User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

April, 2013 – November, 2013

Transcluding "Wikipedia:Notability (summary)" onto "Wikipedia:Notability"

Hi Tryptofish. I just took a look back at our thread. Thank you for collapsing the transcluded "Wikipedia:Notability (summary)" there. I have also commented on your vote there; I would be honored if you would go back there and reply again. Cheers, Unforgettableid (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Your perspective on an essay

Hi, Tryptofish. I'm remembering your good work at the Tyler Clementi suicide article and wonder if you'd be willing to look over an essay currently in user space but bound for main space soon. It was drafted by User:Timtrent (aka Fiddle Faddle) and revised collaboratively by him and me. Some background discussion is on my talk page. If you get the chance, I'd be grateful for your input. Rivertorch (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for asking me. I just gave it a quick look. I was worried that I might disagree with it, but I actually like it very much. In my opinion, it's quite good just as it is. But I'll go through it more carefully sometime in the next few days. For a variety of reasons, my editing time has been a little less than usual lately, so it may take me a while. (By the way, the discussion on your talk page was quite entertaining!) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Heh. We aim to entertain. About the essay, there's no rush; I mostly wanted to know if we'd blundered badly before it leaves user space. Rivertorch (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I keep wondering of now is the time to launch this essay or not. I suspect waiting until he current set of Wisdom of Crowds opinions has died down would be better. Frankly the immediate re-opening of the move discussion, had it bee a re-AfD would likely have got the wise and good editor who did it a severe talking to. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I say wait (not that you asked me). Rivertorch (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I knew you would be watching here :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, you are both very welcome here. I think it might be prudent to wait until after the multi-move discussion (that I just inflamed) has reached its conclusion, lest it be seen as trying to sway the discussion. Otherwise, I don't think it's a big deal to move the essay. It's an essay, not proposed policy, and inevitably it will continue to be edited after you move it. As I said before, I think it's quite presentable. Myself, I've been having rather little time to edit lately (personal reasons), but I will try to spend some time on it when I can. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It's hard not to inflame that particular discussion. I rather wonder what those who loved the young lady whose associated article's talk mage they are making a mess of would think. The human race is, at times, impossible to underestimate. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Well, it's quite properly an open wiki, and we, collectively, are just a reflection of what's out there (as I tried to explain to a newish editor in that talk). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The newish editor is an interesting case. He achieved an early indef block, and now seems to have a following of disciples. IT amazes me how many people are here to make points about things instead of actually creating and editing articles. I wonder if this is a reflection of society as a whole, and it is time to build a new set of arks. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The essay is now live at Wikipedia:Articles on suicides Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Good! It's on my watchlist, and I'll see if I can work on it when I have more time. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Ambassador resources

I think we're going to try to point that Ambassadors resources page to Wikipedia:Training/For_Ambassadors/Resources soon, as part of the effort to redirect as many of the old and assorted education-related pages into as few places as possible. So that's the place to add links.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW, in case I've not said so before, really excellent work on that page from you and Biosthmors. What Kevin Gorman said when he gave you a barnstar in January... same from me. :) --Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

In a case of crossed messages, I just left an appreciative message on your talk, while you were writing this here! Thank you very much! Yes, I think that WP:ASSIGN has the potential to help a lot, or at least I hope so. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

After the heated RM discussion

You may find Talk:Murder of Daniel Tupý refreshing, where an Rm to rename it thus was supported unanimously. It overlapped the prior one, but the combatants were not drawn to it.

An interesting question now is the name of the article on the murder of the young gentleman who died on a fence in laramie. It really ought to be about his murder, not a pseudo-bio. Fiddle Faddle (talk)

Long time no see

EEng (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi! It's good to hear from you. I've been around, although I've temporarily been a little busy lately, so I haven't been quite as active editing as I usually am. But things are well with me, and I hope they are with you too. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of inclusion of Kyoto Prize in criterion 2

Please Participate in Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics)#Inclusion of Pulitzer Prize for History — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solomon7968 (talk • contribs) 18:06, May 7, 2013‎

Thanks for asking me. I'll try, but I might not get to it right away. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Critics and criticism of animal rights

Category:Critics and criticism of animal rights, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Replied. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for name change

Hi Tryptofish, I have a small request: are you able to change my username? Across the Internet I have otherwise retired the name 'invinciblegavin', and I now use the name 'ikonikre'. I would very much appreciate your help here, or any advice about the matter. Thanks for your time. Ikonikre/Invinciblegavin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Invinciblegavin (talk • contribs) 20:59, May 18, 2013‎

Hi, I'd be happy to help, but I don't have that ability. You need to have a bureaucrat do it. You can find instructions on exactly how to do it at WP:RENAME. Good luck, and I hope that helps! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Advice

Sorry why do you say is a bad idea? Thanks. I have tried to join discussions and some editors ignore me on purpose. nevermindthebollocks (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll reply on your talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Warning-->block

Hey Tryptofish, please don't think that I overruled you as a supermight admin or something like that--I responded at User talk:Booklaunch with an explanation. Had I not seen more I wouldn't have blocked after your note. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that I nearly had an MI when I saw the header here, it's all fine! I was figuring that I'd give them a sort of last chance before heading over to ANI, but there's really no doubt in my mind about what the final outcome was going to be, and I agree with you all the way. And I didn't even know about the SPI. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, a heart attack, as us layfolk call it. I hadn't thought about that effect but I'll keep it in mind; I do like headings. So--you're a fish in three panels? And you're a Dr. too! Congratulations! Did you write your own article yet? Are you on the board of one of those Indian journals that keep spamming me? Beer or wine? Have you met User:Randykitty? The name notwithstanding he's a highly serious neuroscientist or something like that who is living the high life in France, damn traitor, while we're slaving away. I hope you have a better job than me; stupid Research Council just denied my application for a sabbatical. Ah, that's making me feel better already. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Currently swilling beer (Hoegaarden, Leffe, Con Domus, Nostra Domus, and Pilaarbijter) in Belgium at a meeting! (A scientific meeting, of course... :-) And Tryptofish and I run into one another from time to time at the Society for Neuroscience meetings. Cheers to both of you! --Randykitty (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, oh, good... Drmies (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Tryptofish, just wanted to stop by and say thanks for cleaning up the "bollocks" that were left over. Zad68 02:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello everybody! I'm so glad to check back here and find that I am neither blocked nor warned of a block. Yes, Zad, there was a good deal that needed to be cleaned up yesterday, glad to do it. Drmies, I used to have tenure at a US university, but I successfully sued them and am financially independent now, so yes, I'd say that I have a rather good job now, but far from slaving away. (No tryptych, just tryptophan, but the name is really a red herring.) Randykitty, I think that I may have just realized who you are, but I have to admit that I didn't recognize this username until just now. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I need the name of that lawyer. My dean tried to laugh it away this morning, that's all he could do (or wanted to do). I used to think a sabbatical was a right; apparently you only get it when you already have a book contract in hand. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

On the evolutionary scale, deans are (slightly) above bacteria, and (far) below cockroaches. I'm in the US, and I figure the Research Council is the one in the UK, so my lawyer won't be any good for you, sorry. Where I am, we have at-will employment, and that means employees have almost no rights. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll tell him you said so. No, the Research Council is here on our campus in the great state of Alabama. It's made up of a jury of my peers and a couple of deanlets, I suppose, who, I'm told rank the proposals they get and are under no obligation to explain their rankings. at-will--I suppose you're in the South as well. I just hope it isn't Arkansas. Tennessee? Hey, no state tax! Though it sucks to show ID every time you go to the liquor store, when everyone sees the forty-odd in your face (and mine). Drmies (talk) 01:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, a different Council, woops. I'm in the US, but not where you suggested, and nowhere near to you, and my lawyer wouldn't practice in your state. (At-will is nationwide; you may be thinking instead of right to work.) I'm a stickler for not giving away who I am in real life, so I'm not going to be any more specific than that about where I am. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Tryptofish! Thanks for you congratulations and your support. I'm not sure this is a tool set I really wanted to have, but hopefully I'll do ok with it. :) - Bilby (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure, and I know you'll do very well. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Jarble

Seeing as you also watch the Urination article, and have dealt with Jarble's ridiculous excessiveness, perhaps you wouldn't mind taking a stab at weighing in on this matter? I barely have any patience left for him, as seen here and here for two more examples. Flyer22 (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've made some WP:BOLD edits lately, and I've transcluded sections of some articles into other articles, without duplicating them directly. This dispute seems to center around the question of whether or not transclusion is considered a type of WP:Content forking, despite the fact that it doesn't create multiple versions of the same article. Transclusion and content forking are two completely different things, as far as I know. So far, I haven't seen any official guidelines about this issue, and I need further clarification, so that I can decide whether my edits have been helpful or not. Jarble (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I've replied to Jarble on his talk page, where it is clearly shown that he has been duplicating articles in sections. I leave the rest of this particular matter to you, Tryptofish, or to someone else. Flyer22 (talk) 06:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

As I've said before, WP:Content forking and WP:Transclusion are two completely different things. The article about transclusion doesn't mention content forking, and the article about content forking doesn't mention transclusion, so it isn't clear how they're related (since transclusion, by definition, doesn't create multiple versions or "forks" of the same page). Jarble (talk) 06:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll revert my edits if necessary, but I still haven't found any guidelines that argue for or against transclusion, so I'm not sure what I should do yet. :/ Jarble (talk) 06:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• OK, this is a reply to both of you. Lately, I've been trying (mostly unsuccessfully, it appears) to cut back on my editing in areas of Wiki-drama. A long time ago, urination got onto my watchlist because I responded to an RfC about whether or not there should be photographs of humans on the page. I still, um, dip back into the page from time to time (largely to, um, mop up after vandals), but it's not like I really give that much of a, um, piss about it. (OK, end of stupid puns, sorry.) I'm ambivalent about whether the page should really just be about human urination, or whether it should also include information on other species. There's a valid, serious content discussion to be had about it. The place for that discussion (hey, maybe even for a content RfC) is on the article talk page, not on my user talk page. Jarble, I think that the most useful guideline for you in this matter is WP:Summary style. I suggest that you think that one over, and look for ways in which you could cover the material about other animal species very briefly, with a link to other pages where there could be more detail. My personal preference would be to leave as much detail as possible for other pages, and keep it brief at the main page, maybe a little briefer than you have it now, and with as little duplication of content as possible, but I'm open to persuasion if anyone wants to discuss that, not here, but on the article talk page. Flyer22, I don't think that Jarble is doing anything wrong, so please don't expect me to intervene as a pseudo-administrator. If you are annoyed, you can either walk away or open a discussion – about content – on the talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I definitely know what it means to try to cut back on Wiki-drama. So I apologize for bothering you with mine. I wasn't expecting you to be a pseudo-administrator on this matter; I wanted your input because I know how helpful and rational you can be, and because you watch/work on the Urination article as well. I also don't care much about that article, and only got involved with it through Jarble, though I had already been aware of, and I think already watching, it due to this IP (the same IP that led to you getting involved with the article). I disagree that Jarble wasn't doing anything wrong with regard to the duplication, considering that he was copying articles in their entirety in sections of other articles (it hardly matters that it wasn't direct copying), pointing readers to those articles as though they offer anything different than what the sections do, and that he was using articles as templates. But I thank you for weighing in on this matter all the same. Jarble has removed the redundancies, and I've replied further on his talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

No worries, and thank you for the very kind words! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem. It's easy to give kind words where kind words are due. Oh, and it seems that this IP is the IP that led to you getting involved with Urination article...but I'm sure that it was used by the same person who discussed urination, genitalia and sexual activity using the IP I mentioned above. Flyer22 (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

parody

Why not just remove the redirect in article space then - now that it's in wiki-space - technically you're not supposed to have redirects from article space to wikispace. We can fix the few places where it is linked just by updating the link in those talk pages. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think it's pretty clear that you are more interested than I am in keeping everything neat and tidy. If you want to fix those "what links here" links that are on talk pages, and then have the redirects deleted, please don't let me stop you. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I just don't like cruft I guess... cheers :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I looked again, ugh, would probably take more time than it's worth since I'd have to figure out how to carefully modify another user's comments/etc, so, um, nevermind. cheers. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Phineas Gage "Good Article" review

Having make ten or more edits to the article on Phineas Gage, or commented on its Talk in the last two years, perhaps you will be interested in the Good Article Review currently underway. I am particularly interested in gathering broader opinion on the following comment by the reviewer: "Many sentences are much too long for easy reading and to my mind overuse complicated constructions ... I will very strongly recommend a copy edit with ease of reading in mind, breaking up complex sentences and disentwining some of the flowery language." EEng (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's one of those things that are inevitably subjective, but, once one decides to go in for a process like GA, it's generally a good idea to at least meet the reviewer partway. I'm about to log off for today, but in the next day or so I'm going to go through the page with a fine-tooth copyeditor comb, and I can probably, um, deflower some of the sentences. That will probably be all you need. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Please... be gentle. However, I didn't initiate this -- someone else nominated. Since the reviewer said, "I am not going to fail on this because of the admitted subjectivity of taste of writing," I was hoping for something more along the lines of unquestioning, mindless endorsement along the lines of [1]. EEng (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Well then, I'll just give it a gentle poke and talk it up mindlessly at the GA review page. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Very good. I would have expected no more nor less from you. When I snap my fingers you will awake refreshed and full of energy, remembering nothing of what has been said here. EEng (talk) 11:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done. And it left me feeling like I've got a spike through my head. Anyway, I hope that you and the patient are now feeling none the worse for wear. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)

Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization consisting of over 28,000 volunteers in more than 100 countries. The collaboration was formed to organize medical scholarship in a systematic way in the interests of evidence-based research: the group conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.

Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account. Thank you Cochrane!

If you are stil active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

SOAP

I think we disagree, all the editor is on about is including POV "christian terrorism" by the US in Iraq. Just becuase a christian has a strong belief and fights in an army, which is in a war where combatants on the others side have a different religion doesnt make that an act of christian terrorism as being implied. "his expressed motivations for this crimes against humanity against the citizens of Iraq" this reeks of POV (and a BLP violation too) and "Remember the war crime atrocities Christian terrorists committed against the citizens of Fallujah?" and ends on "need to be more inclusive in the actions of State-sanctioned Christian terrorism here". Utter soap-boxing. Not one realible source or neutral phrase through-out. Nothing about improving just adding POV to an article that he doesnt like, with a very odd opinion on it. Murry1975 (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I actually agree with you that what the person said was off-base, and it definitely reflects a POV, but I don't think that it was disruptive. It isn't, for example, trolling. What they said would most likely not improve the page, but they appear to have intended it to improve the page. One can rebut what they said, or simply ignore it. Please don't worry that I was somehow endorsing their opinions. It just seems to me that WP:TPO points this way. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

No Trypto, I know you dont endorse their opinion, and I have seen have much work you have done on the article, but I believe that it is just their opinion backed by marginalist sources of extremist views. Murry1975 (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! And that would be an excellent reason to oppose their making an edit to the page along those lines. But, as I said, with it only on the talk page, one can either rebut it or simply ignore it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Cell Assemblies

You reviewed my Cell Assembly wiki. I clearly dropped the ball with basis of all thought thing. It should have been psychological concepts. I had a query about your peacock-y comment. I see that as meaning it's overstated. Is that right? I'm clearly invested in this stuff, so perhaps I don't see what's overstated. I make a relatively licky comment about Hebb, but aside from that (and the obvious first line) I can't see it. What did you have in mind? As for the, it should be in the Hebbian Theory page, I'm open for a discussion. This was just a stub to see how the process worked. 158.94.82.81 (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Chrishuyck158.94.82.81 (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful questions – and welcome to Wikipedia! I still don't think the lead sentence is OK. It isn't proven to be the neural basis of anything biological. Perhaps it is the "neural basis within Hebbian theory." See the difference? It's part of a theory, rather than a theory that has been experimentally proven. WP:PEACOCK (you can click on the blue) talks about not using hyperbole to make what we write about seem more important than it is – instead of "selling" the subject, just let the facts speak for themselves. So my criticism of the lead sentence would be an example of that, because it seems to me to overstate the importance. Also, the title "Cell assembly" can mean other things beside what Hebb meant by it; see, for example cell growth or cellular differentiation. On a more minor stylistic level, you might want to take a look at MOS:CAPS, particularly the short section MOS:SECTIONCAPS, because you capitalized things that you shouldn't (also no need to capitalize neuroscience and psychology). I see that the other editor declined the article submission. Here's my advice: go instead to Hebbian theory#Hebbian engrams and cell assembly theory, and expand that section of the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Your response seems reasonable, and the capitalization comment is probably easiest. I went through yesterday, edited it, and changed Cell Assembly to cell assembly throughout. I also did neuroscience and psychology. Hopefully that's sorted. As far as I can tell there are two other issues. I'd like to postpone the standalone CA page vs. integrating into Hebbian theory page for now, and just fix up the draft page. The second issue is the peacock-yness of the draft. While I agree that it's not proven that Cell Assemblies are the basis of psychological concepts, I would retort that evolution is also not proven. There both soundly supported theories. (I don't think CAs are as soundly supported as evolution, but I do think they are really soundly supported.) Let me expand the Evidence for Cell Assemblies section and resubmit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.94.82.81 (talk) 08:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to try to help. I looked, and I see that another editor has, again, declined the submission. I think that their explanation does a good job of explaining what I had been trying to say about the peacock-ness, so I recommend that you work on that before attempting again to resubmit it. It's not about providing more evidence. It's about fixing the "tone" of the writing. You also still need to fix the capitalization of the page title and the section titles, per MOS:SECTIONCAPS. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: March Against Monsanto

I do not regard Martin's edits as introducing plagiarism.

I'm afraid you are mistaken. Martin removed quotes from a quote turning it into plain prose. This is plagiarism, according to Wikipedia's standards, since it did not paraphrase. Please revisit Wikipedia:Plagiarism for reference. I could not respond directly to this on the talk page because of the deep thread. Viriditas (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing this with me on my talk page. I have a good understanding of what plagiarism is, both on-Wiki and in real life. We will have to agree to disagree. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Tryptofish, you are not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with our content guideline on plagiarism, which says (in WP:PLAGFORM):

"Plagiarism...can take several forms [such as]... Copying from a source acknowledged in a well-placed citation, without in-text attribution...Inserting a text—copied word-for-word, or with very few changes—then citing the source in an inline citation after the passage that was copied, without naming the source in the text."

Well, that's exactly what Martin did here. He even wrote in the edit summary, "remove pointless quotation marks"! Do you understand now? The in-text attribution and quotation marks Martin removed are not pointless. They are essential for preventing plagiarism as Wikipedia defines it. This is further explained in detail at "Avoiding plagiarism". I hope you've now changed your mind. As you can plainly see, the removal of attribution and quotes resulted in plagiarism. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

If you feel that either he or I have been disruptive, I'm sure you know how to find the right place to report it, but the amount of energy you are putting into arguing with me here makes me suspect that you are less concerned about the plagiarism than about your differences with him over issues of NPOV. So, since we seem to be pointing one another to guidelines and the like, I'll remind you of WP:RGW, and also suggest that you do a bit less reverting. If it makes you feel any better, please remember that I've actually agreed with you about half of the time.

Where you quoted me above, I was talking about a group of edits, taken as a whole. In the diff you have now provided, you selected the single edit in which the largest amount of text is in question. It is: "genetically... environment", a phrase of 13 words. I think it helps to consider the second bullet point at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#What is not plagiarism. The single diff you selected is in a gray area with respect to the second bullet point. All of the edits, taken as a group, pretty much fall into an area that falls a bit short of being plagiarism in the way that a clueful administrator or ArbCom would decide to sanction an editor for. I suspect that if the talk page discussion had been a low-key one about finding the best possible language to use on the page, I would actually have come down on the side of expressing a desire to rewrite it, and I'll actually agree with you now, to the extent that it would be better to paraphrase there, and I'll suggest that either you or I should now do so. But the talk page discussion from which you quote me was a heated POV dispute, and you seemed to me to be trying to use a hair-splitting argument about borderline plagiarism to get the upper hand about POV, and I pushed back against you. That's the biggest reason why I said what you quote above. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism is essentially trying to pass off someone else's work as your own, or that of another person. Changing direct speech to reported speech, still correctly attributed, does not do this so the issue of plagiarism is irrelevant. Tryptofish has explained the situation very well and I see no reason to discuss the matter further.

I do, however, see reason to prevent the article from becoming a soapbox for the marchers' cause or a forum for a pro-GE food/Mosanto POV against an anti-GE food POV discussion. I will discuss this further on the article talk page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hi Tryptofish I appreciate your welcome. You seem very experienced here and would probably be able to help me. I'm wondering, if I get permission from a photographer to use pictures from their site on Wikipedia, how do I insert said photos into articles and explain that they were taken with the permission of the author? Thanks Ensignricky (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm happy to help. The best way to do that is to use Wikimedia Commons, which actually exists alongside Wikipedia, instead of within it. To start, I suggest that you go to: Commons:First steps. You may have to log-in again there, but your same account as here should work. There's a whole list of how-to links there, that should pretty much answer all of your questions about how to do it.

What you'll need in addition to the image file will be an e-mail from the photographer. They basically have to give you permission according to the CC-by-SA-3.0 License, which not only allows publication here on Wikipedia, but also allows any Wikipedia reader to download and reuse the image, with attribution, including commercial use and/or derivative images, without further restriction. It's important that the photographer understands and agrees to all that, and says so. (Let me know if they don't, because there are some limited work-arounds if that happens.) You'll have to forward that permission e-mail from the copyright owner to Commons, according to the instructions that they will give you there.

Once you have uploaded it to Commons, it will be available to use here, as "File:the filename you gave it". If you go to Wikipedia:Picture tutorial here, that gives all the instructions about how to put it into a Wikipedia article. You'll normally want to do it as a "thumbnail" on the right. Feel free to send me another message here after you've done that if you'd like me to check it for format and style. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Society for Brain Mapping and Therapeutics

Legitimate non-profit or basically a regular money making conference operation?

http://worldbrainmapping.org/about-sbmt http://www.BrainMappingFoundation.org

• Brain Mapping Foundation - non-profit organization established for the purpose of facilitating multidisciplinary brain and spinal cord research and expediting integration of cutting-edge technologies into the field of Neuroscience.

I can't find a non profit tax return for this entity? http://www.guidestar.org/

• Brain Mapping Foundation - not found
• World Brain Mapping - not found
• Society for Brain Mapping and Therapeutics - not found
• International Brain Mapping and Intra-Operative Surgical Planning Foundation - found but is only a $17k operation?

A news search shows nothing other than commercial conferences, awards handed out but no funding of any projects.

Registrant Name:Babak Kateb Registrant Organization:Society for Brain Mapping and Therapeutics Registrant Street1:8159 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite #200 Registrant Street2: Registrant Street3: Registrant City:West Hollywood Registrant State/Province:California Registrant Postal Code:90046 Registrant Country:US Registrant Phone:+1.3105006196 Registrant Phone Ext.: Registrant FAX: Registrant FAX Ext.: Registrant Email:babak.kateb@worldbrainmapping.org

Admin ID:CR89721847 Admin Name:Babak Kateb Admin Organization:Society for Brain Mapping and Therapeutics Admin Street1:8159 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite #200 Admin Street2: Admin Street3: Admin City:West Hollywood Admin State/Province:California Admin Postal Code:90046 Admin Country:US Admin Phone:+1.3105006196 Admin Phone Ext.: Admin FAX: Admin FAX Ext.: Admin Email:babak.kateb@worldbrainmapping.org

Tech ID:CR89721845 Tech Name:Leo Balthazor Tech Organization:Society for Brain Mapping and Therapeutics Tech Street1:8159 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite #200 Tech Street2: Tech Street3: Tech City:West Hollywood Tech State/Province:California Tech Postal Code:90046 Tech Country:US Tech Phone:+1.3105006196 Tech Phone Ext.: Tech FAX: Tech FAX Ext.: Tech Email:leo@wordlbrainmapping.org Name Server:NS33.DOMAINCONTROL.COM Name Server:NS34.DOMAINCONTROL.COM

above phone reverses to: International Brain Mapping 8159 Santa Monica Blvd Ste 200 West Hollywood, CA 90046 Neighborhood: Wilshire (310) 500-6196

Rick (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was wondering about that too. The simple fact that it might be for-profit does not automatically mean that it fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations. I guess the question is whether it has been the subject of commentary by independent sources, and it probably has not. Compared to a lot of the spam I see on Wikipedia, I don't think it's that bad, so I'm kind of reluctant to go to the time and effort that it would take to put the page up for deletion. But I'll put a tag on the page now, warning that it might be subject to deletion. You should feel free to delete it from the list page that you work on, especially since it is in the wrong place. If you feel strongly that you would like to see the article deleted, please let me know, and I can try to help with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I am writing in response to your post about establishing notability for the article entitled Brain Mapping Foundation. I have added several external references, and asked the founder to further elaborate on certain topics (which have been mentioned in external sources as well). I apologize for the poor labeling on those new references (I simply included the URLs). I will add article names and authors as soon as time allows, but wanted to address the issue of Notability before the article gets reviewed for deletion. Please let me know if these references are sufficient. Thank you for your assistance. -- Choupz (talk) 03:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for responding by improving the article. I think that you are doing the correct things, and I'm really not interested in deleting the article (although I cannot speak for that other editor). I'm going to keep an eye on the page, and once I feel that the needed secondary sources are there, I'll remove the tag. The best thing would be sources independent of the Foundation, commenting about it in ways that imply that it is significant. Sources from people who got funding from the Foundation are not so helpful, because they aren't independent of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Tryptofish, it makes perfect sense. I just added more edits that were conducive to citing secondary sources. Those sources are independent and should help establish the organization's notability. I will keep improving the article by adding images, cross-references, and properly labeling the URLs, but all the sources are there for you to review at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your help. Best, Choupz (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to help. I've removed the tag, and made some further suggestions at the Neuro WikiProject assessment page. I'll keep it on my watchlist, and update things as you improve it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for the quick turnaround! We'll keep improving this article, and then hopefully move on to others. Regards, Choupz (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Random "Talk: you have new messages" messages?

After someone left me a real talk page message, I stopped getting the fake thing. Perhaps this message will resolve the problem for you as it did for me. Might help if you'd report at VPT what happens after you get this message, especially if the fakes continue. Nyttend (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but it didn't work. I'll report it there. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually

What I am editing is not talk page information, I am simply removing the POV pushing on the article, which is present from both sides. In the interests of having an unbiased article, I have made those changes, and will continue to make them, so long as they need to be made. Having actually been to the Creation Museum, I can say that they use the scientific method, they simply have a different interpretation of the facts, which stay the same, no matter what side of the debate you are on. As far as the "Scientific Consensus", There must be an essentially unanimous agreement, which there definitely is not.Sgt K Onyx (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know that your edits have been to the page, rather than to the talk page, but the advice I gave you on your talk page is to discuss your views at the article talk page, instead of getting into an edit war. I see you have gotten a warning about edit warring, and you need to take it seriously. Scientific consensus is not altered by fringe science, and there is such a thing as WP:Consensus for edits at Wikipedia, too. You need to respect that consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Didn't even this one help?

What about if you get an orange new message, doesn't even that make it go away? Bishonen | talk 22:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC).

If it did, I'd be green with envy! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you - and comment on the Old Town Pasadena, California page

Thank you for your recent advice.

Am both motivated to edit Pasadena California Old Town page and hesitant to make to make some mistakes worse - the tedious lenthy focus in 21 Century needs much dribble cut and some factoids, even some eyebrow raisers.

Someone wrote as a modern tourist enthralled by the 20th Century fascades. That said, changes I would love to see added:

Numerous back alleys sport doors that were once tall enough for a mounted ride to ride into the back of the stores or stops on a horse without dismounting. Many oldtowns still show evidence - the old blacksmith or hardware stores nearly always show their equine pasts.

There is almost an entire standard page on Castle Green, Green Hotel but no mention of the Raymond Hotel across the street (clearly visible in current photo). When the Raymond had its short Hay Day, Castle Green and the Raymond were connected by what is today half of a bridge.

I am going to bring up the street walkers, prostitutes as they and their families are part of the picture the City has fought to erase. Parsons engineering was not entirely but to make rockets, Parsons Engineering sits squarely in a previous hundred years of brothels, old hotels once glorious but in time all had downstairs bars, speak-easies in prohibition, rows of bungalow hotels where US servicemen fresh home from World War II and Korea rented entertainment.

The 210 Freeway, Pasadena's main artery has twists, turns, dog-legs, sharp bends (for a modern freeway) from Arcadia to Altadena. Why? In the same way Parsons stampted out bungalow brothels, Interstate 210 was used as an instrument to stamp out the homes of black mayoral critics, people who sued the police and city for police brutality, etc. Entire blocks of houses and numrous 2nd and 3rd generation family homes were imminent domained, bulldozed and turned into a freeway that has daily traffic nightmares caused mostly by rush hours reaction to said bends and dog-legs.

I would so welcome help with photos, imminent domain documents, word-of-mouth from those who were there. My neighbor Curtis Boone who died at 99 years old around 1996 verbally gave me these details, as did Eugene Taylor, who knew literally all the people displaced by the 210 Freeway (most were black). Pasadena is a glorious place, just don't sue the city if they beat you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raretrees (talk • contribs) 03:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I'm glad if I could help. The material you talk about here is stuff that I really don't know much about and I am unlikely to edit in those areas, but you should feel free to add sourced content there. If you are uncertain about anything, it would be a good idea to raise your questions on the corresponding article talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Visual Edit

Recently I have been using the visual edit. I know it is under progress, and I can still edit the Wiki markup way, but was wondering which one is more beneficial. There are some issues with the VisualEditor but I thought by using it I could may be helping the developers. This may be incorrect, and I would like to know your opinion. Thanks. Ensignricky (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess my perspective is that of someone who has been editing here for a long time and is getting stuck in my ways, so my own preference for myself is the old edit interface. I did use VE several times, and noticed things that weren't working well. I then went to the page for us to give that kind of feedback to the developers, and I saw that everything I was aware of had already been reported and was already being worked on. For what it's worth, meta:Research:VisualEditor's effect on newly registered editors/Results is a study of how well VE is working, and it seems to show that there are a lot of problems, and the consensus at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Default State RFC seems to be trending pretty negative.

That said, it really comes down to what works for you. I think the important thing is to feel comfortable making edits, so whatever is more comfortable for you is the way to go. There really isn't a "right" and "wrong" about this. If you do want to give feedback to the developers, the place to do it is Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Closure of ANI thread

Hey Trypto, I just closed (my first ever) the thread on ANI after I read your willingness to see it closed. I hope you will find my closing comment to strike the right note, and I hope the article will calm down a bit, but it looks fairly intractable. I'd like to see someone with a lot of "juice" who is widely respected take a look at the article, but I have no firm suggestions at the moment of such a person. My best to you, always, Jusdafax 04:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you so very much for doing that. In my personal opinion, you struck exactly the right tone in the closure, as well as in your note at Viriditas' talk page. I said in my comment at ANI that I am inviting editors who want to discuss further steps in the dispute resolution process to contact me here in my talk, and therefore, I see no need for the ANI close to go into any further details about what might or might not come next, because nobody knows what, if anything, will come next. (I am, however, making plans for things that could come next.) I know that you wondered where I was coming from when I first raised the issues, and I hope that you now see how two-sided the situation really is. I certainly see it as having two sides, both with some valid concerns. Actually, I'm quite pleased to see that some relatively new editors who are constructive and consensus-oriented have already shown up at the page, and I'm cautiously optimistic that things are going to improve there. Anyway, I'm delighted that I can now take ANI off my watchlist again.

I had also pretty much stopped watching WT:RFA as (another) time-sink, but my notifications showed your mention of me there, so I took a look and was amused/nostalgic about that discussion. For what it's worth, I have become convinced that ArbCom is getting much better at dealing with bad admins than they had been in the CDA days. I'd like to believe that the CDA discussion got the community thinking, and that the center of gravity within ArbCom and the community as a whole is one where "vested contributors", or whatever one wants to call them, no longer get as many free passes as in the past. Anyway, I'm always happy to cross paths with you, and I wish you the very best too. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi all - as I wrote on Jusdafax's page, Tryptofish you started the ANI with "some editors have accused other editors of being paid advocates for Monsanto and pushing a pro-Monsanto POV, as well as some implied accusations of WP:SOCK violations." The closing statement should address the reason for the ANI and it currently does not ("Concerns have been aired around civility and content issues as well as editor motivation" is too vague). I work on contentious articles a lot and the 5th pillar is extra important in those environments. The MaM article is extra hot because it is about a protest, and those aligned with the protest are bringing their desire to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and the intensity and the lack of concern with civility that goes with it, into Wikipedia. Further along those lines, this thread and Jusdafax, your comments on it, are distressing to me. The editors talking there, including User:Petrarchan47 assume that me and others are shills or have a COI, when in fact I (and as per attestations in the ANI) others have no COI and are not shills - we just have different perspectives from those editors. But I and others are judged as acting in bad faith, repeatedly and openly (as per the thread I linked to), about having one. Tryptofish I was grateful that you opened the ANI to address the AGF issue (I just walked away from the article rather than put up with it anymore) and am frustrated that the closing is not more clear that the violations of AGF need to stop. I don't want Viriditas banned or anything but I would have had a stronger warning been given. Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments, as they are very perceptive and helpful. About what Jusdafax said earlier on Viriditas' talk page, I think that subsequently the ANI thread actually helped Jusdafax and other editors see the "other side" of the issue. I also think that there is a place here for some editors to speak more gently to those who most need speaking to. Once it became clear that no one was going to get blocked, there was a limit to what ANI could accomplish, and I'm pretty sure that a firmer closing statement would have met with pushback from editors who are sympathetic to Viriditas. It's painfully obvious to me that the accusations against you, and against most of the other editors there, are profoundly groundless and disruptive. Then again, I actually do think that, in principle, it's very important to watch out for paid POV-pushers, and I'm a little bit suspicious of one editor whom I saw at that page in that regard. You can count on me to be watching like a hawk for any further accusations at that page, and believe me, I will make sure that there is definitive administrative action if that occurs. I'm also very serious about continuing the dispute resolution process. So the closing statement is very unlikely to be the last word. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to explain and for your careful diplomacy. I hear you all through (we need to watch for both violations of AGF and for paid editing). Best regards, Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

More heat than light. The other user is blocked for three months. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to March Against Monsanto, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Diff. Viriditas (talk) 07:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Yeah, Tryptofish. Newcomers like you should learn the rules. EEng (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Yes, quite. You can't go waving your "wiki project banners" just 'cos you're on some crusading march against a big multinational! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Yeah, Tryptofish, and you smell bad too. I'm actually getting rather used to this kind of stuff from Viriditas. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Please remember to be civil in your response. I have politely warned you about adding original research to the March Against Monsanto article after previously discussing this problem with you. You do not appear to have changed your behavior or shown any recognition of the problem, as I see you are still edit warring this OR into the article after many editors have asked you to stop. Therefore, this issue must be escalated to the next level. Viriditas (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC) One of the two of us has been consistently civil, and it isn't you. Please understand that I am quite experienced with dealing with other editors here, and I am not intimidated by bullies. But you are correct that this issue will have to go to the next level. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Ignoring discussion points, edit warring, making false accusations–none of these things are civil, so I'll once again remind you to read up on civility and start practicing it soon. Asking you to follow the NOR policy isn't "bullying". The subject of this query is your repeated refusal to abide by the OR policy, and your tendentious, disruption of the article. Viriditas (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC) I acknowledge having read what you said, and I reject the factual accuracy of all of it. But please feel free to take up your concerns at the appropriate venue, much as I am going to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Yes, you have rejected the NOR policy. That is exactly why I am here on your talk page. Per that policy, you cannot add off-topic references and content to articles. You admit that you refuse to follow that policy. Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC) I reject the factual accuracy of what you allege, not any policy. Actually, we have discussed this previously, at the article talk page, where we each explained our views on whether those references and content are on-topic or off-topic, and the consensus, albeit not unanimous, appears to be that I am interpreting NOR correctly. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC) I allege nothing. I have quoted the policy to you several times. It explicitly says, do not used off-topic sources and it says do not use them in a way to make a point that the original sources about the topic do not . This is very clear and simple to understand, yet you deny it. Why don't you refute me by simply showing me a FA-class article that uses sources in the way you suggest? Surely, if your "interpretation" is correct, you can put an end to his by showing how common it is for editors to use off-topic sources? I think this is a reasonable request. Demonstrate best practice or stop engaging in original research. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC) I've read what you said. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Yes, you've read it, many times in fact, both here and on the talk page, yet you have never responded to this explanation. However, in true WP:IDHT fashion, you have repeatedly edit warred this into the article claiming that you were given "no actual explanation of why" it was OR.[2] The talk page shows you were given 'four explanations prior to your revert (01:07, 20 July; 01:37, 20 July 2013; 00:49, 22 July; 02:24, 23 July 2013) and your participation in that discussion shows that you read it. The most detailed explanation was given here and you read it. That's why I'm escalating this. You ask for an explanation, you are then given one, and then you claim that you were never given an explanation! Rinse, repeat, or as I prefer to call it, disruption. You even admitted to removing a secondary source about the subject and replacing it with off-topic sources about a different subject.[3] Viriditas (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC) ANI notice Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Your message on my talk page You will see my response here. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Flying Spaghetti Monster: delete non-noteworthy name

Hi Tryptofish, reading through the history of edits of Flying Spaghetti Monster page, I found that you chose to delete my name for it's non-note-worthiness. Could you please try to explain me what had led you to this decidion, that is mainly what makes numerous other people's names mentioned in the article (eg. Niklas Jansson, Niko Alm, Marshall Goodman, Bryan Killian, Giorgos Loizos, Tracy McPherson) more note-worthy than mine? Thanks for your time.

Also if you choose to re-place my name, consider adding a note about my membership in the Czech Pirate Party, I consider this important taking in mind I run as a ballot [[4]] leader in the last elections in Czech Republic.

Best regards Lukas Novy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.228.11.236 (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lukas, and thank you for asking me here. As a matter of fact, I had absolutely no idea that you were this person until you told me about it here! My reasoning at the time was that the section about headgear is starting to get longer and longer as new events get reported, and there is a danger that we will soon have to rewrite it as more like a single long paragraph instead of what is becoming a list, in order to keep it encyclopedic, and to comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections. Also, I didn't see anything else on the page about this person (you) being reported about by the sources that we cite. Please understand that it was nothing personal about you!! On Wikipedia, when we talk about "notability", it's in terms of Wikipedia:Notability (people), rather than in terms of the usual dictionary meaning of the word.

If you think that, in the context of other names given on the page, your name should be added back, please start a discussion about it at Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster, and that way, we can get opinions from multiple editors, since my opinion here is obviously just one person. Now, that said, the fact that you have told me that it is you is actually a further reason to be cautious about adding your name. Please see WP:COI, and item number 4 at WP:SOAP. The fact that you might want your name shown on Wikipedia because it might help with your political campaign is definitely going to be seen as a reason not to do what you want. But if there are news reports later on that you got elected, then I'm quite sure we will add it to the page. Good luck, and ahoy! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello agin Tryptofish, the Wikipedia:Notability (people) page lines up perfectly with the situation and your actions, thanks for that link and your explanation. I might try to discuss this matter later on the page as more news comes out about it (there might be a trial about my pernament ID, this one is temporal), we will see if I would meet the criteria. Ahoy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.228.11.236 (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Good! I'm happy to help. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For helping to resolve conflict at March Against Monsanto. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Seconding this! DanHobley (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Human brain

Re your edit revert....are you saying that the brain is a muscle?? Iztwoz (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me here. I have a feeling that we may just be having a misunderstanding. Here is the sentence in question: "The brain does not store any glucose in the form of glycogen, in contrast, for example, to skeletal muscle." No, clearly nervous tissue and muscle tissue are two different things. To me, the relevant part of this sentence, with respect to your sentence, is "in contrast... to". That sounds to me like the sentence is saying that we have two different things: brain tissue, which does not store glycogen, and skeletal muscle tissue, which does. I don't think it implies that brain is another kind of muscle, or that skeletal muscle is another kind of brain.

I see that you added a "cn" tag to the sentence, and I'm trying to think of ways to address your concern. Would this work: "The brain does not store any glucose in the form of glycogen, in contrast to other kinds of organs, such as skeletal muscle, that do store glycogen."? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

A muscle cannot be referred to as an organ. I just do not see the relevance of this sentence at all - its already stated that the brain uses glucose from the blood supply and that complications can occur when this glucose is not readily available in the blood supply....? Iztwoz (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it most certainly can, but I've changed it from "organs" to "parts of the body". Skeletal muscle also uses glucose from the blood supply, but the brain differs in that it cannot store it, and it's asking too much of our readers to figure out why those complications can occur, so it's appropriate to tell them. I'm finding it strange how you are so concerned about this one sentence, so I recommend that you raise any further concerns you have at Talk:Human brain, instead of here, so we can hear from more editors than just me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Some final wishes

Hello Dear User, I am the user who tried to made some improvements in article Atheism and Demographics of atheism. Alas, just because I had different viewpoint, some editors attacked me (instead to discuss my suggestion in normal way). Unfortunately, once again I understand that dictatorship is very strong in Wikipedia. And what is most interesting, some of that editors, I am sure, always criticize people like Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot, but themselves, the acted like small dictators. When they say NO, its NO. Thats it ! No explanations ! So where is the difference between them and dictators, maybe they just have very small power. I am afraid to imagine what that editors would do with people, if they get more power (even afraid to imagine that). Anyway, that discussion (if I can call it discussion) in past.

Now I have a smal plea to you (as long as you were the only one who took part in that discussion normally). In the Talk page you wrote, that some of information I presented can be included in other articles. I agree. But I am going to leave the project, I have no energy anymore to fight with some people here. So please, if you have time, try to do anything and include that information to mentioned article (now I mean only figures of Gallup about poor conditions of countries and their religiousness rate). Belive me thats an important information, because its show the influence of religion on the society (I think you understand what I mean). If you have time, try to do it, if no, please can you ask anyone else to do it?

Anyway, thanks for everything, be patient (we need be more patient in this life), and GOOD LUCK !! 46.70.21.246 (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, and I am happy that you felt that I interacted with you fairly. In my opinion, editing here really isn't as difficult as all that, and it's just a matter of working patiently with other people who have differing opinions, so I hope that someday, you'll return to editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Please check my latest edits

Please check my latest edits on wikipedia and let me know what is wrong with them. User: Looie496 told me to ask you. Khyati Gupta (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

In the sense of getting a "second opinion", was what I meant. Looie496 (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Looie, understood. Guptakhy, I've looked at Looie's advice to you, and I think that it is good advice. I've also revised your edits at Nucleus accumbens, Opioid, and Periaqueductal gray. I urge you to look closely at the edits I made at those three pages, and see why I made them. Then, if you have specific questions about these edits (as opposed to simply asking me to review all of your edits), I'll be happy to try to answer them here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

NPOV at MAM

Hi Trypto,

I am wondering why you would revert my good faith edits to the MAM article. In one fell swoop, you reverted all the work I did today and did not give a reason. Why, for instance, would you remove the introduction to the origins of the protest? Why would i need consensus to add one? Your edits are not making sense at all, and today's are purely vandalism with no grounds in the guidelines. I hope you will give a guidelines-based reason for each change you made to my edits at the talk page, because I am completely baffled at this point. petrarchan47tc 23:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I will reply to your question at the article talk page [5]. I will probably follow up on these matters further at your talk page [6]. In the mean time, WP:AIV is that-a-way, and lotsa luck with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a final note, as it appears you have full control of the article now, would you consider the idea of an intro to the background section? You removed the one I did, and reordered it such that the GMO controversy section is the first thing people read, as opposed to anything about how the march was conceived. But it's completely up to you, apparently. I would be interested to hear your justification for the removal, and reordering, either way. You can find my version in the contribs if you want to use it for reference. Thanks petrarchan47tc 08:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The idea that I have full control (or any more control than any other editor) is patently ridiculous. Ironically, I did explain my reason for objecting to your reordering, on the article talk page. I explained it very specifically. And if anyone has any good ideas about an introduction, and they present them at the talk page, of course I'll be happy to engage with those ideas (or any others), as I have throughout this process (aspersions to the contrary notwithstanding). I'd even listen willingly to you there, if you would edit there in good faith. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Even me? How generous! Intros are pretty run of the mill for encyclopedic articles. You can figure this out for yourself. There is no allowance for me to edit in good faith at that article, especially when I'm sent to get approval first from the very editor trying to delete articles questioning GMOs and monsanto. It's quite a strange setup there. petrarchan47tc 22:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

edit revert

Hi Tryptofish.... re (human brain)- can you explain why you reverted my edit of inserting proper use of heptanoic as written in article and as you yourself have said the article uses (in your revert summation) and also removed correct wikilinks?? thank you Iztwoz (talk) 06:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you have also asked the same question at Talk:Human brain#edit revert, so I'll reply there, in case other editors would also like to comment. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		for calming choppy waters at the March Against Monsanto article Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I really appreciate it! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, I had already commented there, prior to your opening of the subthread, and I realize that this is just a formal notice because you mentioned me by name. I'm going to carefully read your rather long post, and then I'll add a comment there of my own. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for troubling you. Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

That's OK, although it's certainly been an adventure in edit conflicts and so forth. Please take to heart something that I said there: dispute resolution never works well when there is what might be called a wall of text. It's always better to focus on one thing. This is eventually going to find its way to ArbCom, and they will be willing to look at complexities and details, although even they enforce strict word limits. For now, it's telling that no administrator has responded at ANI. Most of them are thinking: this is too long to bother reading, and it's probably just a mess with people acting badly on both sides, so why bother. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I reckon there is no way I can fix that, is there? Thanks for condensing to try to make it more tractable for admins. Your comments raise a question - do you think I have acted badly? If so, how? I want to improve, always, and each of us is locked in our own head and need others' help to see more of the picture. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, and the very fact that you are interested in getting honest feedback seems to me to sharply differentiate you from the editors against whom you complained. At this point, try not to raise any further issues there, and respond only briefly to anything you feel needs rebuttal. And don't feel bad if nothing comes of it. No, I don't think you have acted badly. Really. But I do think that your mentions of side issues and of other editors who were more like bystanders will end up being used by those on the other side to try to make it sound like you acted badly. Always remember that other people are going to try to turn the tables on you. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks, will keep all that in mind. Jytdog (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

wikipediocracy

In case you don't know about it already, i thought you might like to see this page http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/08/12/wikipedia-as-a-political-battleground-after-a-gmomonsanto-content-dispute-longtime-wikipedia-contributor-viriditas-is-blocked, which has a thorough breakdown of the involved editors. I tried to help balance several GMO articles including M.A.M a couple months ago but got tired out from the argumentative circles from the pro-GMO crowd, which is their aim i think. El duderino ^(abides) 12:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me about it. I read it with great interest, and I appreciate the honest effort to provide an objective and constructive analysis with the intention of pointing out where Wikipedia needs to do better. I am particularly interested in seeing whether there is any evidence of editors who actually are working for Monsanto, and I would be happy if you would point me to anything that gets posted about that. I will also say that I think that the piece got two things clearly wrong, in the way that it criticized Jusdafax for a non-admin close, which is entirely within norms here, and the way it criticized JamesBWatson for supposedly not making a well-informed block, when in fact the blocking explanation was remarkably thoughtful, sensitive, and well-informed. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I see that I blocked Viriditas for a week "without a proper investigation into the content aspects of the case". I wonder how the writer came to that conclusion. Considering that in my block notice I listed several specific articles that were involved, and also mentioned other aspects of the editing history, I might have thought that it looked as though I had investigated the case. However, the repeated use of the word "content" is, for some reason, almost always an indicator that the writer is one of those people who for some bizarre reason think that (a) anyone who writes lots of articles should be exempt from any sanctions, no matter what they do, and (b) anyone who dares to impose sanctions on, or even to criticise, one of these sacred "content creators" must either be acting in bad faith or else be acting without taking the trouble to obtain full knowledge of the facts. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. Welcome to the Internet, where no good deed goes unpunished. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I seldom read the website in question, and appear not be be directly mentioned. In my ANI close, which I clearly identify as non-admin, I sought to find a way to bring both sides on the issue together. You are quite right that a non-admin close is not that unusual, of course, so the writer is uninformed on that point, at the very least. The past week or so has seen a number of developments around the 'pedia and now off-wiki that give me pause. I have stepped away for a bit and am monitoring as possible. Thanks for the alert and support. Jusdafax 18:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

You are of course very welcome. I wish I could take pleasure in the good things they said about me, but I do not, because they clearly got other things wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• The wikipediocracy article was written by Wer900 (talk · contribs) who has an Anti-GMO POV (by Anti-GMO I mean he thinks "GMOs are poorly regulated, made without regard to quality, deceptively advertised, and unbearably expensive", his words at wikipediocracy) and has been in constant communication with Viriditas. So it is not really surprising that he has this interpretation. IRWolfie- (talk)
  • The perception of GMOs has been largely neutral in the latest NAS report, linked at the bottom of my Wikipedocracy article. That is my perception; I am nowhere aligned with the March Against Monsanto protestors, and think that while the technology has potential, it is, indeed, poorly regulated, made without regard to quality, deceptively advertised, and unbearably expensive. Add to that the BS Monsanto contracts forbidding farmers to keep seed. Wer900 • talk 02:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Wer900, you can see above my thinking about the piece you wrote, and I thank you for what you said about me. As much as I welcome comments on this talk page, this really isn't the place for a debate about Monsanto, Wikipediocracy, biotechnology, or any of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Inwardly rectifying K channels

You indicated that not all inward rectifies require PIP2 for activation by adding "some". I'm curious which Kir channels you think are activated without PIP2? The literature has documented accounts for every single family member. I have personally tested the 1.1,2.1,2.2,3.3, and 6.2. Furthermore, when I do a sequence alignment every single family member has the lipid site invariably conserved. A couple of pH sensitive channels have a histidine instead of a lysine or arginine but this makes complete sense and there is no reason to believe that PIP2 isn't still binding especial when direct experimentation in oocytes indicates that indeed PIP2 is required for active channels. I think putting "some" channels is extremely miss leading. If you have information to the contrary please indicate where you are getting that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhD2005 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I made an error. I was going by two things. First, the source you cited was only about Kir 2, not the others. Second, some of the Kirs, such as 3 and 6, are clearly activated by other things as well (G-proteins, and ADP/ATP). I'll look back at the page again, and see about revising it. Also if you have published source material about the other Kirs, it would be great to add that to the page, to have multiple sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

the one thing we thought was resolved at the ANI

In case the notification didn't work - Bummer. Related to this ANI. Jytdog (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I've commented there, please see. I'll also reply more specifically to you, here. At this point, I think it's very important to move on, and to complain only when there is something really serious amiss (and unfortunately I fully expect that it's just a matter of time until that happens). As you know, I'm highly sympathetic to you, so please keep that in mind as I say what I'm going to say next.

You've complained previously about canvassing, where, mostly I think the case for it was weak. Someone who, down the road, wants to make you look bad will most likely try to claim that what you just asked me right here was canvassing. I can just about bet that that's coming. Now, I don't think that you really were canvassing me, not at all. But as you consider how someone could make a weak complaint, please be aware that other people who have their own agendas will try to make you look bad, on the basis of you making weak complaints, and jumping from that to presenting you as being too much of a complainer.

Likewise, I guess, for the merge things on the other talk page. I'm not even sure what the issue was there, and I'm too tired to make the effort to figure it out, and that's the way the typical admin reads ANI and the like. You really struck gold with the oversighter who helped you at COIN, because mostly the admins you will encounter are going to just be looking for an excuse to say everyone is equally to blame and wrap it up without having to delve deeply into the details. It's an all-volunteer website, and that's the reality.

I'm being such a hard-ass with you here because, first, I think you are smart enough to understand, and second, because I'm very sure this dispute is going to find its way to ArbCom, where everyone is going to get scrutinized, including you (and me). I'm sure the last thing you need right now is a reading assignment, but I'm afraid that I'm a former college professor, so here goes: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Evidence and argumentation. Don't get me wrong, I'm not telling you to start working on a case. But that subsection is remarkably honest about the right and wrong ways to communicate when one is in dispute resolution. Even at non-arb pages, like ANI, you've just had a trial-by-fire in the pitfalls of WP:TLDR and WP:KISS.

End of harangue, and sorry for the tone of it. I think you're an excellent editor, and now it's time (for both of us) to get back to content editing. Happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your honest thoughts and will keep them in mind. Taken in the good spirit in which they were offered. Thank you for all you have done. Really!! Jytdog (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

9/11 Truth stuff

Hey, completely unrelated to anything regarding the recent debacles, do you have any history/guidance on 9/11 truther issues? I tripped up on Ann Wright and there's a somewhat messy section there, was wondering if you had any tips. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, at this point I'm pretty much exhausted from the recent debacles, so my reply may not be exactly brilliant, and this isn't a subject that I'm interested in editing. But I think that Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat is kind of useful reading with respect to dealing with WP:FRINGE stuff. If you have a more specific question about the Wright page, I can try to answer it, but I don't really have any other general advice.

Since you are here, I'll bring up something else. I saw your comment at the very end of the ANI thing, and I followed some of that dialog about whether you were or were not following that other editor. I suspect that you were not, but it can look to an outside observer like you were. As I just said to Jytdog in the thread right above here, I expect that, eventually, the GMO etc. thing is going to wind up at ArbCom, so my sincere advice to you is to be very careful about what other editors, who have their own agendas, might find a way to willfully misconstrue about things you do, even if you mean well by it. The last thing you need is someone accusing you of WP:HAR, after all. For what it's worth. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

On the latter, understood. I'm not too worried, though. On the former, I just noticed that you tend to have some experience with combative situations, and I'm loathe to get dragged into some truther thing accidentally, so I was really just curious about sourcing and such on those issues. I'll take a look at that link, and if you know of anyone who could be helpful, I'd love to hear from them. Thanks! Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Good, thanks. Yes, I have more of that kind of experience than I really would want! Of course, one way not to get dragged into something is not to edit there, but if you do, the general rule of thumb is stick to the source material and stay away from commenting on other editors' motivations. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cruelty to animal incidents in Canada

You may wish to participate in the discussion. IQ125 (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Yet another barnstar for your collection

		All-Around Amazing Barnstar
		Thanks for helping out so many Wikipedians (myself; a mere newb, included) and frequently contributing to the WikiProject fishes!!! Ensignricky (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much! You really brightened my day. And it means especially much to me because it comes from a relatively new editor. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Dis-Vandalization help please

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	There are a number of accounts, one of which has vandalized the Stalking page, as of th 24th, -removing perfectly referenced, material, which was in use on another page word-for word This material was maliciously vandalized, removed - on the 24th of August, please check the log Dynomitedetails (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I checked your user talk page and the discussion at ANI. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Your free Cochrane account is on its way!

Please fill out this very short form to receive your free access to Cochrane Collaboration's library of medical reviews: Link to form.

If you have any questions, just ask me. Cheers, Ocaasi 13:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Brain edit

Just to say that you pluralized infection....in my dictionary it is a mass noun? I think it is more usual to say for example.."there is a lot of infection than ..there are a lot of infections"..Thanks Iztwoz (talk) 08:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

To the best of my understanding, and of course I might be incorrect, it depends upon how the word is being used. Obviously, a single instance of an infection is written in the singular. One can say, "this medication will protect against infection", where the meaning is, implicitly, plural, because it is referring to the concept of infection. On the other hand, one would say, "the patient has infections of the skin and the lung" (poor person!), because the meaning here is about multiple discrete infections. Consequently, "there is a lot of infection" refers to a situation in which infection is widespread, whereas "there are a lot of infections" refers to a situation in which multiple different infections have been observed. The sentence on the page talks about the blood-brain barrier protecting the brain against "toxins and infection"(s). I cannot imagine changing "toxins" to the singular, and consequently it makes sense to me to make "infections" plural as well. Perhaps we could change it to "toxins and infectious microorganisms", but I don't see that change as being necessary. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

[Talkpage stalker] How about "pathogens"? [7] (BTW, Trypofish, even though you readily cross the blood-brain barrier, please don't use that as an excuse for getting in there personally for some forbidden OR.) EEng (talk) 01:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Ha! Believe me, no one would want to get a look inside my head! (I still think "infections" is good enough, but I'm open to discussion.) --Tryptofish (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Pathogens (a) is linguistically parallel to toxins, so avoids the debate above; (b) is a bit more general.

You added something and put a cite-needed on your own addition? Time to revise WP:BURDEN, I guess. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Last word - I hope.....pathogens is an excellent substitute. But infection is a mass noun. If you saw a sentence which said 'there were a lot of cows and sheep in the field' would you change it to cows and sheeps? Iztwoz (talk) 07:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

As is often the case, infection can be either a mass noun or "count" noun:

How much sugar does this recipe require?

Fructose is one of the healthiest of the sugars.

The job requires too much travel.

A tourist will sometimes pick up one or more infections in his travels.

How much infection can his weakened system tolerate?

However, it's hard to construct examples, using infection as a mass noun, which you are likely to see in careful (especially medical) writing -- instead of the last example above I think a doctor would write, How severe an infection... or What level of infection... (and that last one seems ambiguous as to whether it treats infection as mass or not). But there's no doubt at all that the word can be used as a count noun, regardless of what your dictionary says.

The reason you'd never write sheeps in your example has nothing to do with sheep being a mass noun (which it cannot ever be except in exceptional circumstances) but rather that sheep is both singular and plural. Bad example indeed! However, I will offer the following alternative:

As anthrax epidemiologists we spend of lot of time counting cows and infections, helping to limit the spread of infection. We are called in when the first infection is reported.

EEng (talk) 08:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the informative explanation. Iztwoz (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

You'll get my bill. EEng (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel utterly useless here, but I'm grateful that you two figured it out. Happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

They also serve who only stand and wait. EEng (talk) 03:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

You beat me to it. Iztwoz (talk) 09:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, you get what you pay for. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom mailing lists

I'm probably going to suggest something very simple and straightforward as a procedure. Modifying the policy itself will be lengthy and painful, and not really worth the effort for a single word addition. We use the expression "appropriate confidence" in the policy and that is sufficient, in my view, for a clarifying procedural motion. Anyhow, I'm travelling for the next couple of days and aim to start tying this up after that, hopefully next weekend.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

That sounds very good! Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Context to give to individual\controversial studies.

I know this should be raised at the talk page, so feel free to move it there, but given the current climate at that location I thought I would get your impressions first. My understanding of WP:MEDRS is that more weight should be given to published peer-reviewed reviews of the literature. It specifically states that we should "Avoid over-emphasizing single studies, particularly in vitro or animal studies". However these (particularly Pusztai and Serelini) form an important part of the controversy. While I am relatively happy with the weight given to each one, it does pose the question of how to label or categorize them. I agree that individual is not correct, and that controversial is better. I was wondering about "dissenting" or "contradictory" as we state the scientific consensus (confirmed by RFC) earlier in the section. I think that may be unfair to Pusztai though as his may just be part of the scientific process, but an introductory sentence should put it in perspective. Basically just brainstorming as you edit summary suggested you were not convinced about controversial. AIRcorn (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me, and it's fine to do it here, given the, um, atmosphere at the page itself. The edit history is that it used to say "individual", then you-know-who changed it to "third party", which I didn't like because it implied that only those studies were untainted by corporate lucre. I tried to change it to that "evidence" title that you reverted back to "individual", and that was when I floated "controversial". The reason that I wrote the edit summary, about "controversial", the way that I did was because I expected objections on the grounds that it would be implying that the studies were not the real truth about how evil all those GMOs are, as in WP:RGW, and not really because I had doubts about myself. Sure enough, after you left your message to me here, you-know-who changed it to "other", with a hilarious edit summary (apparently, "controversial" is a weasel word, but "other" isn't). Anyway, I get it, that "controversial" is arguably a word to avoid. I've tried to think of something along the lines of "studies that concluded that GMO foods are unsafe" but I can't come up with anything that isn't overly wordy. That's as far as I've gotten with it. I see that now it's also had individual sub-headers pulled out for each of those studies, so it's clearly going around in circles. I'm not sure what to suggest next. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Restored controversial. As long as we have controversial in the title we can't really say it is weaselly to have it in a header, although it might upset adherents to the bible. Anyway I am happy with controversial at this stage. Since other editors are involved I will probably continue further discussions at the talk page. Thanks for your reply. AIRcorn (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Good, thanks. I think you made the right call. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

?

Just wanted to apologize again for upsetting you at the Controversies article. I honestly don't understand why we are working on the scope sentence without consensus on scope... it's not about winning for me - it is about really making progress, and I don't see how addressing the tag on "advantages" is useful for that ( i have not participated in the back and forth over the lead in the article or in Talk). If we don't agree on scope, we are going to be fussing over individually passages, endlessly... which I see as really unproductive, and really unpleasant too. I view the "cn" tag on "advantages" like you viewed the POV tag on the health section. let's let it sit til we address the underlying issues. again i am sorry. If you can and are willing, I would really like to understand what your goal is, why you think this has nothing to do with scope... what was so offensive about what i wrote. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not that upset, really, thanks. I feel like I keep giving you the same advice over and over again, and you tell me that you agree, and then I see you going back and doing the same things again.

First, about scope, that's a secondary concern for me. Yes, I understand that the lead sentence of any page serves to a large extent to set the scope of the content of the page. But the edits that I was talking about do not, in any way that I can see, alter the page scope from what it was before. All I was trying to do was to get rid of the empty language about "advantages and disadvantages" that was wasting everybody's time with a very silly "cn" tag. There is nothing in the language I suggest that changes anything about what the page is actually about. Consequently, I see no good reason for you to complain that I should have put my comment in a different section of the talk page. Fine, have a discussion about scope, but my immediate concern was the ridiculous edit warring over citations for the word "advantages".

About that "cn" tag, I think it was obnoxious too. And you could see that from what I was saying. The whole point was that I wanted to resolve it. But not by reverting. By suggesting alternative language that you seem to be ignoring.

Now here is what really troubled me about what you said. Your talk page comment to which I directed that reply was one in which you were basically appealing to me to understand how annoyed you were with that other editor. But I was trying to make a constructive suggestion that would resolve the thing that was annoying, and you were side-tracking the discussion, first, by complaining about scope, and second, by complaining about that other editor. I keep telling you not to get bothered by him, and you keep getting bothered by him. I don't know any more what to say about it. I don't know, maybe think of it as comic performance art: someone who keeps reverting everybody else with edit summaries that say don't edit war, that's actually pretty hilarious if you look at it the right way.

That same day, I see that you also followed him to the page about fast food restaurants. You are right on the merits, but you need to realize that it's not your "job" as an editor to, single handedly, clean up after everything that that person does. I'm sure there are editors around who are interested in food or restaurants, but not biotech or GMOs, who will look at that page and decide that this stuff doesn't belong there. They can take care of it. Maybe not right away, but that doesn't matter. It's not that important. Tryptofish's rule of editing^TM: "It's only a website." It's not like somebody's going to die or something if a bad edit sits there for a week or two.

I've warned you that you could end up with a topic ban (or maybe an interaction ban). At this point, I'd have a hard time arguing that it wouldn't be deserved. I've told you and Aircorn told you, stop getting into arguments with that person, stop using article talk pages to express your concerns about that person. Focus on content. You could start with my suggestion on the talk page, about the lead sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I see where I went awry. When I was describing Canoe's issues with scope, I was not complaining (!) and the only negative word I used was "attack" (which is not a bad word for deleting and calling it spam) but I see how that set you - and possibly others - so I will change that so it is more clear. I was trying to objectively describe the situation - which is that we do actually have persistent issues about scope. Canoe is here and he is objecting to the scope. That is a real issue. And I am open to a real conversation about scope. In several of the exchanges about scope with Canoe, I (and I think others) specifically appealed to the word "advantages" in the definition of scope in the article, to say "see this content, which is an advantage, belongs in the article". I am trying hard to avoid getting into arguments with Canoe that devolve into personal attacks -- and if you look back at the fast food page and the associated Talk, we actually had a productive interaction in which we successfully compromised. Very happy! Things look different from my perspective... relationships are dynamic, and can and do change. I am hopeful that we can work something out on the scope of the Controversies article too. Thanks for talking. Jytdog (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way

I've been cleaning house. If you want to tidy up a bit after me, you might find things in the "what links here" for Wikipedia:School and university projects that should go to WP:Student assignments. Thanks for all you do anyways, even if you don't feel inclined to tinker with my suggestion. =) Ah... And can't a boy dream? (This one is on my bucket list but it would be more arduous.) And I feel like sharing at WP:ENB will make the system explode. ;-) We should, in an ideal world, have every historical course page in User: and Wikipedia: space categorized as such. Though who knows, maybe that category exists already. I should check before I mention it. O well. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Biosthmors, there's nothing that stands out to me as something that I need to do, but if there is something specific, please let me know. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

BRAIN Initiative

The BRAIN initiative is not the same proposal as the Brain Activity Map. The goals of the BRAIN initiative should be listed as how the POTUS defined the initiative as defined in the White House fact sheet. The information reflected in this introduction is factually inaccurate. Referring to citations pre-launch of the BRAIN initiative is incorrect. For instance: The citation “ Markoff, John (February 18, 2013). "Obama Seeking to Boost Study of Human Brain". New York Times. Retrieved February 18, 2013.” is purely speculative and refers to the BAM proposal. This is also propagating the erroneous myth that there is a defined cost estimate or time frame - “Scientists involved in the planning said they hoped that federal financing for the project would be more than $300 million a year, which if approved by Congress would amount to at least $3 billion over the 10 years.” Congress has yet to approve ANY budget for this proposal and the President’s FY14 budget only included $110M.

The BAM proposal was a significant catalyst in the launch of the BRAIN Initiative and is right to be cited. But these two proposals are NOT synonymous and it is incorrect to perpetuate this inaccuracy.

Additionally, this statement is incorrect and needs to be fixed. “The White House announced that a detailed plan would be formulated by the end of the summer by a working group from the National Institutes of Health, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and the National Science Foundation, led by neuroscientists Cornelia Bargmann and William Newsome.[4][5][6] This working group is a working group of the Advisory Committee to the NIH Director and is charged with developing a strategic plan for NIH, not the entire BRAIN Initiative. Ex officio members from DARPA and NSF are on this group (and left off the roster provided on Wikipedia) but each partner is undertaking its own planning process. This was also emphasized during the release of the report http://news.sciencemag.org/brain-behavior/2013/09/brain-initiative-gets-little-more-detailed “Even in challenging budget times, however, NIH expects the agency to spend about $40 million on the initiative, Collins says. He emphasizes that NIH’s plan applies only to its own portion of the BRAIN project—neither the National Science Foundation, which has committed $20 million to the project, nor the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which has pledged $50 million, has released a road map for their research, or explained how they are setting priorities.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by User197677 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me this detailed explanation, and I think that you may be right about much of it. I'm going to copy this over to Talk:BRAIN Initiative, so that other interested editors can help discuss it. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

In case you like computer porn

User_talk:Citation_bot#September_2013 EEng (talk) 04:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I feel that it's getting a little old. But, whatever, um, triggers your bot. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

To other users reading this talk page: No, this is not what it sounds like! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I was so proud I was spamming all my best friends -- but suddenly I seem to remember that you'd already seen it. It wasn't my intention to exceed your OSHA recommended weekly exposure allowance. EEng (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Uh-oh. I'm getting spammed with porn. Sorry, I'm not in the market for cheap Viagra (or expensive, for that matter!) Seriously, my following of the bot talkpage grows out of the issue of how it reports in its edit summaries who triggered it, and the repercussions for some odd dispute resolution situations. That, um, discussion that you are participating in just happens to be on the same talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't plan to investigate this but someone once told me that there's pornography involving stuffed animals, so come to think of it I wouldn't be surprised if there really is a "bot-porn" genre -- I mean, c'mon -- R2D2 and C3PO? Can there be any doubt what was really going on there? EEng (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Please go take a cold shower, and make sure you haven't caught any computer viruses. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Why didn't I think of that??? [8] (That's the end of it, I swear!) EEng (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry

I am sorry that in September real life meant that I worked an average of 10 hours a day, and had exactly two days off, total. I'm sorry that the most time-consuming case of 2013 came in at the same time that I was trying to work on mailing list stuff. I'm sorry that the other two people on the committee who've shared some aspects of the "mailing list" file were both tied up for most of the month too. Mostly, I am sorry that you feel this level of need to micro-manage a committee you refuse to even consider joining, and that anytime anyone says "come help recreate Arbcom", they're met with disdain and accused of being manipulative. Contrary to popular belief, Arbcom isn't a very significantpart of this community, it's just a really time-consuming part; Wikiproject Military History has probably had ten times the effect on the project as a whole as Arbcom has. I can understand why you don't have any interest in putting yourself on the other side of your RFC; after all, everyone should spend their volunteer time the way they want. I'll be doing the same thing come January too. Risker (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

What I'm sorry about is that you feel badly about any of this. When I first joined Wikipedia, you were very helpful to me by leaving a message on another user's talk page: [9]. I thanked Stephen Bain when he left the Committee, and I was going to thank you (very belatedly!) after your term ends. I waited this long because I didn't want to create a recusal situation if I ever had to bring an ArbCom case. And of course, that situation eventually came to be water under the bridge. But your help to me then played a very big deal in preventing me from giving up on Wikipedia at the time.

Since then, I've come to have a very positive view of your work on the Committee. From what I could see from the outside, you play a very central role in keeping things working properly. If you had decided to run again this year, I would have unhesitatingly supported you.

I think that what you said to me about me trying to micromanage stuff is something you will come to reconsider after you reflect on it. I said, there, what I am trying to do. It's constructive, and it's an open Wiki. Really, we are all on the same "side" here. We all want things to work better. I know that you wanted to improve this stuff about the list, because I saw that draft in your user space. If you want me to work with you on it after you step down, I'll be happy to. And if you want me to work with you to move certain kinds of ban appeals off the Committee, I'll be happy to do that too. I never meant to make you feel bad about any of this. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The real irony here is that the rest of the committee work is what has gotten in my way in moving forward on a lot of the mailing list stuff that I've been working on in the background for over two years, and that I actually think I might be able to move forward on (in some small respects) after my term is over. There simply aren't enough hours in the day to do it all, especially now that my vision of what needs to happen to improve the project has taken me far outside of the confines of Arbcom, and even English Wikipedia. Well, we'll see if I have enough personal capital after my term to move forward on some things; it's kind of hard to predict. Risker (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Whatever happens, I'll be happy to help. Truly, I wish you only the very best! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Risker is the best that Arbcom ever had. What Arbcom and Wikipedia needs is lots of Riskers and Tryptofishes in high places. North8000 (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, North! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh wow, North, I just saw this now. Thank you very kindly! I really do hope that a whole slew of Wikipedia's best and brightest will be there when from failing hands we throw the torch. It's time for a renewal of the Arbitration Committee, and for that it needs fresh ideas and a willingness to re-examine practices to make them better for the community. Risker (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Meanwhile, I just wanted to suggest to you, Tryptofish, that you take a bit of time to read Elen's talk page again. I realised when I read it over today that I'd actually not read most of it during the contemporaneous discussions happening elsewhere. If I'd read it at the time, I may well have made some different decisions, including trying to figure out how to get around the 4 recused arbitrators. Risker (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I've got to marvel at the amount of time that some of you on the current Committee have suddenly found to discuss this thing now. I realize that you are coming at a lot of this from the perspective of evaluating Elen's conduct, but I'm coming at it from a different approach. I'm trying to look at it operationally, at how to make things run more smoothly. I consider whatever Elen did to be water under the bridge. And, really, I thank you for your kind words, amidst all the rest of this stuff. And I'm about to log out for the night, so please don't expect too many more replies from me until tomorrow. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Heh. I just don't want the new folks to move into the place, thinking it needs a bit of work here and there, only to discover that the carpet over there is covering rotten flooring, and that the fuses blow every time someone plugs in the kettle. I get that you're looking operationally. But except for posting actual emails (there are legal issues to that, as you know), every other option you've mentioned is already daily practice, and has been since before I was on the committee. This really was an aberrant situation, rather than a situation that can be reasonably predicted and managed by procedure. It's not the first time we've had an arbitrator go off the rails (it's the second or third during my tenure, and just before I joined, we had FT2), and every time it's been for different reasons. There's no really effective way to contain that. Risker (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Secrecy for Arbcom communications isn't a part of the mission of Wikipedia, it is a necessary evil for a few limited situations. It has no intrinsic value or ethics value as has been falsely implied, and IMHO there is far too much of it at Arbcom. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit on User talk:JamesBWatson mentions you.

I made an edit on user talk:JamesBWatson concerning user:Viriditas that mentions you.VViking_TalkEdits 12:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me about this. For anyone who may be interested about the thread to which you referred, in which I did indeed caution Viriditas, I also made something like the edit he was requesting: [10], but using my own judgment as to the correct balance of NPOV. It's an interesting ethical issue, balancing out what really is a net improvement to the project. Much of what I see on his talk page seems like requests for things that are non-controversial, but it gets into gray areas. And I see that he now has made a totally nasty personal attack about your user name. Anyway, other than my reply to you here, I'm going to refrain from making any other comments elsewhere at this time (partly because it sounds to me like JamesBWatson would rather let the issue rest, and that seems reasonable to me). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree JamesBWatson was notified of the behavior made a decision and I am done with it. Thank you VViking_TalkEdits 00:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, too. At this point, we just have to hope that things will be better after the end of the block, and if things turn out not to be better, we will deal with it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Flow Newsletter

Hey Tryptofish. I'm dropping you a note to let you know (or remind you) about Flow, the structured discussion system for Wikipedia that we're building. You may have heard about some of the longer-term vision for Flow in the past, but in the last two months we've been moving quickly to narrow down the short-term scope of the project, and we're keen to get feedback.

First: we've written up an explanation of the "minimum viable product" – the set of features that will be in the first, on-wiki deployment. Because discussions on Wikipedia are complex and varied, we're approaching Flow development as an incremental process of uncovering user needs for different types of discussion. The first release will be limited to a few WikiProject talkpages only, with the goal of testing out our first stab at peer-to-peer discussion functionality and improving it based on feedback from the WikiProject members who use it. If you've got any thoughts on the MVP, or on the philosophy we're trying to follow with this software, let us know on the Flow talkpage. If you know of a WikiProject that might be interested in testing this out, let Maryana know on her talkpage :)

Second: we're having a set of discussions around some experimental features we'll be trying in the first release. These include indenting and nesting of comments and comment editing. If you've got any practical thoughts on these, we'd appreciate hearing them. For background and feedback on the design, there are the ongoing set of design iteration notes, a Design FAQ, and a page for design feedback.

The software prototype is still in early development, and changing daily in small ways, with major goals updating every 2 weeks. If you've got comments about other bits of the software, we'll be holding an IRC office hours session in #wikimedia-office at 18:00 UTC on 17 November to talk about Flow as a whole, and fielding questions on the talkpage before and after then.

Third: this is a pre-newsletter announcement of a new WP:Flow/Newsletter signup page! If you'd like further updates, details, and requests for input, please add your name there.

Thanks, Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Due to multiple-human-error (the best kind of error!) the Office Hours meeting was announced with the wrong month. The logs for today's (quiet) meeting, can be seen at m:IRC office hours#Office hour logs.

The updated time and date of our next IRC office hours meeting is: 18:00 UTC on 24 October. Thanks, and sorry about the mixup. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin

Hi. Since you contributed to the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tryptofish. You have new messages at Civeel's talk page.
Message added 05:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Civeel (talk) 05:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25