User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 8

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

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

July – September, 2010

WP:GLAM/SI invite

Hello, Tryptofish/Archive 8! We are looking for editors to join the Smithsonian Institution collaboration, an outreach effort which aims to support collaboration such as Wiki-Academies, article writing, and other activities to engage the Smithsonian Institution in Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. Thanks!!!

Thank you very much for thinking of me. It looks like an excellent project. Geographically, it is not practical for me to get to the Institution in person, and I normally do not do much editing on pages directly related to it, so I'm probably not going to be able to offer much help, but I definitely can offer you my best wishes for success. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tryptofish, rewriting morality section in Atheism

Okay the part where we state the bible justfies torture and slavery. the word torture jumps out at me because I really don't remember the bible explicitly (or repeatedly) justifying torture, other than an hypothesized hell of course. and even that's not emphasized nearly as much as old-line preachers choose to emphasize it. What might you think of a change?

How about "massacres and slavery"? For there were many parts in the old testament where the Israelites were supposedly instructed to go into some area adn kill every man, woman, and child, and even the beasts in the fields. Wow. and they were supposedly "disobedient" when they didn't do so.

But, but, here's a problem. The reference given:

101 Ethical Dilemmas, 2nd edition, by Cohen, M., Routledge 2007, pp184-5. (Cohen notes particularly that Plato and Aristotle produced arguments in favour of slavery.)

it's just a bare reference, with nothing you can click on.

I have also added to a line of argumentation with two smaller, non-marquee religions. I particularly like the example of the Bahá'ís, progressive when it was formed in the mid-1800s, today, maybe not so much. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this with me here. I cannot find the part of that section that says those things, so I'm not sure exactly what you are proposing here. I'd like to suggest that you, instead, raise issues about what material to add, at the talk page of the article, instead of my talk page, because there may likely be other editors there who will also have input that they can make.

I've looked at your most recent edits about this, and I think that I am reluctantly going to have to partially revert them. Please let me explain that my reasons for doing so are that they are unsourced and appear to be WP:OR. Sorry about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

Hi there. Thanks for the welcome. Been reading the FAQ's and such for ages and I decided to start off with a few simple edits to ease myself into things here. I noticed you re-ordered the list on the gardening page about the same time I added Growbag. Hope I didn't get in your way while I was doing that... Haven't yet worked out how to determine if someone else is editing a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunawisp (talk • contribs) 21:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. In fact, you didn't get in my way at all. I decided to reorder them when your edit showed up on my watchlist. So, in fact, it was your edit that stimulated my edit. There's no way to know when someone else is editing at the same time you are, but sooner or later, everyone runs into edit conflicts. Best, --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. While looking around I've come across some broken internal links (wikilinks). While there seems to be lots of advice in the FAQ's on dealing with broken external links, I haven't yet managed to locate anything helping with broken internal ones. I was looking at Julien Frier and managed to fix one link where, presumably, someone had changed a date format or just entered it incorrectly but I've had no luck with the others on that page. I was wondering if you could give me some advice on the best way to deal with these sorts of issues. Many thanks. --Lunawisp (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure. There's no general solution that I know of, more a matter of figuring out what the correct name of the page in question is. Sometimes I start by typing what I think might be the page name into the search box, and seeing what comes up, and sometimes it's a matter of looking at related or linked pages and seeing if any of those link to what you are looking for, or going to the category pages for the categories at the bottom of the page you are editing. But in the example you gave, it turns out that there's a real convenient solution. Click through to the season page whose link you were able to add successfully, and then scroll down to near the bottom of that page. There, you'll find a template box that links to the previous and the succeeding seasons, which, in turn, have boxes linking on from them. Just follow those links to the ones you want, and select, copy, and paste the page name. I make a habit of copy-pasting these things, to avoid typos. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou. Think I misread the article and confused myself. Your advice and me simply walking away from it for a while helped. All sorted now. --Lunawisp (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Good! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

Thank you very much, I have reposted the NPOV concern here. Care to weigh in? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad I could help, at least to the extent that I did. It sounds like there is a dispute about whether that page should have a criticism section, but it's a matter of balancing that against WP:BLP. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the subject, and my hands are very full with other things, but I would be hopeful that your new post will attract the attention of editors who can help. Give it a week or so, and if nothing happens, another possibility would be to open a content WP:RFC. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

Hi Tryptofish, I would like to invite you to a discussion on setting up good guidelines for tennis player notability. Please feel free to give comments and suggestions there. Thank you. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 12:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you very much for the invitation. Actually, I've had that watchlisted all along, and I have been following the talk there, although I haven't yet added anything there myself. My principal interest is in making sure that the guidelines are kept sufficiently rigorous, and I'll continue to keep an eye on that. I probably don't have much useful to contribute about some of the more specific aspects of the criteria. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

thank you

thank you for your welcome Xurtio (talk) 08:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You are very, very welcome! I'm glad to see that you are continuing to work on the subject matter. By the way, despite the comment you made, no way would I be "nice" to you or to anyone else just in order to be nice if I thought you were wrong on the merits. Jean-Francois does very high quality work on neuroscience history pages, but he has a tendency to be harshly critical of other editors even when there is absolutely no need at all for such harshness (see also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience/Archive3#SfN Wikipedia Initiative Update). Writing at Wikipedia, you run into all kinds of personalities, and it's usually a matter of having to find ways to work with them productively instead of taking it personally. It dismays me that he came out with all guns blazing towards you instead of just calmly and objectively making suggestions for improvement. I know it's hard, but you shouldn't have taken it so personally (yeah, I know that sounds empty and pompous!). Anyway, now it's a matter of moving forward. And you might, perhaps, be interested in taking a look at neural coding, where I'm planning to merge some other pages into that page and would welcome some input from others. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, intellectually I know not to let it get to me, but I became emotionally compromised because of the emotional investment in the article, which is also something I wouldn't intentionally submit to. But that's what got me editing on Wikipedia: I got excited and inspired when I realized that there was an established practice for the field I was interested in. A necessary christening, for someone of my passion, to construct creatively and destroy critically the objects of your desire. Personal growth, developmont, etc. Xurtio (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! And thanks for your input at Talk:Neural coding. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Lol

I can't believed you changed:
"Scientist Richard Dawkins has opined that often religious practitioners do not believe in the view of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA)."
to:
"Scientist Richard Dawkins has said that religious practitioners often do not believe in the view of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA)."
which is pretty much the same thing. Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Believe it. "Opined" sounds like we are distancing ourselves from his opinion. "Said" satisfies WP:NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

rolls eyes*Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Spoilsport!

:) ++Lar: t/c 03:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ha! More like a wet fish, actually. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Whoops

Sorry about that. I must have absentmindedly clicked the wrong button. Sorry for the trouble. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Yeah, that rollback button can be pesky. It wasn't my comments you deleted anyway. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment

As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Interactive pathway maps on MCB articles

Hi Tryptofish. We noticed that a few interactive pathway maps were moved to external links. I'd like to discuss these edits with you and see if we can find a better solution. First, let me point out the thread were we first proposed these maps with the Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject community. I think they add value to articles as seen as pathway diagrams embedded in the article and we got some level of approval from the MCB community. Second, your edits resulted in link directly to the template pages feeding the diagrams. I think links directly to template pages are a bad idea. Templates should be used but not seen. Thus, our interactive pathway map strategy requires having the full pathway on at least one appropriate article (e.g., Nicotine for the Nicotine Pathways), which gene-level and component maps can link to (e.g., like Dopamine). The component maps are much smaller, using the crop feature. I'm interested in hearing your concerns and ideas for making the best use of these graphics in biology-related articles. Thanks! AlexanderPico (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alexander. Thank you for asking me about this. Actually, I was rather conflicted about the edits I made, so I definitely do not regard them as locked in stone. Also, I was (obviously) unaware of the discussion to which you linked. To some extent, I was uncomfortable with the sort of promotional nature of the way the text around the pathways image seemed to be promoting an external Wiki, per WP:EL. I'm not sure whether it is within policy here to have links to other Wikis within pages here. More significantly, I was reacting to the size of the images, which I see was also a matter of discussion at the link you gave me. The ones I saw are simply way too big, and should be configured as thumbnails if they are brought back to the main text. In thumbnails, the reader can click on it to see it full size. Finally, some of the text around the images was factually incorrect. For instance, there is no nicotine expressed in dopamine neurons. And there are acetylcholine pathways, but not nicotine ones. But I'm perfectly receptive to having the edits I made reverted, and I would also be happy to discuss these issues I have raised, elsewhere, perhaps at the Medicine WikiProject. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and the lively discussion at the MCB site. I've made most of the changes already based on that discussion. The perspective of "undue weight" has helped me identify inappropriate uses of the templates and will help us avoid these in the future. I've kept all your edits and even removed the maps from external references until we develop proper pathway articles. I was also concerned about these appearing promotional (not intended), and thus appreciate your suggestion for including a citation rather than explicit link. I've already made this change to all our templates. I'll continue to watch the MCB thread for follow-up discussion. AlexanderPico (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

And thank you as well! I removed a few more, and I appreciate that this discussion is proving very constructive and helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop

Do not follow me to pages you have no involvement in to import your grudges. I thought that behavior had stopped, and I won't put up with it starting again. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Do not manufacture artificial warnings on my talk page. You posted an RfC. I responded. Appropriately. And I have never followed you to pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops

[1] and thanks for the polite way you handled this; although I'd prefer to characterize the discussion as such, rather than as 'argument'. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey no problem. And I'll even make a null edit to modify my edit summary. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC Help

Hi Tryptofish, as this is the first RfC I have created, I am confused as to whether I should refile it in RfC/U or leave it until it is closed and some consensus is reached that it should be moved there. Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 18:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Robert. I guess I should first say that I'm not an administrator, so I may not be the best person to ask. Of the people you list who are already involved, I recognize Fastily's name as a very experienced administrator, so you might want to touch base with them. To start an RfC/U, the rules are more complex than for a content RfC. To start, you need a second editor and both of you need to have tried unsuccessfully to resolve the issue at the subject's user talk. I remember that you listed a significant number of users who were already involved. Now beyond that, I'm not convinced there's a right-or-wrong answer to what you asked me. If you can get an RfC/U properly started, then you ought to close the content RfC (simply by removing the RfC template, and the bot will take it from there). On the other hand, you could leave things a while pending a consensus, and then take it from there. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

You are receiving this because you have commented on either Autogynephilia, Homosexual transsexual, or Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory in the past two years; all such commenters have received this notice. It has been proposed to merge these three articles to eliminate WP:Redundancy, WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, and to keep the focus on the specific Blanchardian theory of M2F transsexuality (in contrast to Transsexual sexuality, which would be to focus on the subject in general). Please feel free to comment on the proposal at Talk:Autogynephilia#Merger proposal. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

On the proposed merger of Autogynephilia, Homosexual transsexual, and BBL theory

The actively interested editors of the pages on Autogynephilia, homosexual transsexual, and BBL theory have been discussing a merger. You are an editor that was deeply interested and involved in the past. straw Poll on the merger proposals. I am notifying you of this poll as a courtesy. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for asking me. I've looked at both of these proposal discussions. I remember that I responded well over a year ago to an RfC about Homosexual transsexual, where largely the same editors were disagreeing about largely the same issues, and it was difficult to resolve it then. I've looked again, and I'm afraid that I'm not going to be able to shed any new light on it. The subject matter is very specialized and difficult for a non-expert to grasp, and I'm afraid that I just don't understand it with enough sophistication to be able to help. Sorry, and good luck. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Atheism

Tryp - please see Talk:Atheism for discussion. Monotheists reject "belief in the existence of deities". The sentence obviously needs a fix - and just inserting "any" will not fully do the job either JimWae (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Jim, I did see it, before reverting you. If you feel that strongly, take it back to talk, and give editors the opportunity to respond. Per WP:BRD, you were bold, I reverted, now we discuss. But frankly, I see it as navel-gazing, not a helpful change to make. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

neurogenesis page

Hello Tryptofish, I noticed that you removed an external link to the neurogenesis page that I recently revised. That link contained some information on the early research in adult neurogenesis that is not readily available and is very relevant to the topic under discussion. I have put the link back in, along with a rewriting of the history of adult neurogenesis research that includes the work of others from the 1960s onward into chronological order. New references have been added as well. All of that is historically accurate and should be left as it is. Please note that I have just began trying to add information to wikipedia topics and may make mistakes learning the wiki markup language. Thank you for your invitation to join some wiki groups. I know that I am making reference to my own research and that of Joseph Altman, but it is historically accurate and has contributed substantially to the field of developmental neurobiology. I am trying to put all into historical context, and I do not want to give the impression that our work is the most relevant to a particular topic. I would be glad to get your suggestions as to how I can contribute factual information to wikipedia topics without violating guidelines to external linking and conflict of interest. However, our research has added new knowledge to this field, and I think we should be accepted as experts in this field and be allowed to contribute. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirleybayer (talk • contribs) 21:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me chime in here if I may. I'd like to start by saying that as a hippocampologist I've been aware for many years of how important the work by you and Dr. Altmann is. Also we on Wikipedia have been notably lacking in any expertise on development -- it's my own weakest area, and this was a frustration to me last year when I was working on the nervous system article. What hasn't come through clearly is whether the site you are linking to is of historical interest only or whether it is useful to somebody looking for a good picture of current understanding. I certainly have no doubt that it's relevant to the historical story though. Looie496 (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Looie: Thanks for your welcome! Please regard our work on hippocampal development as "current understanding" in the field. That is because (to my knowledge) there are very few neuroscientists still studying hippocampal development, and we have done extensive work there. Some of our papers are still "current," even if they occurred some time ago! Unfortunately, many of these studies are not available to students unless their University maintains a very expensive subscription to back issues--or archived issues--of specific Journals. The website that we have put out is specifically to make our work available so that other scientists can build on that with their own studies using excellent new techniques that we did not have when we were working. I would love to join some WikiProjects but I don't quite know how to do that yet. Any guidance you have would be welcome. I should probably set up a userpage and a talk page?Shirleybayer (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I see you've already got your user page started, and of course your user talk page was started for you. I also see you just signed up for the neuroscience WikiProject. Be sure to watch-list the project talk page as well as any articles that interest you. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi everyone, and welcome. Shirley, I actually would echo what Looie said here, and I really do welcome having new editors who can bring new areas of knowledge to our neuroscience pages. And I have no objection whatsoever to you reverting my reversion—that kind of give-and-take is a big part of how Wikipedia works (or doesn't work, in some other people's opinions, but that's another conversation). What caught my attention originally was that you had made a series of edits adding external links to a site with which you are affiliated, to multiple articles, some of them on my watchlist. Wikipedia has chronic problems with people who are not acting in good faith as you are, whose editing patterns look very similar, and we have editors who patrol for and revert such external links, and some of those patrollers can be downright unfriendly. I've seen some new neuroscience editors feel like they got jumped on very harshly in such situations. So, bottom line, I felt that I needed to give you a heads-up on your talk page not to fall inadvertently into such a trap, but I still welcome having you as an editor. It would be especially good if you will add text content with references, as opposed to just adding links. Please feel free to ask me more questions. Happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello again Tryptofish--Believe me, I do not want to give the impression that our work is superior to others, but I can totally understand why you let me know about the apparent conflict of interest and lack of "etiquette." I just want to let others know that there is a place to go online where they can easily get our papers and books. I intend to put more of our out-of-print pubs on that website when I get the time. One thing I should probably do is use a more obscure username--that just shows my inexperience in wikipedia usage. I have no idea who you are, so if you make contributions in your field and reference your own work it does not appear to be a conflict. Now I notice that no one uses their own name. Is there some guideline about naming? Thanks for your help, anyway.Shirleybayer (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I promise that I really do understand, and everything you ask is entirely reasonable for new editors. (My own first edit to Wikipedia was speedy-deleted by an administrator.) I don't think anyone around here doubts your good intentions. I just wanted to make very sure that you wouldn't accidentally do something that would attract unpleasant attention, and then get turned off from participating. As it happens, both Looie and I are people who hold or have held academic positions in neuroscience, and both of us intentionally do not use our real names, partly to avoid appearing to "pull rank". (I've seen students and patients make excellent edits.) I have made it a point to never cite my own work on Wikipedia. I try to keep articles about topics I've worked on accurate, but I steer clear of covering my own work (or work by any of my major competitors, for that matter), and just leave it to others to cite it or not, and that has always worked out fine (maybe my own work just isn't that noteworthy!). Actually, there is no policy about using or not using one's own name as a user name. Some people do use their own names, and even have photographs of themselves and other personal information on their user pages. It's a matter of personal choice. For me, the most important reason for using a nom-de-screen is one of privacy. I edit in a lot of subject areas unrelated to neuroscience (some examples: animal rights, religion) where people can have very strong opinions, and, frankly, there are some nuts on the internet whom I'd rather not have know where I live! The policy about user names is given at WP:Username policy, but I doubt you would do anything contrary to it. If you are considering changing your name, I guess the policy you should watch out for is WP:SOCK. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please review new article

I started a new article - Criticism of the Talmud - and if you have some free time, I'd appreciate it if you could review it and identify any shortcomings (lack of neutrality, etc), so I can improve the article. Or, of course, you are free to edit the article yourself. Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Free time?? :-) OK, will do. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :)

You were one of the few people to comment so exhaustively in my RfA :) And yes, thanks for praising my poetry (I though the poetry was insane though :)) Wishes always Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 19:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, congrats! And happy mopping! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Domagk and Trefouël (about discovery of sulfanilamide)

Bonjour, Tryptofish, I copy the following message (posted to Pharmacology project a few months ago), and I dare to send it to you, remembering how you have once taken care of a previous remark of mines. I hope I do not disturb to much. Et je vous salue bien cordialement. --Thierry (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

“Gerhard Domagk and Jacques and Therese Trefouel (1935) are generally credited with the discovery of sulfanilamide”

This sentence from Sulfanilamide page, makes a confusion between discovery of Prontosil (sulfamidochrysoïdine), by German chemist Domagk at the beginning of year 1935, and later discovery, at the end of the same year, of sulfanilamide (p-aminophénylsulfamide), by French team Jacques and Thérèse Tréfouël, Federico Nitti and Daniel Bovet, in laboratory of Ernest Fourneau at Pasteur Institute. Le sulfamide or 1162 F (F as the first letter of Fourneau) is a metabolic part of Prontosil, the only one effective against bacteria. Sulfamidothérapie really began when this active agent had been isolated at Pasteur Institute.

I am myself not able to contribute in such bad English you can read here, so I pray you to mention the fact. You may refer to your page Sulfonamide (medicine) or Sulfa drug and to French articles fr:Ernest Fourneau, fr:Gerhard Domagk, fr:Antibiotique sulfamidé, fr:Daniel Bovet, fr:Prontosil, fr:Institut Pasteur. Regards. --Thierry (talk) 09:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour Thierry! Avec plaisir, I have made an attempt at doing that. Thank you for asking me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

My most sincere thanks to you, Tryptofish. I just allowed myself to complete your paragraph with some accents, links, precisions or references. Would you please have a look on this intervention, and check it? Bien à toi. --Thierry (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Du rien. I did, and made some very minor corrections. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

En voilà, du bon travail d'équipe! Cordialement merci et, j'espère, à bientôt. --Thierry (talk) 07:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

re ANI

Hello, Tryptofish. You have new messages at PrBeacon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ok

Fully agree with this. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Good! I'm glad. Thanks for letting me know. Best, --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)