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

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

November, 2018 – February, 2019, plus some April – October, 2019

I haven't had the heart to say anything, partly because I suspect there's useful new material in there somewhere, but somethings gonna have to be done about the elite and prestigious gold standard pinnacle zenith of unmatched and unrivaled prestige stuff being added. It makes me want to vomit. E Eng 14:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Just got back here, and haven't looked yet for the antiemetic, but the page looks to me like there are eyes on it now. I don't feel like getting involved, but if it keeps up you could try an RfC or perhaps WP:COIN. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

You're on the short list of people I would push to do this. A rare non-admin who could probably make it (first one? I don't remember). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh my - while he is undoubtedly an excellent choice, my concern is that he will never see WP in the same way. Why would we do that to one of our most trusted and beloved editors? He is our go-to consultant and a Wiki friend to many. ^{Atsme ✍🏻 📧} 14:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you, and what both of you said was really sweet and is much appreciated.

Not the first time I've been asked this, probably won't be the last, and there haven't been any changes in my position about it. I'm really not into hat-collecting, and I'm not going to do anything like this unless or until it feels right. First of all, it looks to me like the community as a whole tends to feel that arbs should already be admins. But as I said in a similar reply here fairly recently, I expect to be around here a long time, so there is plenty of time for things to change. At some point, I probably will do an RfA followed later by running for ArbCom, but it will be when I feel like doing it. Thanks again, but not this year. (Oh, and about that masochism, Atsme, do you still have that whip?) -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back, Tryp! You were missed. I was concerned that maybe somebody snagged you. 🎣 ^{Atsme ✍🏻 📧} 04:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Post-SfN venting

Having come back from the Society for Neuroscience meeting, I feel like venting here about two things I observed, one good, the other not. Yes, I know about not-a-forum, but I'm putting this here anyway.

You might not expect Pat Metheny to be part of that meeting, but he was, and I was immensely impressed. Every year at these conventions, they have an event called Dialogs Between Neuroscience and Society, where someone well-known for something completely outside science discusses with neuroscientists how what they do can illuminate neuroscience. (One of my favorites from quite a few years ago had Apollo Robbins demonstrate how sleight of hand relates to selective attention.) This year, they had Metheny discuss with Charles Limb, a neurosurgeon who does research about the auditory system (hearing) (do take a look at his BLP), about how improvisation onstage might be mediated neurally (no answer, but raises fascinating questions). Metheny, who dropped out of formal education to pursue music, gave an opening lecture that ran circles around what most university professors can do. Very, very impressive, a brilliant guy.

But on the downside, something really appalled me. At these meetings, there are large numbers of preliminary presentations of studies that are presented as posters, rows and rows of poster boards in a huge room, with a presenter standing in front of each of them and crowds of people circulating around. Because there are thousands of these at SfN meetings, I do a computer search before going to the meeting, and put together an itinerary for myself of everything that I will go to. This year, one of the many posters that I was interested in was from one of the universities in England, with the first, presenting, author a PhD student from that lab. This particular PhD student is Iranian, having gone to England to study. Turns out that she was prevented from coming to the meeting in the US because of the travel ban here. When I got to the poster, someone had put up a poster in which all of the science was blurred out so one could see that it was there, but it was completely unreadable. Only one section at the side of the poster was readable, with a photo of the student followed by a statement that she had written. She said that she was blocked by the travel ban and she and her advisor agreed that it would be best not to present anything at all, and that she hopes very much to be able to come next year. A very elegant presentation of an appalling situation. I had an Iranian PhD student in my own lab years ago, and I know for a fact that there is a younger generation there that is well-educated and predisposed to be pro-US and friendly to Israel. It pissed me off so much that I decided to vent about it here.

End of pontification. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I cannot speak to the topic but I can speak to the act of pontification - not to be confused with forni- although that has been a hot topic at WP:CIVILITY of late. For this type of monument, I believe it's in the best interests of the project to call in the best of the best, so I hereby solicit (not to be confused with solicitation) The Great One, and all the great minds that play in his yard. ^{Atsme ✍🏻 📧} 19:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC) All was intended as humor to serve as a minor distraction from what I thought was upsetting you. Also, apologies for putting the box above the TP line - it didn't fit below it, either. ^{Atsme ✍🏻 📧} 02:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't upset at all, so my apologies for having sounded that way. It was more like cantankerous spouting of opinions, what was on my mind and I thought might perhaps be interesting. But (aside from having hurt my back the day after I posted the talk section above, feeling better now), my frame of mind is fine. Nothing for you to worry about. Thanks for being concerned on my behalf! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 14#Category:Victims of school bullying, there is a perfectly good reason for me to be pissed-off. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey neurosciencefish -- maybe you can help me? Where in WP is disinhibition described, in the neuroscience sense? The best thing I found was Summation (neurophysiology) -- disinhibition is a behavioral thing... Jytdog ( talk) 03:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

That's a good question. I looked around, and I didn't find anything either. (For those playing along at home, if Neuron A is inhibited by Neuron B, and Neuron C inhibits Neuron B, then Neuron C disinhibits Neuron A. Kind of cool: Neuron C uses an inhibitory neurotransmitter, but it is actually excitatory for Neuron A. The cellular equivalent of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", sort of. Strictly speaking, it's not exactly the same thing as summation, which is typically within a single cell.)

I guess one option would be to make Disinhibition (neuronal) blue. Alternatively, it could be a section of neurotransmission, or neurotransmitter, or neural circuit. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for looking and thoughts! Jytdog ( talk) 00:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

My pleasure, of course. I'm going to ponder it a bit, and then write something after I figure out where best to put it. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking of writing a section on "regulation" in neural circuit, that could be expanded and perhaps SPLIT eventually if needed but i am sure you could do it more efficiently and better :) ... Jytdog ( talk) 01:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad you're thinking neural circuit, because I was starting to think that too. (I don't see it as a standalone page.) If you want to focus on other aspects of regulation, by all means go ahead. I'll focus on this. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 02:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Tryptofish/ACE2018.

Be sure to vote! No Florida recounts here! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Christmas already? lol Kidding aside, I had completely forgotten about the Arbcom elections. Thank you for the reminder by editing your own talk page which then popped up on my watchist lol - jc37 02:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh - major disappointment - Not that you don't write great voter guides, but I thought this was a shameless self-promotion of you running for Arbcom.... - jc37 02:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

That's very nice of you to say. I comment more about that a bit higher up on my talk page. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 01:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I see from my watchlist that numerous editors got this message in duplicate. How come they get to vote twice, and I only get to vote once? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 01:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

They're likely from Chicago. TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I thought maybe they went back to their cars and changed their shirts. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 01:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Bishzilla and I only got one each, which hardly seems fair. Surely Bishzilla should get to vote more than once. And where is Darwinbish's message?! Bishonen | talk 22:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC).

I agree! I think that you and the mighty Zilla should both vote. Preferably for opposing slates. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

😂 ^{Atsme ✍🏻 📧} 23:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it sure looks like Atsme was able to get multiple votes to "stick". -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

😂 - you're hot tonight! ^{Atsme ✍🏻 📧} 00:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Then I must be doing something right tonight! Hardly anyone ever tells me that I'm hot. (swipe left) -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

	Wishing You A Happy Turkey Day!
	Thanksgiving chuckles... What smells best at a Thanksgiving dinner? Your nose. What did the turkey say to the computer? Google, google, google. 😊🦃 Atsme ✍🏻 📧 17:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! But 42?? Now I'm not going to be hot any more. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

They're called "hot flashes" but I thought you were past men of pause. ^{Atsme ✍🏻 📧} 00:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, that does give me pause. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

🐾🐾 ^{Atsme ✍🏻 📧} 00:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Did someone say Big boy pants?? Here's your 1:32 essential guide to the meme legacy .... Martinevans123 ( talk) 23:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

And that was Martinevans 1:32. Amen. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

No really, he's just a good friend, honest. Martinevans123 ( talk) 00:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Yep, no question that was him, Tryp. He occasionally sees things that aren't there, like "big boy pants" when the section title reads "Put on your big pants..." - he must not know that fish are not-gendered. (It's hard to believe that video got 3,241,159 views!!) ^{Atsme ✍🏻 📧} 00:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I claim only about 5 of those. -- Big Boy Fish ( talk) 00:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of food...I came across another ?article? (while looking for excuses to successfully convince my coach that increasing my carb intake would be a good thing). I perked up after seeing the following: "The hippocampus is usually the first part of the brain to deteriorate with neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's," explains senior author on the study, David Le Couteur. "However, the low-protein high-carbohydrate diet appeared to promote hippocampus health and biology in the mice, on some measures to an even greater degree than those on the low-calorie diet." My first thoughts were - wow, I'm a tiny bit familiar with that part of the brain. Granted, mice aren't humans, but I have a Wiki friend that's a fish, and fish can do amazing things - like shit an island - so why not at least ask? ^{Atsme ✍🏻 📧} 23:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Shit an island? Me??

Apologies - that was not a reference to your recent scopy rather I was referring to this. ^{Atsme ✍🏻 📧} 00:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh no, it never even crossed my mind that you were referring to that. Just a facetious remark, lest it be thought that I am that much full of it! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, if you want to have the intellect of a mouse, I guess that might work. Mice and most of us evolved under entirely different metabolic needs, so... nah. As for carbs, complex carbs are fine, sugars, not so much.

Anyway, this fish is thankful for all my wiki-friends (or at least most of them)! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Did someone mention the intellect of a moose?? Or was that something about a camp hippo?? Martinevans123 ( talk) 22:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Did someone say they brought mousse? I want some! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I can't help feeling you're being a trifle partisan here, Trypto. [1]. Martinevans123 ( talk) 23:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

No need to be a spotted dick about it! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tryptofish - hope you are keeping well. I've pretty much reached the limits of my knowledge for Sissinghurst, and I think the bones are there. I hope you like it. If you have the opportunity to comment on/correct/amend my horticultural errors, or indeed anything else, that would be excellent. I'm hoping to push it to Peer review in a bit. Let me know what you think. Best regards. KJP1 ( talk) 15:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

My apologies for not getting to this sooner, but I haven't forgotten about it. As it happens, I got a bit delayed in getting to where I have those books I told you about, but I do expect to be there in about one week. As soon as I have those sources in hand, I intend to work on the page quite seriously. I just figured it wouldn't be a good plan for me to do it before I had those sources. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely no apology necessary. Unfortunately, I have the patience of a small child when I've worked on something, and itch to get it on to the next stage. But there really is no hurry. Far better that we take a good article through, than something rushed. Take whatever time is needed, and I promise not to hassle. I shall just mentally park it, and go off and work on something else. It's hardly that there isn't other stuff to do here! All the best and get in touch when ready. KJP1 ( talk) 21:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

No problem at all. I don't feel at all hassled. I have a tendency to stretch myself too thin. But I am genuinely looking forward to working on the page. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Sebastian Helm. That ND has retired complicates matters, I suppose. E Eng 13:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've got a couple of wiki-dramas erupting simultaneously, but I'll get onto this one as soon as I can. I think the retirement does not excuse anything. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Is there something in the drinking water around here? Seeing yet another drama, I think I'll wait until you are, um, back, before going ahead with this. Sigh. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@ EEng: I'm following up with you on this, and I have not forgotten. At the time of your original message to me, I left this on his talk page: [2]. And, no surprise, he has gone radio silent since then. I guess he pops his head up from his burrow once a year, and if he sees his shadow, goes back down into it, so to speak. I dunno what to say. It's hard to make a case for desysopping if he never makes use of admin tools, at least a case that would get anywhere at any of the noticeboards. More watchful waiting? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

More watchful waiting. As you know I've run into some prick admins, but this is an especially arrogant case. E Eng 19:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Be careful not to get pricked. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Tryptofish! I saw that you are the author of the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions essay. I'm participating in a discussion where WP:DECORATIVE has come up, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 November 23#File:Dril.jpg, regarding multiple uses of Dril.jpg in the article dril. Since you wrote that essay, I imagine you have considerable experience with deletion discussions generally and would have insight into some of these issues that have come up in this discussion. I don't intend to canvas; I have no idea how you might feel about the usage under discussion, I don't know whether you'll agree or disagree with my perspective, and of course it's perfectly fine if you disagree with me or if you choose not to weigh in at all. But however you feel, I think your voice and experience would be an immense help to disentangle some of the thorny and somewhat novel issues that have come up in discussion. All the best, — BLZ · talk 21:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for asking me in such a nice way, I really appreciate that. Sorry that my opinion is not the same as yours. I hope that the suggestion I made there, about block quotes, will prove helpful. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I would like to see an expansion to User:Tryptofish/Lazy policy arguments#The owner, in which the owner's neighbor reverts on the grounds of that the change wasn't discussed with the owner, even though the neighbor supports the change.

You: Bold edit

Neighbor: I'm reverting because you didn't discuss this first.

You: Okay, let's discuss it. What are your objections?

Neighbor: My objections? I don't have any objections. It's a great proposal. I reverted because Owner might object.

You: Okay, Owner, do you object?

*sound of crickets*

WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

That's a great idea, thanks! I'll work on it within the next day or so (will be on an airplane much of today). Thanks for your interest in the essay! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 14:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about your Wikifriend, Tryp...you did all you could and more. ^{Atsme ✍🏻 📧} 15:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Atsme. You are a true Wikifriend, too. All things considered, that is a remarkably generous thing for you to say. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

	It's that time of year!!
	I hope Santa brings you everything you wished for!!! Atsm e ✍🏻 📧 23:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and the same to you! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Just a little FYI - the hummingbird on the ornament was a picture I shot on Bonaire, and then I created a composite using other images in my archives to create the scene, so it wasn't a "quickie". 😊 ^{Atsme ✍🏻 📧} 23:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

And how do you know that I didn't ask Santa for a "quickie"? (No, I don't mean that Santa should give me one...) -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I just know - partly because you're too articulate in your requests and thorough in your research - no stone left unturned - besides, Santa doesn't really exist...right? ^{Atsme ✍🏻 📧} 00:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand, one can assign more than one meaning to "Santa Claus is coming." -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Which reminds me...why doesn't Santa have any kids of his own? Answer. ^{Atsme ✍🏻 📧} 00:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

👏👏👏 -- Tryptofish ( talk) 01:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

^{Atsme ✍🏻 📧} 01:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I just want to note that what you changed was still correct, see WP:SNODGRASS. Semi Hyper cube 20:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that – and let me add, a great essay! But that Miss Snodgrass thing is from EEng, and we all know that he doesn't know what he's talking about. ^FBDB -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

...Or, about what he talking is. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

		Happy Christmas!
		Hello Tryptofish, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?" My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD| Talk 22:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC) Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

Thanks! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the removing your edits. I usually resolve edit conflicts, but had to rush out. AIRcorn  (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

No need to apologize: it was someone else's edit conflicts, not yours at all. And thanks for the very good work you have been doing at that page! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

...to understand the gender issues that have been brought to light by academia and WP. I never had any issues corroborating with anyone - doesn't matter who-what-when ^{(with the exception of a small few)} - but since I've been editing WP, I sometimes feel like I'm walking on thin ice for fear of inadvertently offending someone. I think you know me well enough as an editor to know my position on editor retention. After 40+/- years of trying ^{and failing} to perfect my grammar, I am now expected to do a 180 and forget everything I've learned when referring to someone based on gender/species. I'm having a bit of trouble adapting to the changes we're expected to accept as it relates to the very basics of humanity/biology - not that I'm rejecting it, rather it is a matter of trying to change the way I've addressed people for most of my adult life. It appears humanity is now on the same level as changing technology that requires upgrades every fricken 90 days. Who is responsible for sending the updates to our mainframe's OS, and how does one reprogram such complex mapping/firing of targeted neurons that are receiving input from a number of different synapses that resist remapping? ^{Let's call them resistors.} Add to that, the output side of neurons with axons that extend the entire length of the body!! ^{How am I doing Dr Tryptofish - am I making sense?} Even more confusing, editors now have to deal with species identities - for example, you are a fish, some admins are considered badgers, but we also have those who are considered the ideal whatever it is they do. We have some fly-by-night editors who are referred to as trolls, socks, vandals, and others who are considered productive content creators, gnomes, FA-GA promoters and so forth. Ohhhh, my head!! Is there an essay you can refer me to so I don't inadvertently make an improper reference?? 🤯 ^{Yes, this section is a result of boredom. I finished my Christmas shopping early and all of my cohorts are out shopping because they are procrastinators. Atsme ✍🏻 📧} 23:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what to say, and I even searched over your recent edit history to see if I could find anything that precipitated it. I hope nothing has happened where someone got angry at you over something. Otherwise, I'll just assume that this is indeed a result of boredom and sort of venting, as opposed to looking for help in a difficult situation. I guess I can point to Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language, since that sounds like what you are talking about. I've occasionally referred to another editor as "they", only to get an irritated response of something like "I'm one person, not a 'they'". But that's because I prefer using gender-neutral terms, partly because I think our society makes gender-based value judgments and I'd prefer to work against that at a website where we respect anonymity, and partly because I'm a fish. So I don't take any offense whatsoever when you or anyone else refers to me as "he", nor when someone refers to me as "she" (both of which happen at Wikipedia), but my first choice would be "they". (The true history of this: when I first began editing, it never occurred to me to specify my gender. Shortly after, I realized that one small group of editors with whom I was in a content dispute referred to me in the feminine, while most other editors referred to me in the masculine, and I found that it was very useful to use this observation to figure out who was communicating off-site about that content dispute.) But I think the bottom line is to make a good faith effort to address other editors politely, and to be accommodating if anyone expresses any kind of offense taken (and to steer clear of anyone who assumes bad faith when there was in fact no bad faith – because that's something wrong with them and not with you). Does that make sense? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I knew I could count on the good doctor. Now, read this when you have time, and explain how we are supposed to respond because not all of the world is up to speed with the U.S. - [3]. ^{I'm keeping our hippos actively engaged. Sexy, huh? 😂 Atsme ✍🏻 📧} 20:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

What's so wrong with bras being masculine? Hasn't anyone heard of man-boobs? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Is your question more along the line of venting, as opposed to looking for help in a difficult situation? ^{Atsme ✍🏻 📧} 20:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

👏👏👏 -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• I just found out about Template:Gender. I highly recommend to any interested talk page watchers that you take a look at that template page to see what it does, because it provides what I think is a very nice way to deal politely with referring to another editor by gender when that editor's gender is unknown. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Martin! (And the same to you.... I think.) -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah right, with brass knobs on.... Martinevans123 ( talk) 20:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas "BABY" - and I thought that was only on my Christmas greeting from you Martinevans123 - now I'm finding out it's on everyones! But worse yet, you've added brass knobs here!! Hrrmph!! ^{Atsme ✍🏻 📧} 20:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

All I've got to say is dgqtbmzxvpytrsrtfk! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry, Atsme. I will dig out something very special for you. Trypto, sorry that's not real Welsh. Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

In the context here, as well as that of the thread just above, I'm trying to figure out what, exactly, "knob" means. And personally, I'm not convinced that there really is such a thing as real Welsh. And continuing from Atsme's question about gender-neutral language, along with the spirit of the season, I'm reminded of how, decades ago, Eddie Murphy used to portray a (trigger warning!) pimp named Velvet Jones who promoted a self-help book titled I Wanna Be a Ho. His Christmas promotion was: "Just say "ho, ho, ho", and get three hos for the price of one!" Also makes me think of "Ho, ho, ho, and a bottle of rum". Alright then, as you were. Carry on. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

"Chips, cheese, curry makes you feel brand new. Washed down with a Special Brew." Martinevans123 ( talk) 22:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

-- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I can’t hope to compete with Martin’s splendid effort, but all best wishes for the season, and may our efforts bloom in 2019. KJP1 ( talk) 17:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

And all the best to you, too! I'm very much enjoying our collaboration. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the constructive comments. I will take care of my citations! To explain my comments and questions: Initially, I was motivated to include some mathematical background about the phase response curve (PRC) so that people could understand the formulations and the dynamics of the PRC and be able to classify the PRCs of certain neuron models based on their bifurcation structures, like in the Scholarpedia page of the subject, and some further discussions. About the image I included at first, I already replaced it with another image, both of them were my own works. My question would be--what should I do then in order to continue editing the page? Zerayh ( talk) 13:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for asking me here. There are several separate issues going on here, so I will try to separate them out in order to explain them. The first thing is that you are free to continue editing the page, and no one is going to prevent you from doing so. However, I did revert the material that you added, but it was not really about citations or images. I can see by looking at your user talk page that some other editors – not me – raised those issues there. It looks to me like their concerns had to do with the Wikipedia policy on copyrights (you can click on the blue link to read the policy). (I'm glad that the images are your own work, so that solves the problem there.) Wikipedia takes copyright issues very seriously, so you cannot present text or images that you copied from where someone else created them as if they were your own creations. But my concerns came later, and are based on the assumption that you are not actually infringing on anyone's copyright.

My first concern is that the material you added is very technical and may be difficult for readers who do not have a mathematical background to understand. It's perfectly alright to include some mathematics, but for a page that is mostly about a biological concept, the math should not constitute the majority of the page. Please remember: Wikipedia is written for the general public.

My other concern, and it's a big one, has to do with two of Wikipedia's policies, to which I linked at Talk:Phase response curve. The blue links for these policies are WP:NOR and WP:NOTESSAY, and you should definitely take a look at both of those. Simply stated, Wikipedia never publishes what we call "original research", and our articles should summarize information that comes from published sources (outside of Wikipedia or any other "pedia": for an explanation of source selection, please see WP:RS) as opposed to being written like an essay by the person who wrote the Wikipedia article. And that goes for mathematical proofs as well. What you wrote sounds sort of like: "here is how I would explain my thinking about phase response curves, with a theorem that I think is important and my proof of that theorem." That is not permitted on Wikipedia. Even if your proof is correct, it is still your original research and it is not written as a summary of what the published literature says. If there are published scholarly papers, preferably those not written by you, that explain the math of phase response relationships, the best thing would be to summarize what they conclude (citing them, of course, and attributing those conclusions to them). If they present an equation or two that are sort of like the "bottom line" of understanding the phase response relationship, it's fine to present those equations, with attribution, but without going into much detail and without going into the proofs (but it's fine to cite a source with the proofs and to direct readers to look there for the proofs). And all of that, together, should make up less of the page than do the existing sections about biology, circadian rhythms, and the like.

If it would be helpful to you, please let me offer that if you make a draft of that, you can initially post it at Talk:Phase response curve, and I will work with you on it to make sure that it will be policy-compliant before we move it to the page itself. I'll be happy to do that, if you would like. Thanks again for checking with me. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@ Zerayh: I reverted you again, because it looks to me like you simply put back material with the same problems as before. You need to actually understand and take seriously what I have told you here. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the detail information. When I have more questions, I will ask you later. Zerayh ( talk) 23:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not enough to thank me, if you are just going to disregard what I am saying. You need to understand how Wikipedia policies apply here. Please read carefully what I said, and look at the policies to which I linked. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Tryptofish, in thinking about this further, it might make more sense to move the conversation here since it seems to be between mostly the two of us. I read the outreach section above and I think there are numerous problems and invalid arguments in the points raised in that section that do not concern the harassment policy. The issue of jurisdiction and overstepping is much more problematic.

The big difference between our two proposals is that yours states private contact is always acceptable at all outreach events and programs. My proposal provides wording that Wikipedia-related event and program organizers may determine whether private contact is acceptable.

A Wikipedia policy should in no way have the authority to definitively state private contact is acceptable at all events and programs. The consequences are considerable. Andrew D. might have been fine with someone reaching out to them on Twitter. He had the right to make that choice and my proposal gives organizers that freedom to decide for themselves.

"Participants during Wikipedia-related events and programs may be subject to other prevailing guidelines and policies regarding consent, such as the Wikimedia Foundation friendly space policy."

The WMF friendly space policy is an example of an event that has its own harassment policy. Grammatically, the policy would need to say "are subject to" for these to be mandatory "additional restrictions". My proposal very intentionally uses the word "may". Typically in policy writing, "such as" means an example. The reference to the WMF friendly space policy can be removed, but I thought it was a good example of where participants are subject to a prevailing policy about conduct at all Wikimedia events.

The first part of the sentence provides for events and programs to have their own policies about private contact. Based upon your replies, I am under the impression you think my proposal does not directly address the outreach concerns and in fact even prevents private contact from being allowed. You seem to also indicate you do not want the en.wiki harassment policy to affect outreach programs and events, but your proposal is far more intervening, which I cannot support.

I recently hosted a Wikipedia-related workshop at a public institution and private contact via social media was strictly prohibited because it involved students. Your proposal, if enacted, would have directly conflicted with the event and institution's rules. So either it should be removed from the wording, or alternative wording clarifying that rules about private contact can be determined by organizers and those rules prevail over Wikipedia's rules about private contact. I also wanted better wording about what constitutes when invited. Mkdw ^talk 00:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Tryptofish's version: See also: Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment, Mediawiki: Code of Conduct, and Wikipedia is not compulsory Inappropriate or unwanted public or private communication, following, or any form of stalking, when directed at another editor, violates the harassment policy. Off-wiki harassment, including through the use of external links, will be regarded as an aggravating factor by administrators and is admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases. In some cases, evidence should be submitted by private email. As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. If an editor wishes private contact with another editor, emailing through the Wikipedia interface, when enabled, is the preferred method. Private contact is also acceptable when using other contact information posted by an editor on-site, when invited by an editor, or as part of organized projects such as educational, outreach, or meet-up projects. Contacting an editor using any information not posted by them on-site, without first obtaining explicit permission, is likely to be unwelcome, and even to be perceived as threatening. Users who are contacted through inappropriate means should report occurrences privately to the Arbitration Committee or the emergency response team.

Mkdw's version (with Tornado chaser's revisions): See also: Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment, Mediawiki: Code of Conduct, and Wikipedia is not compulsory Inappropriate or unwanted public or private communication, following, or any form of stalking, when directed at another editor, violates the harassment policy. Off-wiki harassment, including through the use of external links, will be regarded as an aggravating factor by administrators and is admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases. In some cases, evidence should be submitted by private email. As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Appropriate forms of private communication include: Wikipedia's email interface when enabled; any method of communication an individual has publicly posted on Wikipedia for the express purpose of private communication; or when an individual has received express permission and contact information from the other person. Contacting another editor through off-wiki means without their express permission is prohibited as it may constitute as harassment and even be perceived as a threat to their the safety and well-being of the person being contacted. Participants during Wikipedia-related events and programs may be subject to other prevailing guidelines and policies regarding consent, such as the Wikimedia Foundation friendly space policy. Users who are contacted through inappropriate means should report occurrences privately to the Arbitration Committee or emergency response team.

Mkdw, thanks very much for explaining and discussing these issues here. I appreciate it very much, and I'm starting to much better understand the issues you are raising and am happy to work together on them. You can see of course that I put our two versions side-by-side here, because I find it easier to examine these things this way. On the left is "my" version, incorporating some revisions recommended by other editors as the discussion progressed, and on the other side, I put Tornado chaser's revision of "your" version, which shows the things he changed from your original draft.

Some of this is word-smithing, so I'm going to set that aside for just a moment. The most important substantive difference is over where I had written: , or as part of organized projects such as educational, outreach, or meet-up projects. Your concern includes the fact that my language makes it sound like that is always permissible. You know what: you are right! I honestly had not understood that until reading your message to me here, believe it or not. My intention has been to indicate that those things can sometimes be OK (and I think that is the emerging consensus in the discussion there). So anything based on "my" language has to have that part changed, I agree.

When I look at your proposed language, the corresponding part is where it says: Participants during Wikipedia-related events and programs may be subject to other prevailing guidelines and policies regarding consent, along with the example that we might or might not keep. From my perspective, "may be subject to other prevailing guidelines and policies" (or "are subject to") is too vague and leaves too much open to interpretation. Are those guidelines and policies more restrictive or less restrictive, and do they completely replace WP:HA or just supplement it?

So let's first work those things out, and then go on to the easier stuff after that.

An aspect that is very much on my mind is something other than "events" with "organizers". I pay a lot of attention to the WP:Education noticeboard. A very typical posting there starts out with an editor saying "I've been encountering a whole bunch of edits on my watchlist that present all kinds of problems, and it looks like they are coming from a class of students, but I cannot find any information on-wiki about what the class project is." There is then a response from one or more editors who are also WMF employees working for WikiEd. The response is that the WikiEd person who is responsible for the subject area or apparent geographic location will do some sleuthing and get in touch by email with the instructor for the class, who may or may not have created an account as an editor, and who typically has not posted any contact information here, and the WikiEd person tries to guide the instructor into the WikiEd program, with a course page, and with the students having access to the WikiEd tutorials etc. That's what I was thinking of when I used the word "educational". You can see that we could be defining that as harassment of the instructor, when it obviously is nothing of the sort. The stuff that happens at the Ed noticeboard is very important and goes on all the time, and I'm not even sure that I want to forbid editors who are not WikiEd staff from reaching out to the instructor or students in this kind of context.

So that's where I'm coming from. Let's go from there and brainstorm about something we could agree on. Thanks again. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Continued from #Phase response curve: mathematical material, above

Zerayh ( talk) 11:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Fascinating. - Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Zerayh. I'll go through it carefully soon. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I've now read it rather carefully, and my opinion, to be blunt about it, is that it needs to be shortened drastically. I would reduce it to a single sentence in Phase response curve#In neurons:

The phase ${\displaystyle \phi }$ along a phase response curve at which a neuron fires can be approximated by the equation:

${\displaystyle {\frac {d\phi }{dt}}=1+\nabla _{x}\Phi (x)\cdot g(\phi ,t),}$

where ${\displaystyle \nabla _{x}\Phi (x)}$ is the gradient of the phase with respect to the vector of the neuron's state vector ${\displaystyle x}$, and ${\displaystyle g(\phi ,t)}$ describes the stimulus driving the firing of the neuron as a function of time. ^{[1] [2]}

I would be opposed to adding anything more of that nature to the article. The page is not primarily about the math, and math is not useful, in my opinion, for explaining how the physiology works. It might be more appropriate to add this kind of material to a page about the mathematics of phase. If you disagree with me, we can consult more editors. (If any of my talk page watchers want to comment here, please do.) -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

^{( talk page stalker)} Whut? ^{Atsme ✍🏻 📧} 03:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, that is sort of my reaction, as well. I'm trying to steer this set of edits to fit with writing for a general audience, not for someone with an advanced degree in mathematics. My invitation to talk page watchers is mainly in case anyone with a strong background in math or applied math were to tell me that I'm failing to recognize something that's important and encyclopedic. (Or if the entire thing is inappropriate and should be left out entirely.) -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Apart from the "thanks" button, I need an "LoL" button. (It seems odd to "thank" you for this, when all I want to do is an LoL.) Lourdes 05:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

And ironically I just "thanked" you for this message. That LoL notification is actually a good idea – we need more good cheer around this place. I was surprised that no one else made that joke before I did. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Not too late, I hope ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks – it's never too late for good cheer! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 15:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Just that it comes with a smile that you and I miss ... -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tryptofish - well, a very useful PR, and we could both tweak and tinker for ever. I think it is probably time to push it on. Are you ok with that? We'll need another intro. We could just recycle the PR intro, including reference to PR inputs, or write something new. Happy either way. Just let me know. All the best. KJP1 ( talk) 19:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. You have more experience with FAC than I do (by intro, I assume you mean one for the FAC reviewers, as opposed to the lead section of the page), so I'd be quite happy with you doing the submission, but if you would like me to proofread the intro first, that's fine with me too. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

"Sissinghurst Castle Garden was created by Vita Sackville-West and her husband Harold Nicolson. Begun in the 1930s, by the time of their deaths it had become one of the world's most famous gardens. Its landscaping approach, a series of "garden rooms" within a formal structure, was innovative and remains influential. Its plant collection, particularly of roses, is renowned. A joint nomination from Tryptofish and myself, we are grateful for the detailed peer review, and for Hchc2009's excellent plan of the gardens. Any and all suggestions for improvement are most welcome."

Something like the above? KJP1 ( talk) 06:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I like it. I suggest blue-linking to the peer review, and would make it "excellent image of the plan of the gardens" (otherwise, it sounds like a plan for writing the page). Other than that, I can't think of anything to improve. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

And we're away. KJP1 ( talk) 06:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Good, thanks so much! And "excellent plan of the gardens" is much better than what I wrote. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Our friend SH has popped in briefly. I sometimes think we should just drop it given that ND has retired, but then I reread what went on and am reminded of what a prick SH is. E Eng 06:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Facepalm I dunno what to say. Probably wait until he sets off another dispute. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Tryptofish! I am drafting an article about the company Perfect Day, a cell ag company working on dairy protein, and have not yet submitted the draft to articles for creation. To be absolutely clear: I am employed by Perfect Day. I've placed a COI disclosure on my user page. I found lots of very helpful information on NPOV and COI disclosures on Jytdog's user and talk pages, and had hoped to ask them for feedback on my draft until I realized they're no longer part of the Wiki community. But I noticed that you are an active user, and have done some work in this area (involvement in Arbcom / COI stuff, that is), and also have a relevant scientific background and have made contributions to similar articles. Would you be willing to give feedback on my draft before I submit it? (I hope this is an acceptable thing to ask of you or others, and if not, please set me straight.) Specifically I'd appreciate if you could flag any language that does not sound sufficiently neutral, give a critique of the sources I've cited, and offer any other useful feedback. The draft is currently sitting in my sandbox. Your help here would be so appreciated! Thanks very much for your time and Wiki-expertise. BlackMaus ( talk) 22:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the kind words, and for asking me. Yes, I'll give it a close look. I'll need a few days to get to it. Also, I encourage any interested watchers of my talk page to look at it. I'm happy to help. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, in advance! And yes, any other experienced Wikipedians are invited to weigh in as well. BlackMaus ( talk) 23:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@ BlackMaus: I've taken a preliminary look at the draft and at the cited sources. Something I'd like to go over with you is what Wikipedia calls "notability", which determines whether or not we will have an article on a specific topic. For a company like this one, the applicable guideline is at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). My initial impression is that the company may pass those criteria, but I'm not sure. Please give that guideline a careful reading, especially noting under "Examples of dependent coverage" what it says about "including pieces by non-staff "contributors" to Forbes...", and what it says under "How to apply the criteria" about coverage based on company press releases – but the entire guideline is something you should read carefully and thoroughly. As I see it, the main sources that you can use to demonstrate notability are #6 and #7, Fortune and Forbes, although there may be others too. At a minimum you are dealing with two sources focused on the same thing, the partnership with ADM, so there could be some questions about whether there has been ongoing coverage over time, but I would be particularly concerned about the degree to which the articles were written based upon press releases from the company. I'd like to discuss that with you (here is fine), before going on to anything else, because if there really is a problem, everything kind of stops here, because the page will end up at WP:AfD unless you can show ironclad evidence of satisfying the notability criteria. That's just the way that things work at Wikipedia. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi @ Tryptofish: - just wanted to tell you I got your message and I'm reviewing on my end. Entirely likely I'll come back w/more questions. Thanks for the initial look! BlackMaus ( talk) 00:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@ Tryptofish: Hello and thanks again for your initial read and comments on establishing notability. I understand your point that the two sources used to establish notability are covering the same event and published around the same time (ADM Partnership announced 2018) - fair criticism. I've added other sources that I hope can further cement notability. You mentioned ongoing coverage over time, so I brought in articles dating back to 2014 (see my sandbox). These include The Washington Post (2014), Fast Company (2016), Dairy Reporter (2016), Fortune (2016), and San Francisco Chronicle (2017). I do have some questions about whether these do enough for notability though:

• In the case of the Fortune article, it was written by the same Fortune author as the other two Fortune articles cited (Beth Kowitt). Similarly, the Dairy Reporter article was written by the same author as the Food Navigator articles already cited (Elaine Watson). I think these do show ongoing coverage, but I've seen elsewhere in Wikipedia's guidelines that multiple articles by the same author really only count as one source. Okay. So, does that mean they shouldn't be used, or don't adequately establish notability?
• Also regarding Dairy Reporter (and similarly, Food Navigator) - I'm a bit unclear what is considered a "trade publication" as I know these should also be used with care / sparingly. I'm not sure whether these sister publications are considered "trade" - at least from what I have read at Food Navigator they seem to me to give significant, independent, and reliable news coverage on most topics. I suppose whether or not it's considered secondary is questionable, and may depend on how heavily the subjects are quoted?? (This seems to vary from article to article.) I'd love to get your take on these types of sources.

There are other potential sources I could bring in (example: I have another from 2014 about Perfect Day in National Geographic) but I'm struggling with where to draw the line between quantity vs. quality. My understanding is that there isn't a prescribed "number" of sources needed to establish notability and it depends on the topic ... but is there a rule of thumb? Is there a way I should think about this other than "number" of sources? Thanks again for your feedback! It's so appreciated. I'm learning a lot about the written and unwritten customs for interacting here. :-) (And also: What other questions should I be asking at this stage, that I haven't thought to ask yet?? Wikipedia seems so vast to me at this point. There's a lot to take in.) BlackMaus ( talk) 01:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

First of all, I want to say that I appreciate very much how you are approaching this in a collaborative way. Unfortunately, Wikipedia gets an awful lot of new editors who are interested in writing about their businesses, who treat it as something adversarial because they want to have "their" article and don't like it when other editors raise complaints. So, you are approaching this the right way, and that's very helpful.

I think the most essential thing to consider at this point, in terms of written and unwritten customs, is that we at Wikipedia really do get a ton of articles showing up all the time in which people want to use Wikipedia for free advertisement, and that's not what we are here for. Frankly, it's hard to get an article about a start-up company, until the company really proves itself and gets established. So the minute you move the article out of your sandbox into "mainspace", there will be editors who will notice it and question whether it is notable, and you are kind of "guilty until proven innocent" in terms of you having the burden of proof to demonstrate that it's notable. Otherwise, the page will just get deleted, with the suggestion that some of the content be merged into articles about the fermentation methods and technology. All of that is predictable. (I know you want me to tell it like it is, so that's what I'm doing.)

It's for that reason that I want to focus just on notability for now. Other stuff like making the page nice and polished can wait for later – because if the article gets deleted, you'll never get to "later".

I think an easy way to evaluate how other editors will regard whether a source is a good one, versus an insignificant trade publication, is to put the name of the publication into Wikipedia's search box and see if we have an article about that publication. I don't think we have articles about Dairy Reporter or Food Navigator, and that tells you how other editors will regard the significance of those sources. And if there is an article about the source, it matters whether the publication is presented as one that does its own independent investigation. What you want is evidence that journalists or other writers, who have no affiliation with the company, go out and on their own (as opposed to passing along a press release) determine that your company is worth taking note of.

The Washington Post and the S.F. Chronicle are good sources from that point of view, but then you need them to write articles that are really about the company, as opposed to mentioning the company. The 2014 WaPo article is about the earlier form of the company before the name change, which does help establish notice over time, but which doesn't much help with the present name of the company. The other WaPo article cited seems to be about Pfizer, which doesn't help. And the S.F. Chronicle is first about another company and then about yours, so editors will argue that it's not only about your company. I don't think those are insurmountable problems, but they are exactly the kinds of comments you would get at WP:AfD.

I'm not saying that you should not include these sources. Rather, you are probably best off with as many sources as you can provide, within reason. The question is more one of whether or not you have enough of the necessary kinds of sources. There's no hard rule about how many, and two really strong ones can get you over the barrier, but they would have to be really strong.

One thing to consider seriously is to take your time before taking the article "live". You can keep it in your sandbox for as long as you want, and no one will hassle you about it. If you anticipate that there will be more coverage in the near future, it might be a very good idea to wait for that. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, you might find it useful to check a few of the links at Category:AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product). It's a list of all the pages about companies etc. that are being considered for deletion right now. It's a very informative way to see what could get thrown at you, as well as how you might respond. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@ Tryptofish: Yes, thank you for your "tell it like it is" approach! And for the tip about taking my time and reviewing the Category:AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product). I'm digesting this info now. BlackMaus ( talk) 18:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Lovely additions on the plants! KJP1 ( talk) 07:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Obviously, I did that per the FAC comments, but I'm happy that I was able to do it. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

		The Epic Barnstar
		For your work on Sissinghurst Castle Garden you are hereby awarded The Epic Barnstar. Congratulations on terrific work. Anna ( talk) 23:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Anna! I appreciate that very much! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

This edit: [4] crossed my watchlist, and the second change in the diff is rather, um, memorable. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

How about this one.....my favorite vandalism of all time: [5]

North8000 ( talk) 21:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Good one! How boring WP would be without all the vandals! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm really wondering how we all missed that in the reviews before the GA-nom too (though I know I've let a lot of stuff like that get past me at work at points too). I knew a student that once apparently sampled whole planets when they were just supposed to sample just plants instead. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 05:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I had forgotten that that was the page at GA. Yeah, good that those things got caught. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for making me welcome Tryptofish. Other than getting rid of the list part, I have achieved what I set out to do. I don’t care about the text (within reason) I wanted lots of subsections on the topic of Christian terrorism so people can argue about how to make the page better, instead of what should or should not be on the list (how foolish and naive I was four days ago). I will still be around cleaning up after myself etc. But the page you sold me was broken so I am giving it back. ( Dushan Jugum ( talk) 06:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)).

I totally understand how aggravating it can get when editing Christian terrorism (that blue link is in case any of my talk page watchers might be willing to give it some additional eyes). I've long ago gotten a thick skin when it comes to POV-pushers, but that's me. (At present, we have a few whose POV is "Christians cannot possibly be terrorists" and one editor who sees through that but appears unwilling to accept WP:NOR. But also a couple of good-faith editors who are trying to keep things on track, which is a relief to me, because for quite a few years I was the only editor doing that there, and frankly, I'm sick of that page.) So, anyway, I can readily understand how you can feel like enough is enough. I hope that you don't feel discouraged, though. No one is obligated to work on anything here unless they want to, and it can often be very beneficial to take some time off from a given topic, as much time as you want. Maybe someday you will again become heavily involved with that page, and I really do think that you have an excellent understanding of the source material and what the page requires. You have my best wishes, and happy editing! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

{ping|Tryptofish|Dushan Jugum}}I see myself in part of that comment about NOR. Trust me I understand NOR and appreciate it. I apologize for myinappropriate sidewise accusation. Not as excuse but by way of explanation. I've been off and on phorae since I used a 2410 baud modem to connect to the Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link (The WELL) out of Sausalito, CA back in the early 90's, uploading and downloading missives via FTP. I am no stranger to every kind of ruse of POV pusher in the world, and every form of rationalization under the sun to justify pushing a POV. One of the reasons that I am so upfront about myself. So when I saw your username with an allusion to a tryptche, which itself is an allusion to the trinity ending with the pisces (fish), well you can't blame me (well maybe you can) I do try to AGF, but my 30 years experience has warned (jaded) me. As regards NOR. From what I've seen it is stretched too far, too often, and is too easily used as a tool of censorship. and even vengance. Admit or not WP is a social "game". If someone posts a criticism, an objection say on the Teahouse, that the so called PTB's (all volunteers of course) don't care for, the hammer of Thor will come down on them. While stalking if frowned up and supposedly punished, it happens and you could accuse this post of mine as stalking. But not, I just wanted to apologize and explain and best way to do that is off article talk page. Bacl tp beating a dead horse. Which I am so good at. I steadfastly insist that the demand for RS is virtually impossible in our (American society). There is a instiutional, 400 year long bias in these United States towards a particular modality in thought AND reporting. The few brave souls who do step out to confront the demon that walks among us, is quickly slapped down, heaved into the pit of ignominy and penury, and brave lights like Harper Lee, can't escape the post mortem wrath of those who would assail or censor her for pointing out the deep racial division in this country. While OR is particularly releveant to items and articles that lend themselves to peer review (that is of a scientific orienation), it is not particularly relevant to items or articles of a socioligical/political relevancy in which a minority view is quickly and effectively censored. Imagine trying to find an OR article in Russia on the crimes of Putin or the Oligarchs, or even the treatment and persecution of the girl band Pussy Riot. It is not going to happen. You will find such in the dissident press, perhaps, but such are not classified as RS, nor will you find scholarly articles written in Russia on such subjects. There you have rather harshly enforce state censorship, but in this country censorship comes with a velvet glove (wait did I just speak OR).Cheers :) Oldperson ( talk) 02:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very, very much for this message. Nothing on WP pleases me more than to be able to work things out with an editor with whom I had been in disagreement. And since I, myself, lost my cool in that discussion, please let me, in turn, apologize for that.

I'd like to explain a couple of things. I came up with "Tryptofish" by combining tryptophan with the fact that one of my hobbies is aquarium fishkeeping; I was looking for a quirky username that would do nothing to let anyone figure out my real-life identity, or, as I like to say, a red-herring. Someone once told me that they thought it might refer to tryptych, in the sense of a painting in three parts, but I can truthfully say that, in more than ten years of editing Wikipedia, it had never occurred to me that one could see trinity plus ichthys in it, until you said that to me the other day. I had never thought of it, not once!

And my long history of editing at Christian terrorism has mostly consisted of insisting against removal of statements that such-and-such was CT, by editors who dislike calling anything CT. So many times, I have been told that I "just want to make Christianity look bad", which is untrue: I'm just trying to make an accurate article. So for you to say the opposite, that I was essentially acting like an apologist, was quite a surprise to me. What has happened is that, over a long period of time, I have come to the conclusion that it will be a never-ending battlefield to have a page that says that various groups and individuals from recent history are Christian terrorists (and in that regard, I agree with your view about bias), and that it would work better to have a page that is about the scholarly literature on the subject.

As much as I agree that there is indeed a popular cultural bias against reality (on many fronts), I can assure you that there is a lot of very good source material, by academic scholars, describing Christian terrorism accurately, a great deal of it written and published in the U.S. I've read it. And a lot of it is now linked to at the article talk page.

About NOR and RS and other core content policies, well, to some extent we just have to agree to disagree. Myself, I'm really sold on the idea that Wikipedia works way better than it has any right to expect to do. I will strongly defend the principle that content here should conform to policies and guidelines. If you disagree with me, so be it (but you will be pitting yourself against the editing community, and it's an argument you will never win). But if we can now bury the hatchet and edit productively, that makes me very happy. Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thank you for your diligent work on updating our harassment policy. Even when we did not agree or did not understand each other, it was a pleasant and cordial experience. It should not be overlooked that the process and effort on your part took months and included pages of discussion from dozens of editors. Mkdw talk 18:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so very much for that! It means a lot to me. And thank you for your important work on ArbCom. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Any chance I could get a link to this? From previous experience harrassment policy can get complicated so any work you've done to bring clarity and codify agreements is of considerable interest. Mrspaceowl ( talk) 19:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The policy is at WP:Harassment. The discussions leading to those particular changes are at WT:Harassment#Suggested revision. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	^-^ Mrspaceowl ( talk) 19:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Those page fixes that I made were really no big deal. But I'm not an admin! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

My mistake, you are right I should of kept it gender neutral. That would make it better. PackMecEng ( talk) 20:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

See WP:DTR. And WP:BURO. And in particularly WP:TROUT because I fixed your screw up, when you reverted and re-introduced an issue that was fixed, and somehow I end up on the ass-end of bullshit pro/anti GMO ARBCOM remedy warning. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) Headbomb, just as an FYI, that template is not a wrongdoing warning as the template directly states, but something pretty much everyone who edits in the topic is supposed to be alerted to so they don't run into trouble with the discretionary sanctions. It's basically a "do template the regulars" (or anyone for that matter) situation if anyone reverts in this topic and doesn't know about the DS. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 05:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

It's also pointless burocracy and hostile behaviour. 'I screw up, but I'm going to warn you to not fix my mistake involving a technical issue with whitespace, but I'm soooooo magnanimous that I'm not going to report you to WP:AE for violating Wikipedia Subrule 43 clause c) that was put out there to prevent anti/pro-GMO edit wars.' Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 06:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Not pointless. It enables easier sanctions on disruptive editing, so that tendentious editing can be more easily controlled. People who get their knickers in a twist about the policy don't really matter. - Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but what I done was neither 'disruptive editing', nor 'tendentious', and it's quite frankly insulting that fixing someone else's screw up is something that apparently 'needs to be more easily controlled'. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 16:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, I guess if you feel like don't template the regulars, then you might want to consider don't try to tell regulars that they don't understand policy. As for me screwing up, I had been the editor who first pointed out the problem with the template, but I did so politely at the template talk page. And neither the editor who created the template nor I knew how to fix the template. Yesterday, I saw another editor make an edit that removed the unnecessary line break, and I figured that what really matters is to make our articles as readable as possible for our readers. Not for our editors who are interested in templates. For our readers. And the fact is, you edit warred over it, on a page where there is a 1RR restriction. If that happens again, you've been notified according to ArbCom policy. And in fact, I was one of the editors who worked with ArbCom to make the template for DS less threatening and to make it more clear that it is required and not a threat. If you don't like the way ArbCom deals with DS, take it up with them, not with me. Oh, and by the way, you can't trout me. I'm already a fish. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

"you edit warred over it" the gall on you. Next time you ask for help, I'll remember to make sure to ignore it. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and I smell bad, too. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed yes. - Roxy, the dog. wooF 19:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I thought dogs actually like fetid smells? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I started hacking away and the repetition and non-relevant content, also started to bring the references into shape, but article is still a mess. David notMD ( talk) 12:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that. I see that you have already done a lot of good work there, which is great. I also said a few things at the article talk page. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I send you belated thanks for your major edit to Christian terrorism, which I only saw today and which turned it into the kind of article that I argued for back in the day. I can't believe that was four years ago! I took it off my watchlist when the discussion got bogged down. I'm delighted to see that you and Dushan Jugum, in particular, are making it into a neutral, informative and readable article. Happy editing. Scolaire ( talk) 18:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that, Scolaire! That means a lot to me, all the more so because of the disagreements we have had in the past. It's very gratifying to find that maybe we are getting to where we have a page for which editors who come from different perspectives can find consensus. All the best, -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I’m especially feeling deserving of a trout considering the frustrations we’ve dealt with on the RfC text being inadvertently edited. I had been being careful about “false positives” in quotes or the GMO RfC, but that one slipped through the cracks. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 00:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

No problem! I actually had a bit of a chuckle when I saw it. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

...but it looks like being a coach or chancellor are the most lucrative positions ($$$) for academics. ^{Atsme ✍🏻 📧} 21:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it's like the least valuable people in academia get paid the most. By the way, in case you didn't know, our good friend Thunder Britches is back! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I did not know. I've always called him "Whistle Britches"...you must know something I don't. I dare ask what caused it to be "Thunder"...😂 ^{Atsme ✍🏻 📧} 21:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh well, I get easily confused about hot air. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

There are laws - but Charle's not Boyle may be more appropriate. ^{Atsme ✍🏻 📧} 21:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

[7]. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

[8]. -- ^{Atsme ✍🏻 📧} 22:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• I can honestly say that this is the first time I've ever stumbled into a discussion about the nature of gaseous emissions from my pants. In my own defense, I will state unequivocably that I did not shoot the deputy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Guilty until proven innocent, Whistle Britches. A trial date has been set so you can prove your innocence, and 14 February is the most appropriate date for a speedy trial. The last name of the presiding Judge may inadvertently reveal a clue for motive, and the court date, while ambiguous, represents the effects of such emissions. ^{Atsme ✍🏻 📧} 15:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

For all of my card-carrying liberal ways, I've always been rather fond ole Judge Bean. Not as a judiciary figure, mind. He was a horribly racist, biased, closed-minded and self-centered summbitch who probably would have done civil society the greatest good by retiring. But for sheer creative assholery, he cannot be beat. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Um, maybe it is time for me to change careers... -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The fishpacking lobby would go broke running attack ads against you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

New rule: no fishpacking in the lobby. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if my reference to Bean was fully understood. Tryp - it's best to change while you can still smell peanut butter. ^{Atsme ✍🏻 📧} 23:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I forgot. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

What did you forget? ^{Atsme ✍🏻 📧} 23:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

And, by the way, Jiff. Not Skippy. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

And that wise bit of advice from a fish who knows brain coral inside and out... ^{Atsme ✍🏻 📧} 00:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why you reverted my revisions on Membrane potential and Voltage clamp? I am just starting to contribute to Wikipedia and do not understand what was wrong with my contributions. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smonsays ( talk • contribs) 12:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

First of all, let me say welcome to Wikipedia, and I'm sorry that I had to throw a bit of cold water on it the way that I did. I appreciate having a new editor here who is knowledgeable about electrophysiology (and you may perhaps be interested in WP:WikiProject Neuroscience). And thank you for asking me here.

The question is about these two edits that I made: [9] and [10]. As you noted, I said "good faith" in my edit summaries, and I did that in order to make it clear that I was not reverting vandalism, and that I do realize that you were trying to be helpful. And it's very typical for new editors to find their early edits getting reverted, because reverting is something that happens all the time here, and it isn't particularly a criticism of anything you did. My first edits got reverted, and the first page I created was speedily deleted. So please do not feel discouraged.

In my edit summaries, I also pointed to MOS:ACCESS, and that was my reason for reverting. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines – a lot of them! One aspect of what we consider important in our articles is that we want to make the articles accessible to all kinds of people, including those who have various kinds of difficulty in seeing. And of course, we want everything to be easy to read for everyone. MOS:ACCESS describes many of the best practices we follow about visual accessibility. You created and added two new images, which is very nice, and I have no problems with the content of the images. But when I looked at them, I considered them difficult to read, in terms of contrast and how colors and font sizes are used. I think that, for now, it would be better to stick with the existing images with respect to easy visibility.

Like all new editors, I think that you will find it very informative and helpful to start looking at our policies and guidelines. And if you re-do your two images so that they follow MOS:ACCESS, there's a pretty good chance that I'll support adding them to those two pages.

Please feel free to ask me any further questions, anytime. Happy editing! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough feedback! I fully comprehend the importance of readability and try to enhance the figures accordingly. Thanks for the warm welcome! -- Smonsays ( talk) 14:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I just saw the new image at Voltage clamp and Like. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, that is good news. And thank you. It has been an absolute pleasure and we've "made an FA where none was". I think Dank's TFA blurb looks fine but make any changes as you see fit. All the very best. KJP1 ( talk) 07:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I love that "FA where none was" – good one! I agree that the blurb is fine. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

You and Atsme have my nomination when you want to run. At least for you, I think it's a good time to do it. What do you think? Lourdes 05:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Awwww...thank you Lourdes, I think. 😜 ^{Atsme ✍🏻 📧} 16:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Lourdes, for thinking of me that way. For the time being, my answer is no, thank you. My opinion hasn't changed from what I said a few months ago, at #maybe you're not the masochistic sort but..., above. But again, thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I've vaguely given you a reason to do it in a thread below, if you want. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I see that, and thanks. In my opinion, doing an RfA in reaction to a sudden event is something that I would not want to do. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Whenever you wish....I'd love to nom you. Lourdes 03:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Lourdes, and thanks for your further comment at User talk:Kingofaces43. If anything, my most recent wiki-experiences make me feel more and more like spending less time on wiki-drama, so that's not going to happen anytime soon. I probably don't need to comment further about the situation with KofA, but I feel like I want to address a few things to you anyway. I'm going to say it here, so as to keep it out of the way of the unblock request, but I expect that KofA will see what I said here anyway.

I have a very long history with the editor who made the AN3 report, and we each try hard to stay out of one another's way. I don't want to say anything to upset that, so I'm going to say less than what I'm actually thinking. But I think that it is false that KofA was reverting against consensus, as opposed to there being no consensus and multiple editors on both "sides" having unclean hands. KofA just had the bad fortune of running up against someone who is a lot more masterful at playing the Game of Thrones Wikipedia system than he is. And he also did indeed make way too many reverts than he should have – ignoring the advice that I had given him, to stop reverting – so he brought it on himself. And I think he is being his own worst enemy in the way that he wrote his unblock request, because he doesn't come across as sufficiently self-aware. So whatever is going to happen will happen. But there actually have been editors who have said in talk that they agree with parts of what KofA has been saying, and KofA actually tried to reach out to the editor who then reported him to AN3 at that editor's talk page. So it's not like he was all that much going against consensus. More like he was being too quick to say that everyone except him has WP:ONUS, which was a dumb thing to say, and he was too quick to revert. He would have been better off seeking more eyes on the page ( WP:DRN, WP:RSN, WP:RfC). And to you, I'd like to say: a 7-day block for an experienced editor with a previously clean block log – well, if I were an uninvolved admin, that's not what I would have done. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

You know that I value what you write. I honestly respect your view of the situation and appreciate why you have a differing perspective of the situation. At the same time, I'm reading the situation differently (and I'm being transparent to you about it) and would probably wait for another administrator to take whatever action they feel is appropriate. You remain close to me; so I'll say sorry to you that I took the decision to block KofA for a week. I leave you now to rush to more RL work; but would love to hear from you whenever you (and I) are free. Most warmly, Lourdes 18:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. We are each saying what we think, and obviously people can partially disagree. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Figuring that I have quite a few talk page watchers, and I personally don't want this content dispute to be my problem, some fresh eyes at Decline in insect populations would certainly be helpful. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Tryptofish, if you ever became an admin, you would immediately soar to the top 1% of admins, and certainly in the top 10% who are the ones with sufficient knowledge, experience, analysis capability, ethics, respect for people, wisdom, carefulness, thoroughness and temperament to be resolving complex issues and auto-confirmed-up-editor disciplinary matters. Which the other 90% shouldn't be doing. North8000 ( talk) 21:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Wow, that is so kind of you! You really made my day! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Had to share. ^{Atsme ✍🏻 📧} 22:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Finally – people who are older than I am! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Surely there are people in the "home" who are older? (ROTFLMAO) ^{Atsme ✍🏻 📧} 00:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Don Rickles is a funny guy, and FWIW, my 21-year-old niece laughed her ass off when I showed her Some Like it Hot. Some comedy ages poorly, but good comedy is timeless. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Why did you delete my addition to the Glyphosate page? I understand the content on that page could become contentious if it's not accurate, but my text was correct and to-the-point, on published work in the scientific literature. enrobsob —Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The article already contains this sentence:

A meta-analysis published in 2014 identified an increased risk of NHL in workers exposed to glyphosate formulations.[7]

How can you possibly object to additional text that describes a second meta-analysis published in 2018, with exactly the same conclusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enrobsob ( talk • contribs) 15:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Enrobsob, and thank you for asking me here. The issue isn't as simple as me objecting to it or questioning the accuracy. Rather, there are more complex issues about exactly how to present the information, that were already being discussed by other editors on the talk page before you came along. You can find the discussion at Talk:Glyphosate#New meta-analysis out today says "raises risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma by 41%", and if you read the discussion there, you will see why editors have not yet decided how best to present the information, along with the issues that are in part about WP:DUE and WP:MEDRS, that editors are evaluating. It's best not to put anything on the page until editors agree about it. Your comments there are welcome. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Precious

Six years!

-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

And now? - This place is better with you, I know that much. Want to comment the "discussion" of WP:Great Dismal Swamp? During Black history month, of all times. Please don't sink in it! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for Sissinghurst Castle Garden, "created by Vita Sackville-West and her husband Harold Nicolson. Begun in the 1930s, by the time of their deaths it had become one of the world's most famous gardens. Its landscaping approach, a series of "garden rooms" within a formal structure, was innovative and remains influential. Its plant collection, particularly of roses, is renowned."! - Nice coincidence: I also have a garden image on my talk page. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Neither of those CU accounts is the one I'm thinking of, so there was at least one previous account. Nice to catch one so quickly, and now I can point to an account the next time I recognize that behaviour. Meters ( talk) 00:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! It worked out the way that it should have. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

First, sorry to be involved in something that drug you out of your "no-drama" vacation. Following your advice on writing for the opponent and even working on content that specifically said pesticides were a major problem didn't stop the aspersions unfortunately (and very strangely), so it's really looking like this underlying incident was going to be a problem no matter what anyone did.

Since you mentioned it, I was also planning to file an ARCA if the same problems occur continue at this AE that we've had before and with other editor's AEs. That would focus more on the sporadic lack of enforcement of the aspersions principle and if arbs just need to reiterate admins cannot say it's not a problem (i.e., contradicting the principle), or if we need to add a sentence to the principle basically saying something like This behavior creates a toxic environment in the topic even at first occurrence and should be prevented. You'll do what you do obviously, but I just wanted to give a heads up that I'm likely going to bring that up in the near-future regardless of how the AE turns out. If you file something first, I'll see what to do from there.

Spring is my both busy and fun season, so I'm really hoping to take a no-drama vacation while I'm editing from having to contend with this kind of stuff too after this is done. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 20:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly the kind of thing that I did not want to get dragged into at this time, but I saw what was happening and just could not in good conscience let it pass without my saying something. (For watchers, this is about the latest flareup over GMOs.) What I will probably have to do (ugh) is to file a request for clarification that will be specifically about the case scope – essentially: are insecticides considered to be "agricultural chemicals"? (I'm rolling my eyes as I type that, sheesh.) I'm not going to ask anything about aspersions.

By the way, I appreciate that you've been following my earlier advice and I'm sorry that it hasn't made everything OK. But please don't think that it isn't making things better for you in the long run. The goal isn't to persuade those other editors; it's to make uninvolved onlookers see you as the party who is acting in good faith, and the other "side" as not. The more that you can keep that in mind, and not let the other editors aggravate you into making a misstep, the better it will work out in the long run. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

PS: If you ask ArbCom to tell admins to be more consistent in applying AE sanctions, they will say no to you. They will take the position that the whole point of DS is to give admins discretion, and that's that. The best approach is to identify some specific wording in the Final Decision as being unclear, and request them to make it clearer in some way. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh definitely don't take my comment as thinking it doesn't work in general or improve things in the long run. This just looks like a case that was going to be problematic no matter how it was reacted to while following the DS. That's also part of the problem with the "weaponizing" the DS comments since I'm bound by the DS to follow them, and that inconsistent application only encourages already inflamed battleground behavior to attack those following the DS. That's where a lot of recent mischaracterizations of me have been based because the DS themselves are strict and easy to paint as an editor just pursuing battleground behavior themselves if they don't get enforced.

You're also echoing the things I've been mulling over with a potential amendment request. ArbCom definitely cannot say "Do X sanction if Y happens." What they can do clarify a specific behavior is problematic, to what degree it is, and that it's sanctionable (e.g., violating 1RR). What I had above is more the sentiment, but the question is how to make that clearer in what ArbCom can functionally say. That might be where a clarification type request might fit better where arbs can give more formal reasoning for why the principle was put in place (indication of persistent battleground behavior that will permeate content discussion, difficult to stop without sanctions, etc.) I'm still figuring out how best to address that for now. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 21:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Good. Asking them to articulate the kind of conduct they were trying to address might be worthwhile. I'll leave that to you, and I hope you'll leave the scope of the topic area to me. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I wanted to make sure toes weren't being stepped on in whatever you were thinking, so it sounds like that's the case. I'd obviously chime in when the scope question is raised, but just focused on what exactly was being discussed in content to avoid potential derailing with other stuff. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 22:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Good, thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I was shutting down my computer when something else occurred to me. (sigh) Please keep in mind the old dictum used by lawyers: don't ask a question if you don't know the answer. It's entirely possible, unless you word your request very carefully, that they will respond in terms of aspersions more narrowly than the version of the committee at the time of the case did. They might say something like: saying without evidence that editor X is a paid editor working for Monsanto is what is prohibited, but saying that editor X is making edits that are consistently pro-Monsanto is OK. That would be a foolish answer, but they still might give it. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

It looks like the insecticide scope issue has been worked out, so I probably won't bother filing a clarification request. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I saw that too. I wish it had happened much sooner and saved a lot of trouble. I'll probably be filing an ARCA soon on the aspersions problems, but I won't do that while an AE case is active. As I've said before, I've been thinking about the same cautions you just mentioned already, so I'll definitely be making the case for reiterating why it was crafted to be broad to prevent gaming, etc. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 23:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@ Kingofaces43: I've been quietly watching AE and the related insect stuff, and I'll offer a suggestion. Just drop it. Let the AE get closed without action, self-revert your most recent post there, and don't go to ArbCom over it. Obviously, not what you'd expect, and only a suggestion, so if you disagree, just do as you think best, but don't bother debating it with me here. Admin opinion is overwhelmingly against you, and you are going to get a boomerang if you keep insisting. Of course, no one should make such aspersions, and you should not have to put up with them, but life isn't fair, and neither is Wikipedia. Believe me, I've had far worse directed at me, many times, and I usually just let it pass without asking for admin help. Your best bet is to keep making your case in article talk, stick to policy-based arguments, and allow The Wrong Version^TM to stay on the page without reverting any more. Take the high road, and let the wrong outcome happen in the short run. In the long run, more unbiased editors will show up and you'll find yourself on the side of the "good guys" (already starting to happen, a little). Better to be a "good guy" getting beat up on by POV-pushers than to be a "zealot". Give them WP:ROPE, and in the long run you'll win. I don't want to be further involved, so I'd rather you not reply to me here. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• I am so f-ing sick and tired of the nastiness of this website. I had tried to give myself some time off, but the GM f-ing O topic area flared up again, like the gift that keeps on giving. ([ [11]]) I am so sick of this. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Please take a break! Just ignore anything coming in. In the end, it's only a website and there are many other things that are always more important. Look after yourself. KJP1 ( talk) 17:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Just like in the real world, there is stuff in Wikipedia that can't be fixed. At least not without some structural changes. The good news is that the most screwed up articles are those where nobody trusts Wikipedia anyway. And also those articles are going to change like farts in the wind anyway. Life's too short to worry about those, and I stopped doing so, and now enjoy Wikipedia very much. Works for me, maybe not for others. North8000 ( talk) 17:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I know you're mad at me. But I'll always remember us this way...💝 Lourdes 03:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@ Lourdes: I appreciate your good will, and I want you to know that my agenda is most certainly not to hurt your feelings. But whether or not I am mad at you, what matters more is that I seriously disagree with you. Please understand: I sincerely believe that you did some things wrong (and that, like all admins, you are subject to WP:ADMINACCT). I note that you have said, here: [12], While I respect {{u|Tryptofish}} significantly, I presume you'll realise that you should not be misled by their broad misplaced perspective on this issue. I'm going to give you a very wide berth in terms of your referring to me in that way, because I had spoken harshly to you and it's understandable that you would want to defend your position, and furthermore, that you are altogether entitled to your position and that you have entirely valid reasons for not wanting my comments to dissuade KofA from following your instructions. That's all OK. But my perspective is not misplaced, whether broadly or narrowly. I have a lot of wiki-experience, and given that you respect that, my opinions really are ones that ought to be taken seriously.

And it sounds to me like you and some other editors somehow think that I was telling KofA to continue the dispute with the other editor. That's preposterous! Before you even showed up with your threat of an indeff block, I had already told KofA the exact opposite of that, that he should drop the entire dispute with that editor and not pursue it further in any way: [13], and he had agreed with me. It's really an insult to me – one that I object to strongly – that anyone would twist what I said to make it sound like I was encouraging him to continue the dispute and that he should therefore disregard my advice. What I was telling people was that those editors who want to pick a further fight with KofA should not do so. The more the blood battle currently going on at his user talk continues, including the demands to apologize to perfection or be indeffed, the worse things are getting. It's time for everyone to drop the stick. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Tryp, I appreciate you told this to Kofa. I considered it equivalent to – "Ok Kofa, now that you've spit-and-run, stop doing that" (sorry for the analogy, but it brings out the emotion of Kofa's comments on SV). To be clear, my statement to Kofa was also exactly that, but with a warning that the next time they try this line of personal attacks, they would be indeffed. If you think such a warning is wrong (your statement on Kofa's talk page seemed so), then I would say your comments are misplaced and I would advise Kofa to not go by your statements and believe that any future personal attack will not invite a block. But let me now take a step back and drop the stick, as you have rightly suggested. I'm thankful that a majority of editors, including you, recognise this issue in Kofa. I'm thankful that the warning and the comments of you and other editors have led Kofa to strike his personal attacks finally. I hope we stop at this and move forward productively. Thanks Tryp. See you around, Lourdes 02:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I really do appreciate the good faith and collegiality with which you are discussing this with me – I mean that. And for the most part, what you just said to me is quite reasonable. But it matters very much to me that, particularly when an admin is talking about an indeff block of an experienced editor, the discussion must be strictly factual, and not based upon false impressions. Let me be very precise about what I do and do not think is wrong. Telling KofA that he reverted too much and that he needs to be less battlegroundy is correct and I agree with it. Advising him, as an admin, that he needs to stop is appropriate, and I support you in that, too. Framing it explicitly in terms of an indeff block, however, is wrong. I want you to hear that from me, loud and clear. The original block you made was justifiable. But making it a 7-day block, in the specific context in which it occurred, was wrong. Something like a 24-hour block accompanied by full protecting the page for a week or so, or something approximately like that, would have been a much more responsible use of the admin tools.

And, for the reasons why I say that, let's get the facts straight. KofA was reverting too much, and we agree about that. But he was not reverting "against consensus". There was no consensus. He was reverting too much, but so were other editors, who were tag-teaming, and instead of consensus, there were 3 editors on one "side" and 2 on the other, and they were talking past one another on the talk page. The AN3 complaint rested upon an untruth, that he was reverting against consensus, and has at least the appearance of an attempt to use AN3, which is unsuited to resolving complex content disputes, in order to get the upper hand in a content dispute. KofA has handled that situation very clumsily, but to treat that as reaching the level of an indeff goes far beyond community norms. I will hold you accountable on that, as I would with any other admin. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your response Tryp. To be clear again, your assessment (in my opinion) about the indeff warning I left on Kofa's page in response to his personal attacks and your understanding about community norms is grossly misplaced; and I hope we remain friends despite my telling you so. My warning to Kofa remains the same. If he repeats his personal attack, I will indeff him, and he will remain blocked till he clarifies that he will not repeat the same again (this is important to prevent him from disrupting the project further). You're at complete freedom to hold me on admin accountability; although I'll be sad to see you go through that, more because of your supporting that Kofa should not be indeffed if he continues the personal attack, and less because of this being directed at me. We both have made our stands clear I hope. Let's bring it to a close here, please? Warmly, Lourdes 03:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I know you want to close this, but I realize that we have a misunderstanding, so please let me clarify that. You just said If he repeats his personal attack. Please understand that we actually agree about that; please do not think that I am disagreeing with you there. My concern is if he does nothing to repeat or escalate it, but simply does not retract his previous statements to the satisfaction of his critics. Some of the discussion on his talk page sounds like you have to retract and apologize for everything, or else. I think that presents a can of worms, because it's possible to set unreasonable expectations. But if he actually engages in new behavior, that's an entirely different thing, and I'm much more sympathetic to your position. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Other comments directed at me

@ Johnuniq: I want to reply to the comments you directed at me at KofA's talk page, and I want to do so in a thoughtful, rather than antagonistic, way. Here: [14], you asked me Do you really think that link is evidence? It's absurd. Do I think that it was complete or even sufficient evidence? No, I actually do not. But do I think that I was being absurd? No, I don't. The context was that KofA was being described as making accusations with no evidence whatsoever, and I think that it's important to keep things factual and not to exaggerate things. That was what I was getting at, and telling me that I was being absurd does little to deescalate the dispute.

And here: [15], you say in part that there was no consensus to support a claim of improper behavior by the other editor. I'm going to quote, in full, the closing statement of that ANI discussion, [16], This has gone on long enough. No consensus here to act about anything, but nobody's hands are clean either. Everybody go edit the encyclopedia now and be kind to each other. It's important to note that nobody's hands were clean. So to regard that as something where the other editor was above blame because no sanctions were issued, well, I'm reminded of Donald Trump responding to the claim that the Mueller report neither cleared him nor exonerated him by saying that he was completely exonerated. This really isn't a one-sided situation.

@ Cygnis insignis: If I understand correctly, you have had an unpleasant interaction with KofA. I can understand that, but I would also ask of you to consider that you have entered into a dispute with a lot of past history. Here: [17], you said in part Should I assume Tryptofish is trying to help this user and not pursuing some other agenda? A strange way to go about things for someone familiar with how things play out in the long run. I'll assume they believe their motivation is good and faithful, but only that, the comments are dripping with spite and desire for vindication. Well, as the dripper, I find those comments quite concerning, all the more so in the context of editors discussing how aspersions are bad. I don't think that what I said to Lourdes was really like that, but I most certainly was telling editors to deescalate rather than further escalate the dispute. And as for "pursuing some other agenda", wow, that's quite a thing to say about me, and I don't even know what the other agenda could possibly be. I would ask you to reconsider all of that. You also describe KofA as being propelled to martyrdom. I am concerned that I am the supposed propeller. But as I pointed out to Lourdes just above, it was I, before anyone else, who advised KofA to drop the dispute with the other editor.

Johnuniq and Cygnis insignis, I hope that each of you will also read what I said to Lourdes just above. And, to all of my talk page watchers, please feel free to add any comments that you would like. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I realise I was chancing my hand, and I attempted to intervene where I could see matters moving rapidly away from content. "unpleasant interaction with KofA", slightly, he spoke up for someone else, and I have said that is a good thing to happen here. Telling people what to do doesn't work for me, and I do my best to restrict my comments to what is hopefully a considered observation. I was told I was trolling once, a decade ago, it took me a day to work out why a respectable user would say such a thing to another when I was speaking up for a mate, the reason was that despite my intentions that was how it appeared, that I was trolling and it was not helping the situation. In this situation I assembled and posted an observation on what I has seen emerging and spiralling out, calculated the risk that it would make things worse and concluded that putting that in the way was the thing to do. I imagine you went through a similar process. Despite what you announced, I imagined that someone might go ahead and distribute blocks anyway. I hope it's obvious that I would prefer that King is not blocked, people want him around and I only had one short interaction. So here are we are, you and the bastard who was trying to shout over you. What next? cygnis insignis 22:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand much of what you said here, but in the discussion at the other talk page, it seemed to me that you were being very hostile to both KofA and to me. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

You assert "… unpleasant interaction with KofA. I can understand that, but I would also ask of you to consider that you have entered into a dispute with a lot of past history". That is not correct, I had a short interaction one evening and was transparent about the background and how I came to see their involvement, repeated several times and the preface to my assessment of the talk page discussion regarding another facet of the end of life as we know it. You have appropriated that simple and civil declaration, that I own, and exaggerated it to a statement that you know own and can do what you wish with it, We both entered with the overt desire to see an indef avoided, I asked you both to reconsider whether some concerns could be separated, credit goes to both of you in dialling it back. I also have other concerns about this situation, as it affects our community and content creation, but not especially with any the individuals involved. This is the best I can pull together as a rushed reply, apologies for that, we'll talk again if you wish. cygnis insignis 03:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

My most immediate concern was that you had been saying some quite nasty things to me, and from the sound of your responses here, we have put that behind us. I appreciate that very much, thank you. My recollection was that you had said something early on in this dispute about having had some kind of run-in with KofA (as opposed to having been involved in the Decline of insect populations page), and that you were offering comments based upon that. If you say that I did not remember that quite right, I certainly accept what you say and I'm happy to stand corrected about that. That's no big deal to me, and I have no interest in exaggerating anything. Indeed, I'm seeking to correct exaggerations, whether they are aspersions about me or anything else. I hope that we can have thoughtful, factual, and unexaggerated discussions going forward. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

A good test for whether something is evidence would be to imagine what would happen at an ANI request for a sanction against SV based on the link in question. In that context, "absurd" would be a polite description. The "nobody's hands are clean" comment is just feel-good face saving—there certainly was nothing in the report to justify a conclusion that SV's hands were not clean. If there was some substance to justify that conclusion, link to that, not to a throw-away comment by the closer who was merely trying to stop the bickering. The real point of my comment however was to let you know that supporting someone when they are clearly out of line is not helpful. Such support often encourages the person to continue on their path and that can lead to escalating blocks and/or topic bans. They need firm guidance from the community that unsubstantiated accusations (particularly somewhere like WP:AN3) will result in sanctions. Johnuniq ( talk) 06:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the careful explanation. If you were referring to the evidence or lack thereof as "absurd", as opposed to calling me or my comment "absurd", that's certainly a lot better. Thank you. Let me remind you that I just said that I actually do not think that the evidence was complete or sufficient. Therefore, arguing to me that it would not have held up at ANI is disregarding what I already said. But here's another test: would the AN3 filing have held up if, instead, it had been submitted at ANI? No, it would have attracted more comment from more editors, and would have stayed open long enough for the accused to reply. And it would have come to have been seen as a much more complicated content dispute than what it sounded like at AN3. And you are incorrect in dismissing the wording of the closing statement of the archived ANI discussion. You ask for diffs that would be more specific than the archived discussion taken as a whole. Well, within that very discussion I said:

"As already noted, an awful lot of this discussion is really a content dispute, and does not belong here. In looking for the relevant conduct issues, it seems to me that Jytdog's complaint boils down to [18] and [19]. I am painfully reminded of [20] and [21]. All the rest of this wall of text seems to me to be noise."

I think that's quite specific.

And I'm really quite disappointed that you continue to assert that I am supporting KofA in a way that encourages him to continue the dispute. I'm sorely tempted to ask you for diffs of me actually saying that, because accusing me of that without evidence... well, you can see where that goes. The reality is that I have, over a long time, been very clear in telling him to stand down. But what I am doing is to insist that the discussion be based upon facts, not unsupported assertions. If that means pointing out the errors on the part of those who are criticizing KofA, then that's what I will do. But that's not the same thing as goading him on. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

You need it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

If that's sarcastic, it's not appreciated, and frankly I'm disappointed. For watchers, this is about this: [22]. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

No, it wasn't but your comment there assumed the position that I was not following MEDRS, which I did lay out in detail here. There's actually an editor who showed up recently who is actually willing to help improve/expand the article. It's about cherry juice for Pete's sake. Nothing more needs to be said here except that Alex must stop his bullying, gaslighting and PAs. You're on break and don't need that dramah so I simply said "enjoy the break". I'm sure not getting one at the article or on my TP. Right now I need a break more than you and I can't think of a better time than now. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, my friend, then I understand better. My intention in commenting there, at all, was to try to give a helpful third opinion. For what it's worth, my read of the talk page, and what I hope you will agree is my considerable understanding of sourcing content about biomedical research, is that Alex is correct about MEDRS and you are not (but that everyone needs to greatly dial back the personalization of the discussion). Also, when the topic is the purported health effects of fruit juice-derived dietary supplements, then this is square-center in effect. I remember what you said earlier about your New Year's resolutions, and I think that you are in peril of breaking your promises about that, in the discussions about sources there. I definitely do not want to inflict any aggravation on you, nor do I want to experience any of it myself, but I hope that you will see what I am saying as an early heads-up offered in good will. Cherry juice, indeed, is way too unimportant to get into a fight over. Better to just walk away from the health part of it (not the rest of the page, where you have done good work) than to have more hassles over it. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I've written and deleted my reply at least 6 times, walked away and came back equally as many - waiting for the reduced activity in my brain’s prefrontal cortex to return. Oh how I wish you had ended your reply at "...then I understand better." It was disheartening to read your criticism, which I felt was overly harsh and undeserved, but then WP isn't a social club. Criticism is a hard pill to swallow, even when deserved, but that felt more like a suppository. As you already know, there is a dark history regarding my past interactions with Alex. Unfortunately, after all these years, he hasn't changed except to become more aggressive as evidenced by his disruption on the article TP. His unwarranted threats and warnings on my TP are further evidence of what appears to be some sort of advocacy, not unlike what I've seen from time to time with GSoW but I'm more concerned that his aggression runs much deeper because it takes on the appearance of COI editing, or it could just be WP:OWN. What I do know for certain is what gaslighting and a WP:POV railroad looks like. I also know that I was the one asking him...no pleading with him...to stop the disruption and collaborate in a collegial manner - to help me expand/improve the article rather than him policing a small paragraph that I was still working on while he was using BRD to push his POV - and that doesn't count the storm and electrical outages I was dealing with at the time. Believe me, that is definitely not the hill I want to die on - a fricken paragraph in a cherry juice article??!!! Hell no, but why the POV push that feels more like a commercial bulldozer trying to move a matchbox car?

Cherry juice is a natural juice from a stone fruit, not an alt-med treatment, or at least I never saw it that way. I think it's a bit of an overreach to say it's under general DS but if it is, then Red Bull and Monster Energy are as well. Those 2 articles actually involve caffeine and serious health claims, including concerns of death. That's where a bulldozer is needed. The first health claim in Monster is in the lead, and is cited to a "Viewpoint" article in an alleged predatory journal - oh, but that's ok - that's MEDRS, right? ^{strike error - different journal. 13:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)} The second cited source is a single article in a French journal - no systematic review required? If "purported health effects" are of such great concern, why hasn't something been done about the sources in those 2 articles, especially considering 34 deaths have been linked to energy drinks? ^{articles in quality journals qualify as RS under MEDRS. 13:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)} Why was my editing in Cherry juice singled out, despite the fact that I was following MEDRS with due diligence? One final thought and I'm done here - you can criticize me all you want for my inclination to cite a 2018 Review in a journal listed in PubMed and/or a study that was cited in a systematic review, and praise Alex for his knowledge of MEDRS - I won't deny him that - but keep in mind, the source he cited after removing my material is a 2010 analysis by Bazian which actually discusses claims that were published by The Daily Mail and Daily Express. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

In the interests of my taking a break, I'm unlikely to reply any further. I hope you will think further about what I said. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Leaving everything else aside, I am very concerned if we're citing a predatory journal anywhere. What's the offending reference? Alexbrn ( talk) 13:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree, and it's really contrary to WP:RS. I'm not going to research it myself, but if you Google "Beall's List" you will find the generally agreed-upon lists of predatory journals, and you can compare that against the link that Atsme left above. (It takes a bit of going through the lists, because if the specific journal isn't listed, the publisher will be.) -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Neither of the ones I used are currently listed. I have Beall's list (former and update). Are you saying PubMed lists predator journals? Regardless, the journal I was referring to in my comment about Monster is already linked to a source in that comment above. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

That's Experimental & Clinical Cardiology. But that's not cited in the Monster article lede is it? Where is the predatory journal ref you mentioned? Let me know and I'll excise it. Alexbrn ( talk) 21:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I can't find Nutrients in Beall's list but I did see the publisher in the update (which presumably came after the list was shut down by Beall) which states: "Here we include publishers that were not originally on the Beall's list, but may be predatory." Who is maintaining that list and WTH does may be mean exactly? The update states, "Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) (note: MDPI is very much a hit-and-miss. Some of their journals have a very poor peer-review; some are fine. In the future, I will list MDPI journals separately.)" Oh my, why are visions of the 60s blacklists and McCarthyism dancing in my head? The publisher MDPI can be either Molecular Diversity Preservation International or Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, but I can't tell who's who without further research and quite frankly, I don't want any part of that debate/controversy. I just want to present an informative article about cherry juice - one that provides all significant views about the nutrients found in sweet and sour cherries and what people can expect from pressed, homogenized cherry juice, or sour cherry juice that's used as a mix for Happy Hour. I'm no medical expert - never professed to be - but I'm not a dummy, either. Common sense tells me apples and oranges are basically good for you because of the nutrients - the same applies to cherries and cherry juice. I want no part of the Beall's argument, the war on OA vs paywalls, or anything connected to it. Alex can figure it out - Atsme to Tryptofish - this gal is over and out! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Facepalm Okay, so now having gone through the Monster lede, I see Atsme's statement ("The first health claim in Monster is in the lead, and is cited to a "Viewpoint" article in an alleged predatory journal") is incorrect. The "Viewpoint" article - PMID 25818530 - is classed as a review in The Canadian journal of cardiology, a respectable journal which has never been predatory. This is different from Experimental & Clinical Cardiology - there is more than one journal in the world with the word "cardiology" in its name. So the answer to Atsme's question "that's MEDRS, right?" is "yes it is"; and to the question "why hasn't something been done about the sources" the answer is "because they are good sources". Alexbrn ( talk) 06:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

 Self-whale... for when a trout just isn't enough Thank you, Alex. I struck the errors I made above and apologize to you and Tryp for my overly defensive reaction. Typically, I respond with a clear head and open mind when information is presented in a helpful and courteous manner, less any warnings, threats, and reminders of the past. BRD has its place but in all likelihood, unnecessary and far less frustrating if preceded by helpful collaboration on the article TP. I usually ask Doc James when I'm unsure about a source but at times he's extremely busy and doesn't have time to go into detail. I have no desire to assume the responsibility of determining what is or isn't a predatory journal or publisher, and will gladly relent to expert opinion (the latter of which reads so much better than Alex can figure it out.) ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Guys - how about we give Trypto the break he obviously wants, rather than more walls of text. KJP1 ( talk) 20:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I'm glad that it sounds like peace has broken out (and glad that Atsme and I are back on good terms). And beyond that, ^ what KJP1 said. But I will most definitely be stopping by tomorrow to see Today's Featured Article (or is that tomorrow's?). By the way, KJP1, I've been doing some gardening on my balcony, and am adding Aster 'Mönch' (featured in the Moat Walk – nice photo at Lord, p. 106) and a red-hot poker (featured, it seems, in Harold's nightmares). -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Not too bad on the vandalism! It was a great pleasure to work with you. Enjoy the break, and the plants. KJP1 ( talk) 20:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, and likewise to you! The vandalism, yikes. I thought they automatically semi-ed TFA before it goes live, but I guess they don't. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations!! Excellent article! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

-- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Are you still on break? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Good question, and I'm not sure myself. Obviously, I'm doing a bad job of staying away, but I actually have been doing less than usual. (And the defendant pleads that I never actually said that I was going entirely on break, rather, just that I would be reducing my time here.) In my mind, I still feel like I want less aggravation from here, and I've been trying to spend more time on other things, and I'm not quite ready to resume full speed.

I suspect that I'm going to decide in the next I-don't-know-how-many days that I'm officially back, and when I do, I'm going to post about it here. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I can relate - I have a question for you about something unrelated to WP but possibly someone you would know in the same field as you. Oh well...life goes on. Enjoy your time away. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

That's OK. I won't be at all aggravated by your asking (and I might even answer). -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but it's not one I can ask publicly - but that's ok - no problem. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, the situation has changed (unfortunately), so when you come off your break, will you look at Thomas Jessell? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Yikes! I peripherally knew him early in his (and my) career. I didn't know that he had died, and I didn't know about the scandals. Giving it a quick look, which is all I am going to give it, I think the sourcing is reliable. I think there are significant WP:DUE issues, in that it dwells on the scandal while shortchanging the science. My advice: report it at WP:BLPN. WP:BDP applies. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm being trolled at WP:ANI! Anyone looking for the lulz, might be worth a look. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

[23] -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, it is difficult to tell how other editors perceive things. It's shocking how much dishonestly is behind the curtain of each article. Anyway... Do you have any thoughts about my question for clarification? -- Kolya Butternut ( talk) 22:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

You are very, very welcome. I'm not quite clear as to what your question was? Based on your last comment at Robert McClenon's talk page, yes, it's a personality problem with that editor (for those watching at home, it's the person who is trolling me and KB at ANI). You can certainly take it to AE on the basis that the whole thing grew out of Am Pol, and present diffs of all of the incivility (to put it mildly). But frankly it looks to me like he is really spinning out of control and is about to get himself what he deserves, without either you or me initiating anything. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, my question was still about jurisdiction, which you've now answered. But that's disturbing that if this grew out of WP:Cats we'd be left to flail at AN/I since AE wouldn't have jurisdiction. What is the difference between trout and boomerang anyway? WP:TROUT isn't clear. -- Kolya Butternut ( talk) 22:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The way something gets eligible for AE is that there has been so much long-term disruption that ArbCom accepts a case and then decides to enact Discretionary Sanctions for that topic area. Wikipedia is very bad at enforcing civility, so long as the incivil person does not use a lot of profanities, but someone who uses a lot of profanities is likely to get beaten up even if they are otherwise acting in good faith. As for that difference, trout is simply a humorous way of telling someone that they made a mistake, so long as the recipient understands that it is just something said good-naturedly and won't misinterpret it as an insult. By the way, I'm already a fish, so I cannot be trouted! But seriously, proposing trout at ANI is typically a sign of cluelessness. Boomerang, on the other hand, is something serious. Pretty much always, when one editor reports another editor at ANI, AE, or anywhere else, it is assumed that the reporting editor is going to get scrutinized along with the one being reported. It's what should have happened originally at ANI, but didn't, mainly because there are too many editors on each "side" of the Am Pol content disputes and they quickly take sides and argue it to excess. I'm guessing that the latest trolling may well be the straw that breaks the proverbial camel's back. ANI threads die when they expand into a wall of text. The best results at ANI come when the complaint is short and to the point, the shorter and the clearer the better. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

"The last straw" in what way? The trolling may effectively shut down the conversation? I would have thought it would be "the final nail". Kolya Butternut ( talk) 00:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe that was just my mood yesterday, and "final nail" is indeed more like what I meant. Essentially: the more this person acts unpleasantly, the more likely a consensus will emerge to show them the door. But really, it isn't worth pushing on it now, because these things have a way of happening on their own time, when enough people get sufficiently offended. Anyway, please do rest assured that nobody actually believes any of the things he said about you, and nobody thinks any the less of you as a result of what he said. When I first started editing here (which feels like it was the Cretaceous Period), I felt worried about every negative thing anyone said about me, but over time I've come to regard it as just a part of anonymous online life and as something that reflects on them, and not on me. So please don't worry about it, and happy editing. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

And now: WP:ANI#Calling me "bonkers" and "shitty". Nice, huh? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I understand your reopen. But, I suggest allowing the rope to continue to play out. O3000 ( talk) 22:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate that, thanks. But I think we have reached the end of the rope. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I can't say as that would bother me in the least. O3000 ( talk) 22:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again for your kind words. I just wanted to make clear how SashiRolls' page was connected to ArbCom. Wish I had seen it. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 00:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

And again, you are very welcome. I just withdrew the ANI thing, but there is no question in my mind that each successive incident hastens the end of the problem. And you are lucky you didn't see it, very ugly. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 13:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Just curious...do you have a specific time frame for your WikiBreak? EEng is running out of sin-a-man puns and misspelling words making typos ^{I saw that too but thought it might have been done accidentally on purpose.} Martin is either sleeping or too involved in Welsh road sign translations ^{(same difference)}, and I'm beginning to crumble under the weight of our entire humor cabal resting on my dainty little shoulders which has forced me to stoop to churning up riddles about garbage disposals. Is there a doctor in the house, or is everybody taking a WikiBreak? I'm thinking there are better ways to get broken. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I've got a balky d key. I believe Tfish has some pressing IRL matter that needs attention for a while. E Eng 03:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, I'll let you know, on my own schedule. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 15:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

... I had a dodgy n-key for over two years, u til I fi ally rele ted and i vested i a bra d ew o e. I put it down to bits of toast, as my keyboard was immune from both ghosts and jam (... or "jelly" as you Colonials would have it, no doubt): [24] Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

So, Atsme is dainty, EEng is balky, and Martin is dodgy. And I'm a fish. I guess I should say that I've never exactly been on a break. It's more like I'm saying that I'm not going to give my time here as much as I previously did, unless I feel like it. (And judging by my recent activity, it's hard to see if there's really any change.) But please understand that friendly and humorous postings are always welcome here! Given the crap reflected in the talk section immediately below, I could use some laughs! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Earlier today, I got an email from an aquarium supplies company, with the subject line "Reserve Your Reefer Deluxe Today!". I should tell them that I grow my own. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I thought it might be wise to remind you that GMO are under some sort of special disciplinary regime devised in order to make things go smoothly. I don't know why you are editing against what appears to me to be a 5-2 consensus. Your latest reversion also reverted a grammatical correction to the text. Would you be so kind as to fix the edit that got caught in your rollback (which again appears to go very much against the grain of the TP consensus). Thanks. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I was the filing party at the GMO ArbCom case, so yes, I'm aware of what you call "some sort of special disciplinary regime". Duh. I understand how consensus works. About the grammatical thing, I understand your correction to have been this: [25]. That is how I left the page. I did not use the rollback function, but rather used a very clear edit summary: [26]. WP:AE is that-a-way. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

El_C 02:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• Tryptofish, we've had our conversations before about getting swept up in sanctions while trying to get disruptive behavior taken care of, so I don't think much more needs to be said than you know that I know that you know how it these things can go. I'm not sure what you're planning to do at this point, but you should have no problem showing that the sanction isn't needed for you whether it's asking for clarification on El C's talk page or a formal appeal elsewhere. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 04:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I was totally unaware of this, and frankly cannot believe it rational. My best to you. - Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Smiley bouncing.gif

Thanks both of you for your concern, I appreciate it. But the fact is, I'm happy with this outcome!

I know all the official-looking AE stuff makes this look like something that's a big deal for me, but it actually isn't. According to the IBAN policy, A no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption. This isn't a finding of fact that I did anything wrong, and of course I didn't. (Yes, I know that some users will try to weaponize it by misrepresenting what happened, but I'll make them regret it if they do.) It's a fast and effective solution. I don't care whether it's 1-way or 2-way, and the difference will have no effect on anything that I care about. Let's note: [27], [28], and [29]. And as I incessantly say, it's only a website.

The fact is, my primary concern that I stated at the AE complaint was about the other editor WP:HOUNDing me. And now, problem solved. And I sure have no interest in ever interacting with him again. I said when I tried to decrease my time at WP for a while that I wanted to cut down on drama. The single thing that has been stymieing that for me has been the drama at GMO pages that was precipitated by that user. Now, that's not my problem any more.

It's important to note what the ABAN part of this means. It's "articles the other party has edited first", not "articles the other party has ever edited". I make note of: [30], [31], [32], and [33]. Let's face it: I've never followed the other editor to articles that they edited and I didn't, and I have ZERO interest in ever doing so. But, even though it isn't worded that way, the decision has the practical effect of topic-banning the other editor from GMO pages and their talk pages, where I've been editing since years ago, and I can continue to do so. Those pages are going to be a lot more peaceful now (unless anyone else gets the bad idea of reigniting the drama).

I will ask something (easy) of you two and anyone else who is interested. I'm taking Jill Stein off my watchlist (never liked editing it, more like an unpleasant chore). But I'd appreciate other editors watching the GMO section of that page and making sure that any mischief that violates WP:GMORFC gets dealt with. And other than that one article, this whole thing has ZERO effect on my mainspace editing. Also (unless they confront me directly) I won't know if the other editor does anything to break the sanction (mostly, I'd be worried about "coded" discussion about me at other user talk pages, that coyly does not mention me by name) and report it to WP:AE (not ANI). And I sure won't miss commenting about that person at noticeboards.

This makes my wiki-life easier. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I made my comment at WT:RFA after I read the closure of the AE discussion; so as far as I am concerned, it makes no difference. An IBAN is pretty mild as sanctions go; I'd say it's the mildest of our sanctions. There's multiple current admins with extant sanctions against them that are more severe. FWIW, if I had had the time to propose an outcome at AE, I would have recommended a one-way IBAN, so your editing would have been largely unaffected. I think the community will recognize that you work in a difficult topic area, and that some conflict is inevitable. I stand by my statement that your contributions to the flareup that resulted in this sanction were pretty much the only ones approaching the situation from a policy-based perspective; almost all other contributions to those discussions showed evidence of stonewalling and/or advocacy of a specific POV. That said, I won't push you to do something you don't want; but it was you who suggested that more editors with experience in conflict-ridden areas needed to run at RFA. Vanamonde ( Talk) 19:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem is nobody had time for it, including myself — not for all of that. But something had to be done, based as mentioned before, on evidence that lacked cohesiveness and concision. I. of course, am pleased Tryptofish is happy with the IBAN, and if anyone wants to use that against them, send em my way. This may not be the prefect remedy, but it was undertaken in the interests of expediency and with pragmatic considerations in mind. El_C 19:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

.

Thanks, both of you. And, El_C, I'm sensitive to the fact that you are getting a lot of pile-on after you tried to do the right thing, so I'll just say that it's not coming from me – and thank you for the "send em my way". (Please do understand, the actual hounding was entirely 1-way; I'm not sure that you really had the chance to discern that amid all the other stuff at AE.) If anyone cares what I think about my doing an RfA, you can see User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 35#RfA, which is pretty much still the way I feel. It's a cliché, but when I weigh the options, I feel like the two most salient things about my past few months of Wikipedia mean that content editing is more fun than dealing with drama. On the plus side, working with another editor to make Sissinghurst Castle Garden an FA was really fun. On the minus side, the stuff I deal with about GMOs (and frankly if I didn't, it would be a much bigger mess than it is) is no fun at all.

Since it just so happens that the two of you are also the two admins who at least tried to resolve the AE thing, I'm going to take this opportunity to get a bit philosophical about it. Wikipedia has a problem with making AE work, and if anything is going to "hasten the day", I'm guessing that will be it. We have ArbCom to deal with intractable problems that require sifting through massive amounts of evidence, and in recent years they've gotten pretty good at it. But once they finish a case, it goes from their turf into DS. But that doesn't mean that the remaining combatants are going to suddenly become succinct. So the inevitable flare-ups go to AE, and if there is a wall-of-text it becomes a burden on the AE admins. My WP:BEANS to anyone who wants to hasten-the-day is to just put up a wall-of-text and muddy the waters until admins just give up. In this particular AE, what really sent it off the rails was when someone showed up late to claim that I made five reverts that violated 1RR, except that zero of those edits were actually reverts, and I felt that I needed to explain it regardless of the length. (I wonder: was it a result of Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Christian terrorism, from 2015?) I think that whole part of it was really appalling. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

For talk page watchers, Vanamonde was referring to [34] and [35]. And looking back at it, I realize that what I said about a "festering wound" just above in those diffs proved ironically prophetic. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I had my concerns that the I-ban wouldn't be considered "no-fault" on your part and cause problems down the road, but I think there's been enough clarification from El_C above that my concerns are alleviated where I can say if you're happy with it, I'm fine with the current situation (and maybe finally getting to deal with content rather than drama boards). Kingofaces43 ( talk) 21:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

And I appreciate your concerns about that very much. Thanks! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to stick my neck out a bit here (it's not a long graceful neck but there's enough room for an axe blade). What we're dealing with is science, politics, WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, and capitalism with a pinch of WP:NOT, WP:NEWSORG and WP:RECENTISM. Oh, the tangled web we weave!! People around the globe acquire information from a multitude of sources; therefore, the simple rule-of-thumb that once guided us regarding reliable sources based on the journalistic code of ethics, or peer-reviewed medical journals, or verifiable, fact-based scientific information have all changed over the past decade. The changes don't apply only to politics - they apply to nearly everything in our lives including meds & science as evidenced by this list. We now have predatory journals, open source publishers competing with high quality costly publishers, and the beat goes on - but it's the public that's getting beat...and guess what? WP is still the encyclopedia anyone can edit; therefore an expert does not trump a high school grad based on knowledge alone.

What I see happening is an influx of multiple POVs and a relentless war among them, all of which is fueled by our ambiguous PAGS, many of which are still rooted in what we once accepted to be ethical journalism/journals/sytematic reviews, etc. I'm not saying the latter doesn't still exist - what I'm saying is that we have to siphon through the BS to find the RS that reflect the ethics and science to which we once ascribed; the ones we accepted at face value as quality, fact-checked RS. Problem is, so much of what we're finding on the internet has been corrupted by capitalism, and it is not restricted to the political arena. We are in the middle of a paradigm shift, and the values we once held in high regard are what's at stake. Unfortunately, the bulk of the global GP (general populace) doesn't have direct access to RS, to expert opinion or academic sources, the latter of which raises yet another issue - OPINION and FUNDING which raises questions about POV. Worse yet, we are now faced with determining on whom the onus applies because incidents that cannot be proven false, have become the prevailing argument. It is no longer innocent until proven guilty. Bottomline - as the encyclopedia anyone can edit, an expert's opinion is not a trump card (no frigging pun intended 😳) and that's pretty much it in a nutshell. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Let me say first, that no one here finds fault with your neck, and I certainly hope no one takes an ax to it!

Yes, WP has multitudes of problems with current events, both in terms of how to write encyclopedically about them, and in terms of how to deal with editors who come here with an agenda about them. (And as someone who used to publish in, and review manuscripts for, non-predatory journals, I can say that the predatory ones really piss me off.) Something on-wiki that increasingly concerns me about "innocent until proven guilty" is the growing trend at DR noticeboards (especially ANI) to shoot the messenger. Report someone doing wrong, and what should be a reasonable amount of boomerang turns into a mob-like excess of boomerang.

Something else, and I want to say this very gently. I mentioned above that there just might be some user talk pages where people coyly discuss me without naming me. Atsme, you just referred to "the tangled web we weave". I'm aware of a talk page where that phrase has recently come up, and you've been commenting there. I know you don't realize it, but the unnamed person they are referring to there is me, and they are talking about the same dispute as the one here. I'm not finding fault at all, but I just figured I should let you know. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

It's a big world, Tryp. Paths will cross, people will continue to quote Sir Walter Scott (which is what I did because of an ongoing event in my own little WP world, and it has nothing to do with the topic here). Even if I did have a better handle on this situation, I probably would have offered both sides a path to compromise (thinking back on my days at DR). That was how you approached the issue I was having in 2015 with a particular editor, remember? Anyway, I try to see only the good in people, and if I can lift someone's spirits and make them smile, that's all I need to keep plowing through the WP jungle. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. As I hope my wording made clear, I wasn't finding fault with you (and for that matter, I don't much care about what the other editors say). And I sure do remember what you are talking about from 2015. And we both remember that our mutual friend Dr. Chrissy, who so sadly is no longer alive, is another editor from that time period, and I certainly was friendly with him as well as with you, at the same time as I was trying as best I could with that other now-gone (and missed by me) editor. I take pride, actually, in being wiki-friends with people with whom I might once have disagreed strongly on content. Thinking back, Viriditas, yet another editor who sadly is no longer editing, was someone I started out with by being in a very adversarial situation, but we ended up becoming great friends and made a bunch of DYKs together. I look back on my collaborations with him very fondly. So I really did mean what I said to you here simply as a matter of providing information, in case you were being caught unaware. Just wanted you to know (and if it makes anyone else aware that I know, no harm in that either). -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure if this is good or bad, but: wow!

Also, I wrote WP:USTHEM recently, and I think it ties in very well with what we've been discussing here. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I just want to note with pleasure how peaceful Wikipedia has become for me recently, at long last. And I hope my saying that doesn't jinx it. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:16, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear Tryptofish,

Thank you for your note! I am new to Wikipedia editing. Is it the right place to respond? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vysha ( talk • contribs) 16:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Vysha: Welcome to Wikipedia, and I'm genuinely glad to see a content expert as a new editor here. Everyone is certainly welcome to my talk page, and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have for me. But no, responding to me here is not, by itself, enough in this situation. What you need to do first is to go back and read, very seriously, what I told you at User talk:Vysha#Vyshedsky source, and make sure that you really understand what WP:COI is about. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines about editing here, and they can be strictly enforced. And we are not a place for anyone to publicize their own scholarly work. (Just fyi, I'm a semi-retired university professor and neuroscientist myself. But I never put anything in our articles about my own research.) Once you understand that (and feel free to ask me about anything that you don't understand), the place that you do need to reply is at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Imagination and others. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Tryptofish: Thank you so much for your response! I completely understand your concern. I think it is a good idea to refrain from writing about our own research. I will make sure to respond to the conflict of interest concern.

A general question: How do I communicate to editors? What is the logistics? What is the etiquette?

Thank you in advance for your response!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vysha ( talk • contribs) 17:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Vysha: The first suggestion that I would make is to respond on your own talk page ( User talk:Vysha) whenever you receive a message from someone else. That way, they are certain that you are paying attention. The best information on exactly how to communicate on talk pages, including all of the logistics, are at Help:Talk pages. You will find that the instructions there will answer almost all of your questions. And as for etiquette, it's really pretty much the same as in real life. Just listen carefully to what the other person is telling you, be polite (see WP:CIVIL), and make sure your response really addresses the other editor's concerns. And if you don't understand anything, always feel free to ask. I look forward to seeing you respond at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Imagination and others. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Tryptofish: I see. So the place to respond to other editors is your own talk page. Let me now respond to the Conflict of interest note. Thank you!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vysha ( talk • contribs) 13:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Tryp - you've renewed my faith in BLP/N. Thank you for the sound advice. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Great, I'm glad! It's (almost) always a good idea to seek out the opinions of a broader swath of the community, rather than to get mired in an argument with just a few people, or to try to go it alone. (Hey – if nothing else, it's always better if you can blame it on someone else!) -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

What is happening now (re:Fram et al) has had a chilling effect for some - I won't elaborate - but for me, it was a blessing in disguise to find myself incapacitated (for the most part) with a head cold/stomach virus during the height of it. I'm also of the mind that things aren't always what they seem; therefore, jumping to conclusions may be an exercise in futility. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

First of all, I really hope you feel better soon! About the part you won't elaborate on, it's pretty easy to surmise that you are referring to how female editors might feel as though a mostly male community might be "blaming the victim". I'm wrestling with that. Fundamentally, the reason for the uproar really isn't about Fram being "innocent". It's about an absolutely awful set of actions by WMF staff. The fact that editors, including me, strongly support the resistance to the dubious office action, and the significantly more dubious way that WMF communicated about it, is unrelated to gender. But for the issue of whatever Fram did or did not do, I certainly do not know. As for what is visible on-wiki, it doesn't look like anything that would have required or justified an office action. As for what isn't visible here, well, it isn't visible. There are some unsavory appearances of a WMF board member doing some end runs around normal process, but those are only clues, not solid evidence. If I had to guess, whatever might have gone on in the way of harassment was probably something where there was bad behavior on both "sides". But an office action for only one year and at only one WMF project does not make much sense if there were really something very bad off-site. I certainly agree with you about not jumping to conclusions, and pretty much advised that in my statement to ArbCom. Maybe when the results of the meeting that was apparently held today come out, there will be more light. But I hope no one will allege sexism on the part of editors who have serious concerns about the boundaries between WMF and WP. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I just noticed that I accidentally reverted an edit of yours at the village pump [36]. I must have fat fingered it while trying to read something on my phone. My apologies.-- Mojo Hand ( talk) 22:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks for stopping by to say it. It was quickly fixed, and everything is fine. That's an easy mistake to make. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I've a question for you about this article. Any idea how long it might take before it gets to CVS Pharmacy? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

My first health comment is that I saw at your talk page that you are feeling better – that's good news indeed!

To your question: you need that like you need a hole in the head. Let me explain.

This paper is a study of a protein that, among many other things, can stimulate the growth of neurons. The investigators injected it into the part of the mouse brain that processes hearing, and it seemed to stimulate new cell growth and potentially improve hearing after hearing loss. But here's the thing. You can't take this protein as a pill, because it would just get digested in your stomach like any other protein. It could be injected into a blood vessel, but it probably would not cross into the brain ( blood-brain barrier). So the only way to administer it is to drill a hole through the skull and inject it directly into the brain. Sounds like a major headache to me. Perhaps over time, people will find an orally active synthetic molecule that mimics the protein. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey - they won't have to drill mine!! Problem solved. 😂 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, I've always said that the most permanent cure for a headache is amputation. But on the bright side, maybe they discovered a cure for WP:IDHT. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

		The Civility Barnstar
		Keep up the great work! I appreciate your efforts on the project! [User:Lightburst]] 20:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate that very much. And I also appreciate that you are consistently conscientious about using that template at the AfDs that you list. For those playing along at home, this is about the Article Rescue Squad, and the fun going on at WP:ANI#Canvassing and other disruptive behavior by 7&6=thirteen. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Make the most of the holiday! Lightburst ( talk) 00:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I do not want to edit war with you. I am certain that you are a good editor. However it is apparent that the material that you keep adding is contentious. It has been removed multiple times. It becomes vandalism when you do not have consensus to alter the material. I hope that you will stop. I am sure that you and I will work together in the future and do great things on the project User:Lightburst 23:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm so sorry that this goes against what I just said to you above. You are absolutely wrong. Calling me a vandal? Seriously? And more importantly, you misunderstand the history of that material. We are talking about: [37]. And I'm about to raise it at ANI. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Lightburst, what is your actual objection? Please tell me it isn't merely that bold edits always need talk page consensus, because that's not a thing. El_C 23:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

El_C, the background is basically the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list#Editor conduct. I believe that Lightburst really does mean well, and is misinterpreting the situation in good faith. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been updated about that. I was unaware. I'm not doubting their good intention, I'm just asking that they explain why they object. El_C 23:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure, and I replied some more at your talk. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Lightburst: I'm glad that we seem to have resolved that disagreement. If you want to see the history of what actually happened, as opposed to the claim that I was editing against consensus, you can read it at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 59#Accusations of canvassing placed in code of conduct template. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 01:23, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

SpyCatcher ??? It was deleted once before. It's in the NPP queue. I haven't a clue what it's all about and while I could probably figure it out in time, I knew the good doctor could just look at it and know exactly what it is or isn't. Whenever you have time. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

In lay terms, it's a method in biochemistry for modifying DNA in order to take the genes for two different proteins, that normally would be two separate protein molecules, and change them so that, when expressed, the genes will code for a "stuck together" protein, with those two proteins stuck together into a single protein molecule. (That's called a fusion protein, and the way that it is useful is like if you want to study one protein by sticking something else onto it that would make it easier to detect.) I took a very quick look at the list of sources, and I think it satisfies GNG, and is probably something that is actually quite significant. Looking at the page history, the previous deletion was apparently of a page with the same pagename but about a completely different topic, so there appears to be no problem there. Does that cover what you needed to know? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Exceptionally well, thank you!! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

To all interested parties: Now that it has a proper shortcut, the current events noticeboard has now officially opened for discussion!

WP:CEN came about as an idea I explored through a request for comment that closed last March. Recent research has re-opened the debate on Wikipedia's role in a changing faster-paced internet. Questions of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Recentism are still floating around. That being said, there are still plenty of articles to write and hopefully this noticeboard can positively contribute to that critical process.

Thank you for your participation in the RFC, and I hope to see you at WP:CEN soon! – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 19:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) at 19:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC) on behalf of DannyS712 ( talk)

Thanks for noticing that John O'Keefe (neuroscientist) was already wikilinked, and reverting that.

However, I also wikilinked his colleague, Michael Recce (neuroscientist), and although that created a redlink, I do believe he's a notable worker in the field (even though he's more recently moved on to mining big data for a major investment firm). Your revert also undid the redlink creation. Was that your intention? yoyo ( talk) 17:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing it with me. Actually, I was more focused on O'Keefe and wasn't thinking that much about Recce. I'll go and put his link back right now. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. It wasn't necessary to include the disambiguation "(neuroscientist)", because we do not have any other articles about persons with that name. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Not sure why it showed up in my email today - it has been a while since we created his biography. For fun (that I know he'd appreciate if he was still with us) I'll just add a little backround music. Who knows? He might be looking down thumbing his nose at us!

Your Scholar profile doesn't appear in search, because it doesn't have a verified email address. To help your colleagues find you, please add a verifed email at your institution.

GET STARTED

C.M. Sherwin
Dr.

No verified email
No areas of interest
Cited by 3116

ARTICLES
Voluntary wheel running: a review and novel interpretation
CM Sherwin
Animal behaviour, 1998

Comparison of the welfare of layer hens in 4 housing systems in the UK
CM Sherwin, GJ Richards, CJ Nicol
British poultry science, 2010

Refining rodent husbandry: the mouse: Report of the Rodent Refinement Working Party
M Jennings, GR Batchelor, PF Brain, A Dick, H Elliott, RJ Francis, RC …
Laboratory animals, 1998

This message is sent by Google Scholar. Google Scholar is a service by Google.

^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

That's strange indeed. I dunno. I think I saw EEng say somewhere today (I'm losing track, with the never-ending elaborations of Framgate) that it's looking like the apocalypse may have descended upon Wikipedia. This may perhaps be evidence of that. Or of bad software. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Lightburst ( talk) 20:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{ subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Thanks once again! I know that discussions about the Article Rescue Squad tend to get heated, but I really think that you will find that I, and other editors with sincere concerns about canvassing, are not out to do any harm. Let's hope that the name-calling and assumptions of bad faith will decrease. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

"Jytdog-enabler" appears to be a smear thrown at anyone one doesn't like. With regard to the stuff Johnuniq is accused of, for example, Jytdog was clearly 100% in the right, and what he was eventually blocked for had absolutely nothing to do with it, so calling John a "Jytdog-enabler" simply doesn't make sense unless one means "a person who enables someone who may eventually be banned from the site for something bad to do things that aren't bad".

I am not sure how much longer this "everyone and everything associated with Jytdog is bad" mess will continue. I recall one recent AFD (I can't recall which one, but User:Reyk was there) where an editor proclaimed an earlier AFD to have been invalidated (I think...?) because of Jytdog's involvement, even though Jytdog's ban had nothing whatsoever to do with AFDs and the editor in question had once been indeffed for doing exactly what did lead to Jytdog's block. I find the whole thing a bit unfair, honestly, since "JoshuSasori-enabler", "CurtisNaito-enabler", and "Catflap08-enabler" never became a thing -- one of the worst CurtisNaito enablers actually subsequently passed RFA (despite having more oppose !votes than any failed RFA that year, maybe ever since, and something like a 60-40 split in the crat-chat) and one of the worst Catflap08 enablers has been showing up at every other ANI discussion (and many other discussions) involving me to undermine me, apparently as revenge for how that whole affair turned out, but I never even thought of calling them "enablers" until I saw what Pudeo wrote.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 15:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

How can I make " PEIsquirrel-enabler" a thing? Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 16:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

For a more on-topic comment: nobody enabled Jytdog but Jytdog. The specific incident that led to their block/retirement didn't even occur until several months after Andy's ban. Also see my comments here. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 16:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey there, @ Hijiri88:. Is this the AfD you meant? Reyk _YO! 20:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• For those watching at home, this grows out of a current RfA. Rather ironically, I'm opposing there (and consequently will not link to it, out of an effort to avoid any canvassing) in part on the basis of the candidate, who is being accused (by others, not me) of being the aforementioned enabler, mistreating someone else who could arguably be caricatured as a Jytdog enabler – in other words, where the candidate would have been the opponent of Jytdog enablers. Bottom line: touch anything related even remotely to Jytdog, and there must be... something wrong there.

I feel as though very little light will be shed by continuing this discussion here. I'm not actually going to close it, but I would ask in a friendly way that editors think twice before posting anything more here. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I miss Jytdog. Bishonen | talk 21:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC).

This is to let you know that the Sissinghurst Castle Garden article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 18, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 18, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors on the day before and the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

That's pretty quick! I'll catch up nearer the time to see how you want to handle changes on the day. They can get quite heavily vandalised, or they can have a quiet day in the sun. If the former, there's a bunch of editors who do the reverts. Sometimes, although not that often, a useful suggestion or two can result. Hope you're keeping well. KJP1 ( talk) 14:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Am so sorry, I didn't see the discussion above re. your curtailing your time on here. It can be a very frustrating place, but also very productive and great fun. I hugely enjoyed our collaboration and am proud of what we produced. I shall keep an eye on it when it has its moment in the sun. Take very good care. KJP1 ( talk) 23:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I've closed your AE appeal as successful, and logged it (and the original sanction) at the AE log. You are no longer under an IBAN with SashiRolls. TonyBallioni ( talk) 21:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@ TonyBallioni: Thank you very much! And thanks to all the other editors and admins who were supportive of me. This really makes my day! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey!!! Pomp it ooop!!! Getcha booty on the floor tonite ... make my day!! Chas and Ya Kid K123 ( talk) 22:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

You may now kiss. — Paleo Neonate – 22:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I sure hope that this will be the start of a quieter stretch of time for me. (Sometimes, the best way to navigate the ugly side of Wikipedia is to play the long game.) But – Paleo's image of a kissing gourami has a bit of irony to it. The "kissing" posture is actually a display of aggression! Think of it as "kissing someone off": telling a rival for spawning to scram. There's probably a moral in there somewhere. Maybe just a group hug? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Cripes! I've yet to encounter a problem at Wikipedia with telling a spawning rival to scram, but I guess one never knows! Martinevans123 ( talk) 17:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I was about to tell you to scram, but then I realized that I've never encountered a spawning rival on Wikipedia. And come to think of it, there's probably very little spawning here at all. But there are certainly many master baiters. And they tend to get hooked (didn't you know!). -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The "kissing" posture is actually a display of aggression! Indeed, a mix of irony, of fish-related topic and of humor was the intention. But I do hope for peace, of course. — Paleo Neonate – 00:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes. And here's some nice clickbait for you. Martinevans123 ( talk) 18:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

One's chum is always the best bait. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just not buying your twisted and subversive metrosexual bromance agenda, Tryppy! I'll saddle up my own rainbow unicorns, thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 18:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

"Twisted and subversive metrosexual bromance"! I'm at a loss for words after that! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Getting back onto a serious note, I just looked (now that I'm allowed) at the user talk page of the other editor in the IBAN, and it's really sad how the haters are coming out of the woodwork to, among other things, take shots at me. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Am saying nothing. Martinevans123 ( talk) 18:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Yup, that's me, just a fish in a barrel. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

But it's a whiskey barrel, so the shots are on me! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

And I should have read the details before posting my joke, because it seems awkward considering that a one-way ban still persists (it was not my intention to troll the other editor)... — Paleo Neonate – 02:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, please don't worry about it. I didn't even realize that it could have been construed that way until you pointed this out. No offense is intended, either by you or by me. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Atsme: @ Epipelagic: I was looking at Cycloseris, and the page has a photo that is labeled as C. wellsi. I'm concerned that the photo is mislabeled (and I figure I might as well post about it here as there). I can make out what I think are the polyps on its surface, and it looks to me to be nothing like any of the Fungiidae (cf commons:category:Cycloseris). What do you think? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

You may be right about misidentified - looks more like an early developing plate or star coral. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's an error, the same editor also uploaded this. But see Fig 1(E–H) and Fig 5(E). This seems a better image to use in the article. – Epipelagic ( talk) 01:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks all, very much. I think the coral may be O.K. (per EEng), but I'm going to swap out the image for one of a different species (since the page is about the genus, not the species). It seems to me that pretty much all the typical species in the Cycloseris genus have a skeleton with ridges that radiate out from the center, and soft tissue between the ridges. So at best, the image is of an atypical species, and it would be better to replace it. In support of it being not-typical, the file page for File:Cycloseris wellsi, Egipto.jpg says that Cycloseris is a synonym for Coscinaraea. The journal article that Epipelagic cited seems to me to explain what is actually going on. The authors reclassify Cycloseris so that it still contains species that are "free-living and monostomatous", which is a fancier way of saying what I said about the radial skeleton, and additionally some species, such as C. wellsi, that are instead "attached and polystomatous" and were previously misidentified as Coscinaraea – which means that I'll use a more typical image for the lead section, and add the new info from that source, with the existing figure down below. And the figure now on the page actually does look like it could be "attached and polystomatous". Thanks again for the feedback, because it helped me figure this out. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know which date you have in mind, - a recorded edit dates from 2009. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I actually didn't have any specific date in mind, just a general sense that the term might have come from WMF rather than from the community. (For those playing along at home, this comes out of WP:FRAM.) But, wow! Maybe it was Jimbo who started it. (And I think I could be justified in associating him with the WMF.) But that example is just about as clear an indication as I can find of why it is, indeed, a bad idea to use the term. In my opinion, that user is just about the exact opposite of "toxic"! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, a piece of Kremlinology I heard from several institutional-memory type users at the time, was that Jimbo was in that post most likely actually gunning for my dear friend Giano, who was more of a provocateur then than now. You notice J is kind of vague, for instance he uses the plural (personalities.) Didn't stop Bishzilla from creating a few extra socks on the theme for herself though, including this one. Little Toxic Personality ( talk) 20:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC).

My goodness, there are so many of you! (I have to admit: when I first saw the username, I thought that either someone was trolling me, or it was someone permabanned editing as a sock!) Whatever you do, please don't tell Bishonen what I said. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I suspect our beloved and dear leader never meant to block Bishonen at all, he had just confused his Knäckebröd with his Arrosticini. An easy mistake, if you rely on others for your information Giano (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

There are certainly a great many mistakes that get made at this website. But any friend of Bish (in whatever incarnation) is a friend of mine. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Tryp - I can't discuss certain issues re:gaslighting, but here is one for the gipper: Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Attempts to evade detection - I could not believe what I was reading. It describes the ideal non-disruptive editor, and it is far more dangerous to productive editors than a little gaslighting. I've been there, too. Walk in my shoes 👠👠 19:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, we are discussing gaslighting (not to be confused with lighting farts), growing out of the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 26. Atsme, I rather doubt that your shoes would fit me. But seriously, that section at the WP:Disruptive editing page ain't gaslighting. As I've said at the other page, I'm taking very seriously the possibility that there may be ways in which female editors can feel gaslighted, where most male editors would not, and there may be other categories of cultural differences where that applies as well. And I know that gaslighting is a real thing (arguably, it's what Fox News does).

The concern that I have is whether it really can happen in the course of Wikipedia editing. Any time anyone feels like all of the other users in a particular discussion are on some other wavelength, there is always a mechanism, such as an RfC, for getting more eyes, uninvolved eyes, on the discussion, and clearing things up. It seems to me that most of the time when a user feels like "I'm being gaslighted", what is actually happening is that no one else sees things the way that that user does. And at some point, we get to where we have to recognize that the problem is with that user, rather than with everyone else. "Wikipedia can't really be serious about that no original research thing, so all these editors must either be whacko or part of some conspiracy, so they are gaslighting me, and I need to expose this to the press." Um, no. I'm doing my best to push back against the careless use of the term, because otherwise it will simply give aid and comfort to people who should instead be shown the door. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Newe, newe, newe...not what I meant when I included "evade detection". I attempted to change the subject and obviously did a poor job of it. It has nothing to do with gaslighting. The only similarity is that it's used to trap innocent editors.

You said, The concern that I have is whether it really can happen in the course of Wikipedia editing. Yes, it can happen and it does according to the definition WP:GASLIGHTING #4. There are more subtle applications of the term that are in no way as dramatic as what the movie portrays. Hypothetically speaking (not be the best example but it will have to do for now), I present a proposal and provide a list of RS that support the criticism I want to include in the article, but you reject it. The sources I provide use the proper name of an action rather than the acronym. You insist that the sources I provided are not RS because they do not support the material. I explain that it's the full word, not the acronym, but it means the same thing - we go back and forth a bit. You start accusing me of DROPTHESTICK, DIDNTHEARTHAT, yada yada. I back off and re-read the RS and what I proposed. But wait...I'm just providing RS and explaining, so why all the accusations? Another editor jumps in who shares your POV - neither of you want that negative info in the article, even though it is notable and does support inclusion. The 2nd editor agrees with you that it's not supported by the sources, and I should DROPTHESTICK. I go back and re-read the sources again because now I'm doubting myself and the sources...but wait - it means the same thing, it's just an acronym. So now I'm wasting valuable time trying to find only those sources that use the acronym. I'm in a tailspin over the accusations - I'm wondering if I'm really guilty of doing the things they've accused me of doing. I go back, and start an RfC for wider community input. That is met with further disruption. And that my WikiFriend is gaslighting per the WP definition - Gaming the consensus-building process - misrepresenting what a policy actually says or means, prevaricating about the obvious meaning of a claim, misdirection, baseless contradiction, projection of one's own foibles onto others - all to destabilize a discussion by sowing doubt and discord. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• Atsme, I have to say, you misunderstood the meaning of the term and didn't use the WP link. We all make mistakes. But, frankly speaking, you owe apologies to those you accused of Gaslighting. No big deal, I try to apologize to someone every week. Works much better and more quickly than doubling/tripling/quadrupling down. (I love blackjack metaphors.) Frankly, I considered trying to remove the WP link -- but it's too late. O3000 ( talk) 21:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The tl;dr: I was trying not to get too pushy with you, Atsme, but I pretty much agree with Objective3000. The rest: I've been aware all along of the stuff that's been going on in American Politics, but I was trying not to acknowledge that. Now, I don't know specifically about acronym versus spelled out in full. But other than that, it doesn't sound like gaslighting to me, but rather what I described just above, and I think that labeling it as gaslighting is a dodge. And I'm not basing this on the movie. Using instead the lead paragraph of our page about it:

Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, gaslighting involves attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's belief.

(I didn't bother copying the blue links for the second sentence, since the dictionary meanings of those words are pretty clear.) First of all, gaslighting has to be intentional, so miscommunication between editors isn't it. It not only has to be targeted, but it also has to be persistent over time, plunging the target into a prolonged situation of cognitive dissonance. A proper RfC should clear up any situation like that, because more editors will arrive and sort it out. If editors are disrupting the RfC, that too can be sorted out. But if a consensus emerges that the RfC was malformed, or if the RfC yields a result that the editor who started it doesn't like, then it's time for that editor to edit topics somewhere else. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

P.S. This is a significant part of why I try to stay away from editing American Politics. It's kind of noticeable to me that a lot of support for using the redirect, in the redirect discussion, is coming from editors who are active in that topic. Just sayin'. Also, it occurs to me that the M.O. used by Donald Trump really is gaslighting. Just sayin'. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

That's your definition and you're entitled to believe whatever you want. Happy editing. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm genuinely sorry that the discussion had to take this turn. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

[41] O3000 ( talk) 00:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

It makes sense to have moved the info to a footnote. But I was sorry to see it buried so I copied it over to the WP page on ..... ready?.... " Crop desiccation." A problem was that page was a mess with multiple flags, non-existent links, etc, so I had to spend more time than I wanted to in fixing that page. You might be interested at taking a crack at that page too. Lapabc ( talk) 08:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Part of my reasoning for making it a footnote was actually that it reads a bit essay-like. I'll leave the desiccant page to others – my talk page watcher Kingofaces will likely be better at that than I would be. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Just a note that I did just see this finally. I haven't been able to catch up very much in the last month or so, but I'll be back to more regular editing this week. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 18:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Just so you know - Huon had said earlier If someone has further genuine questions about the block, they're welcome to ask me on my talk page or to bring it to WP:AN for a review.. I wasn't sure if you'd seen it or not since you appeared be addressing Huon directly about the block [42]. SQL ^{Query me!} 23:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I had pinged him, but you are right. I'll leave him a note at his talk. Thanks again. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey Tryptofish, I was hoping to get your opinion on a couple things by email but noticed that email doesn't seem to be enabled for you. If you're free, could you shoot me an email at wikipedia [at] kevinsli [dot] com? If not I completely understand. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I almost never communicate off-wiki. Is it possible to give me, here, at least a hint about what this is about? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey Tryp, not a big deal, was just seeking perspectives on the recent IBAN. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. I'll say it on-wiki. Should be two-way, no commentary, no admonishment, no nothing, full stop. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Tryptofish. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Mjs1991 ( talk) 06:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I guess this makes me wiki-old. (I sure feel that way!) -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Tryptofish for your contribution to the Fram workshop! :) starship .paint ( talk) 06:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Evening Tryptofish - I hope you are keeping well. I'm slowly ploughing through the Grade II* list, making the necessary amendments, but the Grade I list made FL, for which many thanks! I'm currently polishing Chartwell, prior to its main page appearance, and have a roses-related query. In 1958, WSC and CSC's children paid for the Golden Rose walk, in celebration of their golden wedding anniversary. The sources tell me it comprises 32 varieties of Golden Roses. Is this actually a type, as opposed to a generic term for yellow, and are there any better links on here for it than Garden roses? I'm not seeing anything. Any suggestions much appreciated. Take care. KJP1 ( talk) 18:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

That's a puzzle. I've just looked through my books about roses, and I'm quite sure that there is no such thing as a group of roses that are, collectively, called "Golden Roses". Not surprisingly, there are lots of rose varieties that have "Golden" as part of their name ("Golden Beauty" and so forth). Rosa hugonis, or "Father Hugo's Rose" is also called "The Golden Rose of China", but there are not multiple varieties of it. I wondered if there were a hybridizer of roses whose last name was Golden, and I haven't found one on any of the lists I know of. (Searching online gives the name of a music group, which is obviously not what you want.) The closest is Golden State Nursery in Atlanta, Georgia, who grow roses, but I doubt that it's that. There is Golden Rose, a kind of jewelry, but it doesn't sound like something to make a garden around. What I'm left thinking is that it is simply a garden of gold-colored (sorry, coloured) rose varieties (basically: yellow roses), of which there are many varieties available. Sort of like the White Garden at Sissinghurst, except yellow and roses-only. That would be my best guess. You could write it as "golden roses", without linking "golden". I'm reasonably sure it has to be that. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

No, really helpful. I wondered if it was a collective term for yellow rose, I was just slightly thrown by the capitalisation, which is used in a number of sources. But then, they don’t use you as horticultural consultant. golden rose it is. And I had no idea Buddleja is now spelt with a j - one learns something new on here every day. All the best. KJP1 ( talk) 19:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, both I and the butterflies are appalled that it isn't Buddleia. Anyway, glad to help. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

See MOS:BOLDSYN, particularly the footnote explaining that bolded synonyms need not be redirects if these would be ambiguous. — swpb ^{T •  go beyond •  bad idea} 01:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. That was my mistake, and thank you for fixing it. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey! Just wanted to drop a note to say thanks for looking over my last couple rounds of edits at Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and contributing some historical perspective and technical know-how (that side-by-side view... looking at the wikitext, I'm still not sure how you made that happen...). I'm glad someone is looking at the page, and I certainly don't mind having my suggested wording tweaked or rolled back (this is a wiki after all). I was going to just press the "thank" button, but I thought that might seem insincere in this case. So this is the less efficient version of that button. TLDR: Thanks. Happy editing! Ajpolino ( talk) 23:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

And thank you as well! I appreciate that very much. I do think the writing is much tighter now, so thanks for that as well. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tryptofish. Valereee and myself are planning to write up a proposal to unbundle "edit-protect" and "protect", enabling the creation of a new userright that can be given to main-page regulars. I seem to recall you were supportive of this idea, and of unbundling protection more generally, in the past; would you be interested in working with us? Best, Vanamonde ( Talk) 19:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for asking me. In the past, I've been particularly interested in unbundling the kinds of protection that are given out at WP:RFPP, but I realize that this is something different (do I understand that correctly?). I've never been particularly involved in Main Page stuff (other than having DYKs), so I might not have that much to offer for this. I also have been going through a period of being less active on-wiki lately, and I'd rather not take on any new projects right now. But if you'd like to get back to me when you have a draft proposal, I'd be happy to look it over and do any needed copyediting before it goes live. And I would be likely to support the proposal. Thanks again. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks; I certainly don't want to push you into something you don't have time for; I appreciate the offer of a review, and I'll ping you by and by. With respect to your earlier question, yes, this is intentionally limited in scope. I just went and read a bunch of unbundling proposals; and many of them foundered because of concerns that the new group would try to solve problems outside its remit by using the tools it had (ie protecting instead of blocking because they can protect buy not block, even though blocking is a better option) and/or would still require a high level of trust. By limiting the scope, I'm hoping to avoid those objections. We do have a corps of main page regulars who do very little other admin work, who I see as being the primary targets for this. Vanamonde ( Talk) 22:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Good, that sounds good to me. For the time being, I'm just feeling really really tired. Sigh. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Just looked up "democratic" - it says "elected, representative, parliamentary, popular of the people, populist, egalitarian, classless, self-governing, autonomous, republican." I kid you not. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Um, where's the question? Well, after all, when one considers the parties as of Lincoln's time, they have pretty much done a 100% role reversal. By the way, I should come clean: I came to that RfC from your talk page. I'm too lazy to sign up for the bot that suggests RfCs, but I often go to RfCs from the listings on talk pages that I watch. Oh no! Tryptofish is hounding Atsme! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I was so taken back by the definition, I forgot the question. BTW, you're a Tryptofish, not a dogfish, so it can't be hounding. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

[43]. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

And the issue with me watching yours (is that a bear hounding a fish?) because I find the conversations informative or enjoyable is that I unknowingly click on noisy youtube links and acquire unhappy flatmates! A very sneaky bear-trap ;) Nosebagbear ( talk) 22:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Ha! And welcome to my talk page. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

This Wikipedia newbie really appreciates your gentle advice and welcome to WP. MichaelNaunton ( talk) 23:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

My pleasure! It's always a good thing to have a new editor who is knowledgeable about neuroscience. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.