see it. I suspect that it's something that is hard to see about yourself, but I really do want you to know that this is how it comes across to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh no, I understand the perception and am definitely not implying anything about you with respect to fringe. I'm fairly wary of the perception you bring up as I was explaining the situation above and try to counteract it when I can. All the content discussion in this topic can swamp that out too unfortunately. I try to do what I can though on the appearance end of things though with what you said in mind. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

It never crossed my mind that you had implied anything about me, so please don't worry about that. I was just justifying my, well, bona fides. I hope you just keep that perception in mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I see my talk page has been running 100+ pageviews per day the last couple of days. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry, I accidentally rolled back your note to Drmies. I've fixed my error. - Sitush (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, no worries, that happens a lot. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

that happens a lot. I hate to break it to you, but your edits getting rolled back all the time is not as accidental as you think... We all just really don't care what you think and wish you'd stop talking to us. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

As you'll see, I just rolled back (rollbacked?) your comment, but then of course restored it.

Thanks, I could use the humor just now! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's generally not accidental for me, either. I just pretty much assume everyone is sick of my shit, these days. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, you are always welcome here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I just pop a couple of Tums and move on. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 20:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Or top a couple of puns. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I think that might be asking the impossible. I've read some of the puns here, and they're top notch. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey... I was just about to spollback your roonerism. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC):

That was a damp squid... Simon Adler (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

😂 damp squid!! Added to my Reader's Digest "Word Power". ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 22:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I go away from my computer for a while, and my talk page starts to look like EEng's. I'll have to stop archiving it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

And since Japanese culture seems to follow me all over the wiki (with Something Awful following behind), are "Iwami squid" a thing? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it's a squad of squids. Simon Adler (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, no opportunity for a spoonerism there, but perhaps it can give rise to a tongue-twister. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

It should really be Iwami calamari with umami. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I understood spoonerism but dare not venture beyond my comfort level to inject further humor. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 00:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC) ^{I was going to add a Commons image for fun and OMG...WP truly is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and they do! Tryp - do not let your neighbors at the home venture onto WP Commons....unless you have a defib close by. 00:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)}

Filth. Perverted filthy filth. I spend thousands of hours on there trying to not find filth. No luck so far. There is even a plate of biscuits carefully arranged showing filth. It is not art. Simon Adler (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Did someone say perverted filth? Where? Please link. E Eng 03:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Did someone say biscuits?? mmmm nice....Martinevans123 (talk) 07:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

And I thought Scrabble was fun. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 22:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Somebody needs to put some clothes on those squid! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

ARCA archived

Your request for clarification has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 22:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: My request is the one below it. I did comment in the archived one, but David Tornheim filed that one, not me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Although I gotta admit, it's getting incredibly hard to follow everything that's going on in that topic area!

--Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Yikes, thanks. I'll make the proper notifications :-). All the best, Miniapolis 23:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

You really should activate email

I think you're basically right on the general issue, but you're missing the point in this case; I can't explain why, though, per WP:BEANS. I know I would probably be happier and more productive (in terms of adding content to the encyclopedia) if I stayed away from that toxic environment in general, but I don't think that's what you were talking about. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

My comment there was mainly in terms of keeping things peaceful over there, plus decreasing the very real likelihood that at some point you'll get accused of being battleground-y. I can probably read between the lines about your reason, and I'm not convinced that it will work. As for email, I am extremely protective of my privacy. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Email? It's Happy Hour and I dare not respond beyond what I just did. 😂 ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 22:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

After the last couple of days of editing, I could use a drink (make that plural, actually), myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Why stop at plural? (I have to laugh at some of our prior discussions and my comedic references to Happy Hour - makes me think of Foster Brooks and Dean Martin - all in fun). ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 22:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I might not stop at all! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Forgive me...but my thoughts just went from the emperor has no clothes to the episode wSheldon Leonard - OMG...too funny!!! ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 22:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

By way of comparison, my discussion with our friend Thunder Britches at #For connoisseurs of eye-popping DYK hook possibilities, above (towards the end of the section). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The date

I don't remember if Mike ever did date her or not. I think so, but it was a long time ago. I'm fairly sure it wasn't a sideways insult, she seemed pretty happy to be there. Did she want to be a groupie and thought that a bad audition and a lewd offer would get her "in"? All she would have had to do was show up for a few of our practice sessions for that; we weren't exactly beating the groupies off with a stick. Did she think it had something to do with metal? With singing? Did she think we'd give her the gig in exchange for "favors"? Was she just messing with us? If so, why? I wasn't kidding, Tryp. It haunts me. I was already dating my wife at the time, so it's not like a missed opportunity or anything. It's just like, if I saw bigfoot riding a tricycle or something. $ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.$ 03:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

What, did Bigfoot turn up to audition too? I suppose he'd give John Bonham a run for his money on the drums. I can't honestly say I've ever experienced groupies; well, I seem to recall about 15 years ago I was playing a festival in Tintagel where it pissed down all weekend (and consequently nobody want to come outside and watch the bands bar the two organisers huddled underneath an umbrella), and there was a girl who got my phone number (I think it was the contact on the CD we were flogging at the time) and she offered to come down to stay with me about three months later. I'd already hooked up with my future (and now ex) wife by that point so she ended up with the guitarist who had a most enjoyable time with her.^{[citation needed]} For homework, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shark episode. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like it was quite a shock. At least he wasn't on Shanks's pony? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I highly recommend sending an email to the Caribbean’s own Dr. Love who once wrote a syndicated column titled Straight Talk - pg 6 in the linked issue if you need references. 😂 ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 11:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, if I sat down for half an hour and try to explain my opinions on sexuality, love and relationships, you would probably run out of the room screaming before your head exploded. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Ditto. Or else throw on a diaper and drive to Florida to steal me away from my wife, depending on your tastes. Not that you'd be the first, of course. Or that anyone could blame you.

Ritchie, I remember reading about the shark episode quite some time ago, though I'll be damned if I remember where. I also seem to recall a "re-enactment" from Vivid Entertainment that my wife used to own on DVD and would put on for the giggle factor (that was before our kids came along, of course). So if you ever want some visuals to go with that tale, you know whose back catalog to look through. But truly, the most remarkable thing is that the article survived until this year. I'd have AfDed that back in '14 when I started editing, and probably with a rationale of "Seriously? SERIOUSLY?!?!"

I've always thought of groupies as a predominantly American phenomenon. Driving around the country, following some band, doing whatever to earn gas money for the next leg or for a place to crash for the night... It just seems to have a bit of an American vibe to it. But I know that every band I was in that played out (most didn't) had at least one or two girls willing to sleep with any band member who wanted them, and I certainly am not about to attribute that to my personal charms.

Oh, and with me playing bass, we already had a hairy giant in the band, so even if bigfoot showed up, we'd have had to say no. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, it is rumoured that, back in the 80s, our Threesie ("the Mr C3 of Tunbridge Wells") was seeing quite a lot of "Mary from Canoga Park". 13:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinevans123 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I needed to say more at that AfD beyond "Hammer of the Gods and Stairway to Heaven [book] are about as reliable as The Sun and the National Enquirer, and pitched at about the same level." Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree. And not just because I'm sore that Hammer of the Gods wasn't about me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Well it's like Agony Aunt Atsme said, "Delete the article, history, contributors, links and all other references to it. Leave us no reminders. In time, we will realise it really didn't matter all that much after all." Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@EEng: You said: Did someone say perverted filth? Where? Please link. You asked for it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

MPants, thanks for the added information (I think...?). I still think that the anecdote is a hilarious one, and I can get it how it haunts you. As for the rest of you, I quote the aforementioned EEng, and tell you to get off my lawn! My talk page is starting to look like alternating sections of very serious, and very... not.^[FBDB] What I do realize now is that I obviously wasted my career on the wrong line of work. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I should add that I have absolutely zero musical talent. However, it seems to me that that should not have been a problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Not even remotely. Check out grindcore. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh good! My singing has been classified as a crime against humanity by the Geneva Convention. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Good news then, I could almost certainly get you a gig fronting a goregrind outfit I know of. Their musicianship carries the same classification, and they've actually got quite the stable of groupies. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Wooh-hoo! (But if I keep thinking of Al Gore, that might dampen my mood.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

You could always play percussion (a euphemism for a pair of congos and a triangle) in a prog metal band, then. But be warned; half the groupies are PhD students or professors, and the other half probably should have been, but were more interested in some other career like tattoo artist or medical technology. So you'll end up feeling confused a lot, somewhere in the middle of "I AM GOD'S GIFT TO WOMEN!!" and "ME NOT THINK SO GUD AS ME THOT ME DID." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, I've always thought of myself as God's gift to the world (smirk). But I knew this sounded too good to be true. Sex with PhDs? What a disappointment. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

If you think that's disappointing, try having sex with a BA. The papercuts alone will ruin your day. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I can't remember who said it (it was one of the Gallagher brothers), but it was something like, "Shane MacGowan can't sing, but if you had Michael Bolton fronting The Pogues it would sound shit." Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

"... lurched from borstal to bar room and into psychiatric care, and who notoriously vomited on fans during a gig which he played confined to a wheelchair. You can see who your real fans are here, Trypto. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Did someone mention Eurotrash 1998? [[9]] Simon Adler (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, we miss you Caterina Irene Elena Maria Boyle, Lady Saunders. *sob* Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Martinevans123. That's your new name that is. Simon Adler (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

"ROFL". I'd rather be "supergrass" than "deep throat" any day! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I couldn't imagine Michael Bolton fronting a punk band. I could see him jumping genres to gangsta rap, though. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Carry on, all of you, don't let me interrupt. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

While your waiting...watch this couple, then fire up the record player and look around the home for a partner. You might be able to give the pros a run for their money!! ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 23:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, now I know that the sun has set on the British Empire. And, yes, I know who some of my ~~talk page participants~~ groupies are. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Looking back, I sound more serious there than I intended to. Brits are certainly most welcome on my talk page, and I meant that to be taken lightly. After all, I try to be welcoming to all charity cases. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Great. There goes the neighborhood... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. If any of them show up, let's try giggling at them. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

We could also get real patriotic and throw all their tea out. You know how those Brits get about their tea. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I dunno. I wouldn't want to give the impression that I've joined the Tea Party. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Good point. Lets just laugh at them. With our straight, pearly white teeth. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Like. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, but it's perfectly fine to drink the tea...just make sure it isn't Kombucha....now that's one mother!! ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 22:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I haven't tried it in a long time, so my tastes might have changed since then, but I recollect Lapsang souchong as being a rather rugged experience. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Have you rugged Colonials no taste at all?? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Charlie. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Now look, there's no need to make fun of HRH Charles, Prince of Wales. We value our Royals. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

But what about the Prince of Whales? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

*cringe". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

And going from that page to here brings this discussion full circle! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't venture much beyond our own trusted homemade teas - in fact, they have become international...especially during Happy Hour for the Brits & Aussies. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 22:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Long Island Iced Tea

Like. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

What a faded empire. God Save The Queen--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Going to that link, I can see that it's the Sex Pistols, but the video has apparently been blocked in the US. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

(Sobbing). Like Aussie newspapers in the UK? :) Lol.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

So sorry. Please give my best wishes to the Queen. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Will do, if I ever meet Brian May. I'm no royal fan, and I don't drink coffee or tea. The closest you'll get to me appreciating either is the song Pennyroyal Tea...--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, maybe Atsme can get you some Texas tea. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

It'd all be for nothing. An effort in vain. Besides, it's unauthorized in my particular asylum, Tryptofish.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Too bad. Maybe Ice-T or Mr. T could help. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

What I have will give you gas. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 23:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Well if Mr. T has the nuts to get me outof my straitjacket, I'd be forever greatful (and a bigger fan of The A Team).--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The only rapper I know personally is Ice Cube but there's no T involved. Sorry if my answer comes off as seemingly cold. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 01:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

DS ARCA archived

Your request for clarification has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 15:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Tryp - what did you think of the ArbCom responses for the DS & aspersion threads? ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 14:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, glass half-full or glass half-empty. I do believe that both of those discussions were worth having, at least in part to get people thinking about the issues and to share opinions. But I also consider the Arb responses to both inquiries to have been overly cautious to the point of not really having answered the questions that they were asked.

On lighter notes, I'll be lazy and respond about two other things here. About what your mom said, per your talk page, I love it! And about Ice Cube, per the thread above, I never fail to be amazed by the people you have met in real life. (Unsourced opinion: put your mom and Ice Cube together in a room, and she could beat him up!) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

He knows about Mom - he said she sounds like his Mom. What surprised me most about Cube was when he told me about his college ed and architectural degree. Gotta love it! ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 20:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to hear more about that – do tell! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually, his WP bio is quite accurate....“He enrolled at the Phoenix Institute of Technology in the fall of 1987 in Arizona. Being passionate about architecture, he studied architectural drafting.” Whatever he wanted to make public is in there. That’s all I know.

^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 22:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's interesting. Although I looked up that Institute, and it apparently went out of business some years back, kind of sounds like a for-profit university. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Just wondering - are you really, really busy or are your day naps getting longer? 😂 ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 22:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC). ^{Just remembered - it’s time for that lovely health prep! Many happy parrotfish dropppings! 10:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)}

If you're wondering why I haven't been making many edits recently, yes, the Martian anal probe is Monday, and I'm, um, dealing with real life (was up most of last night with little sleep). I expect to return to active editing Tuesday. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Userboxes

File:Dr Pepper can.jpg

It's a simple matter of spelling. ^{^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 16:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)}

Was this a joke, or have you gotten a name change since birth :-) Nyttend (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

A joke. I thought it was funny. Obviously, that's in the eye of the beholder. (After all, you are talking to someone who insists that they are really a fish.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I never asked, but always wondered about that too.

—Paleo Neonate – 22:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

^{( Buttinsky)} He's Mr. Peepers...

^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 22:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

In fact, I've never said anything on-site that really would let anyone know whether I am Mr. Peepers, or Ms. Peepers. I simply do not correct anyone who might perhaps be wrong, or not. Let's just say it's Dr. Peepers, and I'm a fish. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I stand corrected. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 16:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

--Tryptofish (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking about inviting editors to be a Peepers too, but I realized that it could be misconstrued. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Not to mention, if ~~misconstured~~,^{spellcheck can't even spell} misconstrued, the term could be considered sexist and should be changed from Tom to Pat. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 18:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Never misconsture (sic) anyone. (Sorry to make fun of your typo.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

😂 No you're not - you rang the bell, I opened the door and you took advantage, as well you should. Temptation knocks, but opportunity more often rings the bell. It helps demonstrate why wiki gnomes, copy editors, reviewers, and in-sync collaboration are important...and why we need to occasionally take a break from routine seriousness - it helps keep Dr Tryptofish swimming rightside up. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 19:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey, whatever rings your bell! And what a sweet video that is. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I literally had no idea there was an etymological origin to the phrase "peeping Tom" until I saw this. I love learning a new thing! Also, I used to have a framed poster of the Collier painting that anchors that page. When I was 14...

In retrospect, I find it hard to believe my parents let me keep it, as strict as they were. I guess the combination of ~100 year old painting and the obvious messianic themes were enough to excuse the life-like portrayal of a naked young girl.

Also in retrospect, it's probably no coincidence that my wife bears a striking resemblance to Collier's depiction... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

You have all the best anecdotes! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

And some of them are even true! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

And, to bring this back to Wikipedia, it just goes to show: the video Atsme posted also cites WP (yikes, not-how-to!). Naked girls, pea-ing goldfish (and no, I'm not going to make a spoonerism from that). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

(and no, I'm not going to make a spoonerism from that) Thank god for that... ;)

Curiously enough, my wife's goldfish recently had a swim bladder problem. (There's no joke in that, just a mild coincidence, so don't strain trying to "get it".) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there really is a lot of evidence that peas or daphnia actually are beneficial when freshwater fish have digestive track blockages. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't doubt it, I did a little digging after looking at that video, and it's an extremely common recommendation. With pets, the sham medicine doesn't seem to stick as much, due to the fact that pets can't express how much better they're feeling after taking a placebo. My wife's goldfish sadly passed away, but she bought three more, so at least she's happy. The algae eater in the bottom of the fish tank seems apathetic to it all. Well, as long as he's fed regularly... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I've read it in enough credible sources that I am reasonably sure that it's accurate. I've never tried giving them peas, myself (and I don't keep goldfish), but I use freeze-dried daphnia as a food quite frequently. But not in saltwater. I've seen saltwater fish turn up their noses at daphnia, which stands to reason. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I knew a guy who "collected" some "daphnia" to give his sick goldfish (singular), then a week or so later had a mosquito infestation in his house. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

How the goldfish must feel after treatment.

It's a simple matter of spelling. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 22:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, collecting food for them: don't try this at home. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Daphne or daphnia - and which fish? ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 18:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

If a fish named Daphne is constipated, give her some daphnia or tell her to take a pea. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

😂!! Glad to see you're back on your game! ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 18:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Eh, Excuse me?

So you undo of my change on Jill Stein description was saying ‘former local politician’ instead ‘politician’ because of her carrer subsections in same page have her saiding, she was elected as town meeting representative in Lexington, Massachusetts for 5 years in her home state. Thus having ok reason for small edit.

But sure at first and I was ok about you undoing it with probably first part saids ‘unsourced’ because it’s in page itself so why brother needs source it anyway, but you had dare try excusing me for ‘violating’ WP:BLP over two words that I edited it, Was sounded unintentionally what paranoiac person would said?!?

I’m sorry to said but that what you reasoned undoing my edit sounds little worsome and ludicrous? Chad The Goatman (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing this with me and for not edit warring over it. I understand what you are concerned about, so please let me try to explain what was going on there. As to her being, formerly, a local politician, yes, that is true. Her political career began in local politics, but she subsequently was a third-party candidate for President of the United States, which is most definitely not a local position. So, to summarize the biography page in the lead sentence of the page by referring to her earlier involvement in local politics and omitting her present-day involvement in national politics would be highly inaccurate. Furthermore, it would have the effect of presenting her political career as being less than what it actually is. And that amounts to portraying her negatively as well as inaccurately, which is what makes it a violation of WP:BLP. She used to be a local politician, and she is currently a politician who is not local. And her national political career is what makes her notable for Wikipedia's purposes. Those were my reasons, and I am confident that I am correct about it. (And please be aware that I am not, personally, a supporter of hers, so I had no reason other than accuracy and policy for making that revert.) I used the edit summary that I did, but I have no intention of actually seeking any kind of action against you unless this dispute escalates. It was just an edit where I felt the right action would be to revert it. If you are dissatisfied with my explanation, please feel free to open a discussion at the article talk page or at any of the dispute resolution noticeboards. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Well you are not wrong and thanks to asking me this. Chad The Goatman (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Good! I'm glad we worked that out. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Sissinghurst Castle Garden

Dear Tryptofish, Well, have hopefully made some progress and I think it's looking in reasonable shape. I would be hugely grateful if you would have a look and let me know what you think. Specifically, advice on the following would be most helpful:

Plant names - have I got them right, e.g. Rosa × centifolia-R.Gallica and have I presented them correctly? I'm sure the answer to this one is NO! And what are those funny little '×' s?
Bluelinks - are the links appropriate, e.g. Euphorbia polychorma Major?
R.Mulliganii - this, the centrepiece of perhaps the most famous individual garden, should surely have a link. To what, List of Rosa species?
Significance - have I referenced the most important plants or are there others that I should specifically mention?
Images - have I chosen appropriately, or do we have others that better illustrate the plants/planting style?

Any other, more general, advice would also be appreciated. Don't feel any need at all to run things by me. Just make any corrections/amendments as you see fit. And there is absolutely no rush. I'm away shortly, am still awaiting receipt of Sarah Raven's book, and it remains in desperate need of a plan/map which I'm trying to source, so I won't be looking to push it to PR until mid November'ish. Many thanks indeed. KJP1 (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll start looking into these things. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Really appreciated. I'm sure this is another one that needs checking, "a weeping pear tree Pyrus salicifolia-'Pendula'". It is a pity I know nothing about plants. On that note - don't at all feel confined by my suggestions in your edits. "Cram, cram, cram" as Vita said. Anything you think needs improving. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Briefly away

I'm going to a reunion, and might not get around to editing here on Friday or Saturday. So if I'm slow to respond to anything, that's why. I should be back to editing on Sunday. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm back. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Ugh

The short wall on this horse trailer w/living quarters seems to be getting shorter....especially when you’ve got to play catch with a rambunctious Boston ~~Terrorist~~ Terrier, and a mini-Aussie not quite a year old. I think the ball & pinion in my right arm is gone from throwing whatever it is they bring me to throw. When I try to ignore them, they pull & claw at my arm with their little paws that are garnished with sharp claws. Appears that I’ll be going to the Wiki Conference looking like I’ve been in a dog fight...and that doesn’t count my battle scars from editing Wikipedia. I’ll fit right in. Oh, and I’ll trade you 2 dogs for 1 fish. 😂 ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 23:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Yikes, life in the jungle, hang in there! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Creative vandalism: [10]. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Alternative paid contribution disclosure policy

Regarding modifying the paid contribution disclosure policy as you discussed in this comment: because this is tangential to the discussion on the conflict of interest talk page, I'm commenting here instead. As far as I recall, specific editors have made the statement you said, not WMF Legal. The open question is whether or not introducing a more stringent set of conditions would require an "alternative paid contribution disclosure policy" to receive consensus approval, as defined in the terms of use. Given that there is no indication that the subset of the English Wikipedia community that pays attention to such things is in agreement on a policy, some of those who want to add additional conditions for disclosure take the position that conditions can be layered on top without creating an alternative policy. Whereas there is room for community-specific interpretation within the scope of the conditions in the terms of use, I think an expansion of the conditions without going through a broad consensus discussion (the small number of followers at the paid contribution disclosure talk page is really too small to set policy in my view; I know others disagree) would be counterproductive. An attempt to enforce stricter conditions without broad consensus will trigger a whole new set of discussions about the topic, so we may just as well have a broader discussion beforehand. isaacl (talk) 05:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

^{( Buttinsky)} Just my 5¢ worth - when a COI exists, the editor is required to disclose on their user page. If that editor edits/creates an article wherein a COI exists and it has (1) not been disclosed and/or (2) there is no collaboration with non-COI editors, the disclosure template should be affixed to the article TP until after the article has been reviewed and approved by uninvolved collaboration. When I'm reviewing as a NPP and become aware that a COI is involved, I'll review the article for COI edits, clean-up and remove the tag. If non-COI editors are overseeing the edits from the get-go, there is no need to affix the {{Connected contributor}} template. Articles involving company personnel (CEOs, etc), the company itself, or a product are typically easy enough to spot when there's COI-based content (unencyclopedic, puffery, promotional, etc.). As an NPP, I've seen instances where COI issues are being ignored (mostly film, music, sports promotions and a few other topic areas that are obvious advocacies/COI). I have also seen other instances where COI issues have been blown out of proportion. I also believe tagging an article TP as a potentially conflicted article may be more for our own benefit as editors than it is for readers, many of whom don't even know about an article TP. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 16:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your procedure regarding conflict of interest. Tryptofish's comment was regarding what others had said regarding imposing additional conditions on the paid contribution disclosure policy in the terms of use, so I was providing feedback on that comment. isaacl (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Isaacl for the question. As I said in my previous comment, my memory was inexact and I hadn't bothered to go back to look for the specific material that I thought that I remembered. So I decided to look now. What I remembered comes from meta:Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure#Can a local project adopt an alternative disclosure policy for paid editing? and the sections that follow it. Basically, I'm pretty sure that that's what we have in terms of authorization to make local changes, and what is there does indeed reflect WMF's official position. I'm perhaps misremembering somebody saying that local policies can be more but not less stringent (although that seems like common sense to me). I agree with you 100% that we should not change anything based on that small, local discussion, and that we would need a very broad consensus process in order to change anything. And personally, I'm not seeing much need to do that. The discussion at WT:COI can probably make due with a consensus that sole proprietors have a COI, while leaving the question of whether that's, furthermore, paid editing aside. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Alternative polices can be less stringent as well—Commons, Wikispecies, and Russian Wikibooks approved one-line policies saying they do not require disclosure. MediaWiki also does not require disclosure. (I didn't read through the French Wikipedia one but my guess it's at least as stringent; the comment on the list of alternative policies says the Italian one is more strict.) isaacl (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me on that; I'll fix it at the other page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Was in the middle of adding that as I recall, the gist of what someone (not WMF Legal) said is that without modifying the policy from the terms of use, we can add more stringent conditions, but not relax them. Thanks for your quick response. isaacl (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Butting in tangentially to your tangential discussion :) there's no need for a consensus that sole proprietors have a COI, because the guideline already says having a financial COI "includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder." Leaving the question of whether that's, furthermore, paid editing aside, won't do because that's exactly the question - and the only question - I asked... Is a self-employed person who "pays themself" to write an article about their business to be treated differently than an employed person they pay to do the same thing? Which template needs to be used on the article's talk page: {{Connected contributor}} or {{Connected contributor (paid)}}? I was hoping there would be a definitive answer already, but if people aren't sure, then it doesn't seem like something to be decided by consensus, but probably clarified by the Wikimedia Foundation. --IamNotU (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

You are of course very welcome here! Yes, I agree with you about all of that, and as you already know, my personal opinion is that it is paid for our purposes. As an off-the-record suggestion, given the trend of the discussion towards it being "paid", as well as the lack of any formal consensus, one is free to WP:IAR within reason and just use whichever template seems best in a particular context. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: FYI. The discussion is taking place here: Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Small_business_owners,_sole_proprietors,_and_paid_editing (permalink). --David Tornheim (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, David - sounds too much like work for me, and more like a job for superfish. I'll swim by later to see the final result. Right now, I'm researching and trying to figure out why a rabies vaccine killed my good horse. 😢 ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 21:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

That's awful. I'm so sorry to hear that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Tryp - it's heartbreaking. The vaccine company (BI) & our longtime vet covered the post care and eventual necropsy (Texas A&M). I have preliminary results and none of it makes sense, so I'm researching to see if others have had fatal reactions. I'll upload some photos to Commons once I get the final results. I also have a red bag photo to upload regarding an unrelated case. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 22:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm also sorry to hear about your horse. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Your LFP edit

You removed macroelectrodes, but retained human surgical use. Not sure why you did this, but macroelectrodes are what record LFPs in humans, not microelectrodes. Can you elaborate why you made the change? Wikibluejay (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I guess you have to define what a macroelectrode is. Obviously, something that is too "macro" will be impractical, and we should steer clear of jargon that is not widely accepted. Although I just did a PubMed search in response to your question to me, and I do see that it is a term that is used. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

For watchers, this is about: [11]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I can assure you that local field potentials in the human world are acquired through macroelectrodes, and single cell electrophysiology (i.e., not local field potentials) are acquired through microelectrodes. In animals, local field potentials are acquired with microelectrodes.Wikibluejay (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm satisfied that you are correct and I was wrong. Thanks for discussing it with me. My experience in the subject has been with animals, which is probably why I was unfamiliar with the term. Please feel free to go ahead and correct my edit. I'm also thinking that we should add something about macroelectrodes to the microelectrode page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Beware the trick or treat fishes...

Here is your Happy Halloween wish from the headless chicken monster! ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 20:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Those are some awesome feather dusters in that later scene of the second video! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

If you hear a knock at your door....

Run and hide! The trick or treaters will soon arrive!!

Happy Halloween!

Why are demons and ghouls always together?

Because demons are a ghoul's best friend.

What happens when you goose a ghost?

You get a hand full of sheet.

^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 00:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

--Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Clarify

I think the revised close was a good one, so one good close deserves another. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 30 October 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.

You lost me with this "that were cited by the close, were needlessly insulting." Cited by the close? ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 19:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to [12], rendered moot by [13]. I'd prefer not to argue about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to argue, but I have asked Swarm to modify his close to be less POV or pointy if you will. I found it to be rather insulting to veteran editors, and there were not just a few, one of whom has been an admin since the inception of this pedia. That close had a chilling effect on me, and I imagine it would on others who participated at that AN/I discussion. If admins are going to reprimand participants who have valid reasons to disagree with an allegation, then we're going in the wrong direction. I would not have minded if he had closed the thread with the warning to DT, but it troubles me that neither the OP nor the closer adhered to the procedures for contacting an editor alleged to have canvassed. Admins are free to do whatever they want but they should at least attempt to adhere to the procedures laid out in our guidelines as I pointed out in that discussion. I'll leave it at that. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 20:23, 30 October 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.

I am still confused, and maybe you're confused about me too

I understand that SashiRolls (it's not a false flag) is pissed at you and a number of other Wikipedians who commented on the original case. I think his personality obsession is unwarranted but understandable considering the way Wikipedia kinda encourages this stuff. What I don't understand is why his follow-up comment is so jarring to you. Are we talking past each other? I really am confused.

Incidentally, I don't want to change your opinion. I value it. I actually just want to understand it and right now I really don't.

jps (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with me here. Let me begin by saying that I am perfectly aware that I can be wrong. And when I see what various admins have been saying about it, even after (presumably) having read what I said, I am entirely willing to consider that I really am failing to see the forest for the trees. And if that's the case, that's OK with me. It's only a website.

So, you've seen my original comment about him posting negative stuff about me (well, about "Tryptofish") at multiple other websites. And here is what I see in his reply on his talk page: He starts by saying that Alex and I "have made some strong statements under their breath." I understand that to mean that he considers what I said to have been a serious criticism of him, as opposed to having been a statement of support. (I'm not entirely sure what under one's breath means, but it sort of sounds like he thinks I said it obliquely, but that he takes the underlying sentiment seriously.) Then, in his specific comments to me, he starts by saying that I "could find some fun anagrams to create accounts to register your dissent should you find fake news about your account on the internet." That seems to me to be saying that I could have gone to the other websites and refuted him, with the implicit admission that there would have been something for me to refute. (I never comment at other sites, and I am not aware of anyone posting elsewhere pretending to be me.) Then: "It didn't appear too many people had challenged anything I found googling your username, & the substantive stuff I read did seem to be sourced to your account." Translation: he avoids taking credit for what he said about me, but concludes that nobody at the other sites refuted him, so they must have considered his criticisms of me to be valid. And "substantive" criticisms of me, he says, seem to be accurately based on my account here. So, bottom line, he is doubling down on saying that his criticisms of me were valid. That is most certainly not trying to reconcile with me, and it also is not an indication that he recognizes his own responsibility and intends to do better.

Before you got here, I went back and carefully reviewed your comments at AN. It seems to me that you see a bit of yourself in him and want to help him do well here, and learn over time. That's a very fair and generous position. But I think you may be too committed to your original stance, even after evidence to the contrary. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I think I understand what you are saying, but I'm still not certain so let me try to say it back to you and see if you think I've done your position justice. You are saying that you think he isn't trying to actively make amends with you and is refusing to admit he was wrong to talk about your account name off-wiki. Incidentally, if that's what you are saying, I actually agree with you that this is what he has done. But I'm not sure whether that should be something that should be a bannable offense. I might be wrong about that, and if you'd like to explain to me why this should be the case, I would like to learn.

I think there might be something I don't understand which is what exactly is "his own responsibility" as you put it. Is this a responsibility that you think Wikipedians have not to engage in opposition research off-wiki? If that's what your objection is to SashiRolls and that's what you think people should do who are in good standing here, I don't know that I'm necessarily in agreement, but perhaps we can disagree cordially. But if it's not what you're saying, I don't want to get it confused.

My stance is, to be clear and brutally honest, one of pure agnosticism when it comes to the question of unblocking SashiRolls as the question faces the community. As a personal matter, I'm invested in trying to explain how Wikipedia functions to him, but as I'm an extreme cynic about the social side of Wikipedia, I really think it is inappropriate for me to take a position on the question of whether SashiRolls should be unblocked by the community. I am certain there are aspects of this case I don't understand and am too close to (for example, aspects that you might be seeing) which need to be taken on-board for the good of the way Wikipedia functions -- or dysfunctions if you want to be cynical about it. But I still want to understand what those aspects are as best I can. I'm learning.

jps (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I very much appreciate the kind way that you said that. I'll try to answer your specific questions.

Was he wrong to discuss me off-site? No, I don't mind that. But I do take his postings as indicating a battleground attitude towards me, and also indicating that he thinks I was wrong here and he was right. So I conclude that, were he to return here, he would continue to see it that way. Is it a bannable offense? I see it more as one reason (among others) not to lift an existing ban. I regard it as part of an overall pattern of conduct, as opposed to being something that all by itself would be grounds for an indef.

About his responsibility, no, it's not any of that. Of the various responsibilities that we all have, I'm referring specifically to the responsibilities that any user has when requesting a block review. If all a user does is say how it's everyone else's fault, the block is very unlikely to be lifted. (I'm not saying that this is all that he has done.) So I would want to see some awareness of why I might feel the way that I do, and some indication of the intention to do things better in the future. I think he has a responsibility to do that. Instead, he poses as if it were someone else, not him, who posted about me, and he only found the posts by googling my user name, and he takes the position that no one else defended me at the other sites, so I must have been in the wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I think I get it now. You are right that he's continuing a battleground mentality and that's something he's going to have to change, but I actually think he doesn't understand that this is the case because of his time banned from the website. Certainly he is convinced he is right and refuses to admit he is wrong, but my take is that Wikipedia as a community shouldn't require that someone change their beliefs about whether they were right or wrong in a given dispute, just that there is a Wikipedia way to do things (don't personalize, don't dig in your heels, know when to let things go), and then there is the way that will get you in trouble.

My take on the matter is that this represents a clear case of Wikipedia eating itself all ouroboros like. SashiRolls got caught up in a dispute where he saw how the personalization of a conflict can be used to its greatest effect. He saw something weird and started buzzing around it annoyingly. Cirt got mad and pounced as he is very good at doing and was extremely effective in his well-aimed hit. The end effect of this was proving that, in spite of Wikipedia rules to the contrary, personalization works. SashiRolls has since then had only off-wiki outlets and spent considerable amounts of time begging anyone who would listen to recognize that something weird happened, and fast forward to today. As I said to SashiRolls off-wiki, there are a fair number who see the situation as being that he is your classic trollish irritant who just got lucky in that his guess about whether there was something weird. But I also think that he is such an irritant in part because of the way Wikipedia works.

Now Wikipedia may (dys)function in such a fashion that he's too ruined to be let back in. I really don't know what the rate of return is on these cases. However, I think there may be a chance that he just needs to learn how to put his head down.

In any case, I think I now understand better where you are coming from. I think I agree with you that this guy hasn't figured out how to shake hands and make nice in the context of Wikipedia. Plus, he's been hanging out in the bad guys/girls club for a while now. I think that he is just used to a snarkier repartee than Wikipedia would typically tolerate at a unblocking party. Just look at how ludicrous his unblock request is, he almost laughably doesn't know how this kind of interaction is supposed to proceed. But I don't think he will learn any of this unless given a shot at being unblocked. He still may not be able to learn it because, frankly, the weird history of this scenario might have made him too toxically clever to ever be a "normal" editor. But you're right that I see a bit of how I was treated by this website in what's going on here, and so I do think that if I deserve a shot, he might deserve a shot.

Sorry to spew pontification, but hopefully I've understood your point.

jps (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Tryptofish: I too was a bit surprised at your strongly worded response. I think you might be reading a little too much into what Sashi was saying. He has an unorthodox, elliptical style of speaking that can seem off-putting and come across as confrontational when (IMO) it's not intended as such, but I really don't think he means any harm. As for "he thinks I'm wrong and he's right", well, that probably applies to all of us, doesn't it? I hope you will reconsider your position. Sometimes it's hard to try to put yourself in someone else's shoes, but in this case I think it's worth doing. I think we could all use a little more empathy. 28bytes (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for your thoughtful comments. I read them several hours ago, and have watched the discussion at AN, before re-reading and answering here. I think the bottom line is that I still believe the same thing I did before, but I also am just one person (or fish), and my opinion counts no more than anyone else's. Looking at AN, it seems to me that some people agree with what I said, and some disagree. And that's reasonable. Like so many things, there are two sides to this – and I definitely do not claim infallibility. But, 28bytes, I think I can justifiably claim more empathy than most editors here. And jps, my interactions actually had nothing to do with the Cirt mess, so I am reacting to stuff unrelated to that. You should both feel free to say anything that you want in response to me over at AN. Whatever is decided at AN is not up to me, and I'm OK with whatever the consensus is. I'm pretty sure that there will be a consensus to unblock, but with a very short WP:ROPE. And we'll see what's at the end of that rope. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Hopefully this will have a happy ending for all concerned. As always, time will tell. 28bytes (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)