User:Tryptofish/Trophies

'''Whether I'm misguided or not, I decided to create this archive of compliments that other editors have given me. I thank them all very much! --Tryptofish (talk)'''


 * Edit Count Tool.


 * Centijimbo Tool.

Note: I stopped adding to this page as of Fall 2011, because it simply began to feel increasingly like a waste of time. Of course, that doesn't mean that the compliments stopped then! I just began to feel like I could better put my editing efforts elsewhere. --Tryptofish (talk)

Thank you for the kind words
Thank you very much for the kind words at Talk:Crucifixion. I found it very difficult not to respond to the attackers in kind, and I appreciate your comments. TJRC (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ingrid Newkirk page
Hey, good job on tightening up text on the Ingrid Newkirk page. I was certain it was going to be vandalism, since there is so much on that page, but I was pleasantly surprised to see your edits. Well done! Bob98133 (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi
I had noticed your name in a couple of other places, and consider you to be a fine editor. I'm glad that our differences seem to revolve around minor stylistic points rather than matters of substance...I really wouldn't want to be arguing against you. Regarding refs in the Atheism article, I stated my view but if you and others feel it better to include them mid-sentence I don't think it's a disaster; just a minor point in a difficult article. Doc  Tropics  18:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help


Drew R. Smith (talk) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew R. Smith (talk • contribs) 06:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your inputs
A quick note to say thanks for providing sane and well reasoned inputs on the RfC on the Gun violence page. When I attempted to implement it, I was blocked for 48 hours, despite never violating 3RR, for "edit warring". Nonetheless, I wanted to say thanks for caring enough to comment. Yaf (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Atheism
Thank you, I appreciate the explanation. I should have taken a closer look at WP:LEAD. Your revert is very well justified, thank you again for the explanation --kittyKAY4 (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Just in case nobody else says it, thank you for your calm, civil discussion in the Christian violence AfD, it is appreaciated. Some came off as condescending and lecturing with those who disagreed, but you did not. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:Neuroscience
Hi! Thanks for the welcoming!I decided to join after I found that there are many articles that need expansion and since there are few subjects with which I'm familiar. However, there is still the language and time barrier -but I'll do my best. My expertise is in cognitive neuroscience and I wish to find an article need improvment and join to the efforts-I know many, but will welcome any guidance, I guess that to improve an article alone would be much harder. So, if you have any idea/s, it would be welcomed. Best wishes --Gilisa (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

maybe
All well said. BTW, as you no doubt knew, I had no way to know which way you would vote -- simply that the subject matter was of interest to you.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your advice at ANI. Sorry about being rude to you before, too.Yzak Jule (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Greetings
Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and thanks for being nice to me over at the Animal (non-human) Testing 'discussion'. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 19:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Thank you for your Welcome. I have been admiring your contributions and your trophy page. I will seriously consider joining the Wiki fish project. Fishman 51 Fishman 51 (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The guidance
Thanks again for the excellent work. You've been very receptive to my feedback. I've just went through the section, and I marked things ✅ where I completely agree with you that it's sorted and where I had no further comment. I'm down to one red, and two oranges, and literally it's all minor wording things. I've commented below you (in this sub-section) where I had observations. Have a good weekend. Cheers, NJA (t/ c)  13:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC format
For better or worse, it is now live. Win lose or draw, I think you have done a fantastic job. Ben  Mac  Dui  11:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

CDA quagmire
Hi, I'm an intermittent watcher of the CDA debacle and I am here to thank you for working so hard on it and keeping your cool throughout the process. I'm sorry to see one editor is able to drag the whole process to a halt, and I agree with others that the proposal needs either a reboot or simply taking the draft to RfC as is. I'd like to help in fixing up the draft as you have suggested interested editors do, but I simply can't extract any sort of consensus out of the overlong and complicated discussions to inform a sensible edit. I know I'm not alone in feeling that way (it's been mentioned a handful of times on the discussion page), but despite my inability to jump in and give you a hand I wanted to let you know that there may be some silent support of your efforts and the proposal in general around the wiki. Here's hoping your morale hasn't been too badly injured by the ordeal, — Bility (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Your conduct during CDA/RfC
In light of the significant effort which you devoted to readying, in cooperation with others, the draft of CDA that is currently being considered at RfC, I imagine that you must be somewhat disappointed about the extent of opposition to the proposed process. I want to thank you and commend you, however, for your conduct during the RfC, and so:

Thank You
Thanks for your polite welcome. I look forward to reading your stuff and perhaps working together. If I can be of service to you, feel free to ask.

With very best regards: Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus")

Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS DDF 22:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uploadvirus (talk • contribs)

PETA
Great work!Greggydude (talk) 11:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot
Thanks a lot for your review! Jean-Francois Gariepy (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeaster
You are correct that the template was placed specifically to verify the Yeaster claim. I do not object to it's mention however requested the source for my own research. The other Holy days shown in the article are supported by independent references which I have seen. Yeaster on the other hand was new information which I had not yet seen. It may in fact be true but deserves a citation IMO. Thanks for doing what I believe was the responsible thing for the interim. And that is to remove it until such a time as a reference can support it's inclusion. Bravo!My76Strat (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Christianity and violence article
Keep up the good work on that article! I keep looking for things to edit/fix, but you're doing a great job so I can't find anything. Yaki-gaijin (talk) 08:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks back
Hey, Trypo, I appreciate the work you're doing on articles we both edit. We might not agree about some stuff, but your edits are always well-thought out and cite reliable sources. Particularly glad after recent futile discussions in animal rights and veganism articles! Bob98133 (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Soccer cup competition/notability issue
Thank you for doing that. I was about to do the same thing. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Atheism
Thanks for your support with the associated 'polemicist' (aptly described). The anonymous editor then had the gall to accuse me of using WP to advance my biased viewpoint when I requested that the information be sourced. A pleasure as always, Obamafan70 (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Categories on redirects
Personally I wondered about the categorizations when they were originally added (not too long after the article re-name) but do not feel strongly inclined to spend a lot of time worrying about cats. As you say, due to the changes back and forth it probably is worth mentioning on the talk page if only to gradually build a consensus and stick with the result. Thanks for being open to reconsidering the change. Fæ (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

In need of a little help...
Right ! I see now... Thank you very much, that was what I needed. It's always much easier to learn things once you understand what they actually mean. And I've got so much to learn at the moment, it nice to lighten the load little by little. And thank you for pointing out the Reference desk, I didn't even know it existed ! All the best RiverGirl (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Welcome to Wikipedia
Hello, I am fumbling a little bit on the editing but my intentions are in the right place at least. A little time and I think I can sort out the imperfections. I'll take you up on that offer if I really become frustrated. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caffiend67 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the offer of help, Tryptofish. When i have more time i will begin by reading up on Wikipedia editing and Wikipedia Help. Happy holidays! Fer(di)nand(o) Sant (talk) 09:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey Trypto. Thanks very much for the barnstar! It was awesome of you to go out of your way, and much appreciated and encouraging. All the same things could be said about your contributions as well! I always do appreciate having you on board those heavy discussions! See you around :) Jess talk&#124;edits 23:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Temple Beth Sholom, Miami Beach, FL
I've been working on it since 3:56pm when I received permission. I figured it was you because I was stumped. One picture worked and then another, but 2 others wouldn't. Thanks for your help, AGAIN! Schultzdavid (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC).

T(w)inkle
One of those days you know your work is making a difference. Glad to see so many careful eyes on this page! Ocaasi (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Deny automated recognition
Hi Tryptofish,

I wonder if you could spare some time to have a look at my user essay User:Yaris678/Deny automated recognition.

I've noticed that you seem to be one of the more sensible ones around here so any comments you have would be appreciated. Or edit it directly if you think it appropriate.

The essay is about something I feel quite strongly is an issue, but I don't feel very strongly at all about the best way to resolve the issue so if you think you have a better idea I'd be very interested to hear it!

Yaris678 (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

FSM (again)
Okay amigo, I have just added Twinkle today as I thought the easiest thing would be to revert and add bits back in, I have taken note of the suggestion to say so in the revert edit summary.

As for Lawrence, I stopped by his user page and checked the talk and contribs sections so I know that he is an experienced editor, that he explains the confusion about verifiability and the Truth™, that he is a boffin, er I mean an Economics lecturer or some such thing, unfortunately, as you correctly say reverts are "like waving a red flag in front of someone." The fact that the commentary for the revert went also, one cannot 'create' something that doesn't exist. slightly riled me as this is totally what create means and it seemed to me that the person had taken no notice of all the carefully detailed explanations on the talk page. And what do economists (and suchlike) know about the English language anyway? (another joke)

Right, well editing Wikipedia is: a lot of fun; a huge challenge; very time-consuming; a bit of a headache sometimes; and a HUGE learning curve to familiarize onesself with all of the guidelines.

Oh and wanting to own a page is completely juvenile, I have already come across what appear to be fanboy cliques ganging up to protect pages that appear to be a lot of trivia and unreferenced original research and scaring off well-intentioned editors who only seem to want to apply encyclopedic standards to the articles.

I know there are the helpdesks and suchlike but I do a lot of random editing (due to random reading) and constantly encounter stuff which I do not know how to deal with (despite reading WP:THIS, THAT AND THE OTHER for hours), I can usually find stuff about titles, boldface, external links etc. but I was wondering if, from time to time, I could ask you for advice directly on your talk page, mainly concerning user behaviour and what we have just mentioned above, cliques protecting pages that are either non-notable, poorly sourced or original research? Just asking, like.

Captain Screebo (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

About Fourneau, Fourneau 309 and Suramine
Hi! What a good job you have done, Tryptofish! I enjoy having asked you to help me, and I thank you so much. I have posted on Project Biography as you suggested me. Let's wait now. And please, do not forget that, if you need anything I can do for you from my French and modest position, you must ask me. Je te serre la pince bien chaleureusement. --Thierry (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input...
...at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Good to see a fresh face in the mix to give an clear, concise, and unbiased opinion. RFC/U seems like a good next step. — BQZip01 — talk 14:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

DRN
Letting you know I have taken your ideas into consideration, and updated the proposal accordingly, as after a reflection doing a parallel of both processes in action before doing a trial of both boards would be a good idea. Thanks for your suggestion. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking....  01:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

reply at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case
Yes, best regards to you Tryptofish - I have always found you NPOV and Clueful and if and when you feel ready and have the time, I will support your RFA without a worry. Off2riorob (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Tryptofish
Your assistance is greatly appreciated - I apologize for the delay in getting back to you but I have been overseas for a few months and have just plucked up enough courage to have another attempt at fixing this entry. I will certainly be in touch again if necessary 2BPKP (talk) 06:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

RR
Hello, and thanks so much for your kind response and editing help in the description of the Crucifixion painting in Crucifixion in the arts. I enjoy going through various articles and hope to do more editing. --Rakiramo (talkRakiramo (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Bradspeak
Thanks, Tryp, very nicely put. Bishonen | talk 18:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC).

Your name
Damn! I thought from your magnificent name you were the supreme and ultimate arbitrator on marine life matters. "Red herring" indeed. Must I now pull you off your pedestal? --Epipelagic (talk) 09:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

FishBase page
Dear Tryptofish, Thank you for your support, the page seems in good shape now and we leave it to the community.

extended content omitted by Tryptofish

Regards.

FishBaseProject (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome...
I appreciate it, and wanted to let you know that I have also done work on Opioid_comparison in addition to Equianalgesic. I will try to look for some better sources for both of these articles and contribute, since I have an unfortunate insider's view to pain management. Thanks again for the welcome, and I hope to be able to find better information out there and link to it or do some personal research into the topics and write an informative section for both articles as well as similar ones. AreThree (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC).

Pages I'd like you to take a look at;
Hello, There's a couple of pages I'd like you to take a look at; Brotherly love (biblical) and Great Commandment.

Both pages, in my opinion, need bringing up to a more encyclopedic level, and the Brotherly love page, in particular, seems to be something out of nothing (although I'm unsure if it's trivial enough to warrant complete removal). You seem especially well qualified to judge what would need doing to bring them up to standard and I'd really appreciate it if you could have a look at them. Rgds Obscurasky (talk) 10:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Link to aqadvisor on Aquarium
Thanks for taking your time to review changes and for participating in discussions! Kat (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
Thanks for the welcome and support. This will be my first time using wiki writing as an assignment, but the students seem very excited. Do you know how long it takes for something to be reviewed and evaluated as a good article? ProfRox (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Brotherly Love (Biblical)
Many thanks for taking a look at this page for me. Rgds Obscurasky (talk) 08:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Question re starting a new page that is currently caught under a redirect/disambiguation??
Thanks Tryptofish! Great PROMPT answer. Thanks also Looie- you got it. Nice sleuthing too :-) Civeel (talk) 03:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Suicides related to cyberbullying
Dear Tryptofish,

I agree with Your efforts for keeping the category on cyberbullying-related suicides (REDLINK IS VALID CONTAINING SOME ADMIN INFO). I just sent this message for thanking for Your protecting the category, I do not expect any work.

(shortened by Tryptofish)

Thank You for Your work for protecting the category,

Best wishes,

Physis (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

A small note of thanks!
I just saw your note at Administrator review, and wanted to drop a note of thanks for your kind words, as well as the constructive criticism. There's always room for improvement, and I welcome your well-put suggestions. So again, thanks so much! I'll take the advice to heart. I look forward to crossing paths again. And, if you're ever in need of a helping hand, feel free to let me know. Cheers! m.o.p 14:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks for daring
Thank you for daring to write a page on "receptors" which remains very helpful even if the field has proliferated to the extent of galaxies of knowledge. You need to enter this jungle at some point to learn about the many strange animals within. Well done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farmacol (talk • contribs) 19:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW
I wont revert you btw. The section is fine without the British material, and if this is what it takes to appease certain editors then its a great decision.Griswaldo (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Tryptofish
Thank you for including my article in your article. As you probably gathered the subject is something I care deeply about. I couldn't help making one edit that I felt crucial. The most crucial things to be recognized as abstractions are psychiatric diagnoses, symptoms (or as you put it medicalized symptoms) are a much lower level abstractions - damaging in that they presume an "illness", "chemical imbalance", etc. - not so much due to the fact that the are abstractions. All the best, Mike Walker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeltwalker (talk • contribs) 23:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

From: Talk:Urination
(outdent) Hi tryptofish, how you doing today? You make some very good points indeed. In fact it is largely your ability to approach the matter in such a mature, logical, and well thought out manner that encourages me to continue the discussion (rather than just leave it alone). I guess my concerns are that with the rise in popularity of Wikipedia, a lot of schools and such are encouraging the use of the site. To be honest, I didn't even realize until recently that many of the topics available existed. One link leads to another and such. While I'm not here personally to view things like pearl necklace, and the others - I understand that some folks have an interest in it. I did when I was younger as well. My concern is that I would hate for Wikipedia as a whole to be viewed by anyone as a "good place to get stuff". If the community decides that the picture should stay, I won't argue with it. I understand my voice is only one of many. And as an aside, I did think the block of Aether22 was excessive. Well, anyway, appreciate your time and thoughts - hope all goes well, and remains civil here. Best to all Ched (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

From: Talk:Inward-rectifier potassium ion channel
Great Edit, Tryptofish! It is much clearer now. I think it might still be helpful to also address the downward vs. upward deflection. I recognize that an inward flow is represented as a negative deflection on the oscilloscope, but the upward deflection of the action potential on the membrane potential vs. time graph is more relevant. Perhaps it might even be beneficial to replace the current figure with an action cardiac action potential curve, seeing how an oscilloscope recording means very little to those who have never used one in a physiological context before. My guess is that the majority of people who wiki membrane channels are college or medical students, where the oscilloscope is never discussed. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shershko (talk • contribs) 05:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

From: Talk:Atheism/Archive 40
Tryptofish: best so far. Can we run with this one? --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree, that's the best formulation, simple and clear. man with one red shoe 22:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

From: Talk:Atheism/Archive 41
Noting that your efforts and calm guidance through this whole process are probably the reason it went as smoothly as it did, I hereby defer to your judgment and suggest that everyone else refrain from making the change to the article, allowing you to do it when you deem it appropriate to do so. Thank you Tryptofish! --Born2cycle (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

From: Talk:Religion
POV is an abbreviation for point of view. Everyone involved in this discussion is expressing a POV. To say someone has a point of view about something is not to say he is necessarily wrong about it (or, at least, it was not my intention above). Your current POV (as I came to see it after noticing my previous misinterpretation) actually seems very reasonable and defensible. I do disagree with some specific things you said in previous posts, but I won't argue about them right now. And thanks for your effort, I'm really sorry if this discussion and my previous misunderstanding of your POV drained you in any way. You seem tho be a good editor and an asset for Wikipedia. Keep the good work. --Leinad-Z (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

From: Talk:Animal rights
That perfectly explains my concern. Thank you. --Elliskev 20:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

From: Talk:PETA
I like the way how Tryptofish's has handle this. Personally, I really don't see a need for another monkey photograph, but this nice compromise. Great work Trypo! Wade Hunter (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

From: User talk:Svampen
Thank you for the warm welcome, Tryptofish and for answering my question about photographs. I'll check the links you've posted to see what photos have been requested so far. Cheers! ﻯναოթ€ռ (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

From: Talk:Crucifixion
Three apparently. Thanks again Tryptofish for fixing my errors based in inexperience and further guiding me into proper procedure on wikipedia. Cmiych (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

From: Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster
(on passing GA):

Thanks! And thank you for all of your help along the way. Mnation2 (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

From: WP:Articles for deletion/Lake Mower

 * Comment Thanks also, Tryptofish, for being so WP:CIVIL; it's pretty refreshing to find in deletion discussions and so I removed some of the links going to companies who sell lake mowers but I didn't get them all yet but I'm all for having them removed. Also, I was wondering if we should completely remove the 'Accessories' section to make it sound less like an advertisement (the only reason that I included it in the first place was because I modeled the whole page after the String trimmer page which is why the sections are called History, Operation, Environmental impact, and Accessories.) Epipelagic, I know naming it just 'Lake Mower' could be very confusing which is why I wanted to name it 'Jenson Lake Mower' but I think if we could secure a free picture it'll a lot less confusing either way. Oh, and Tryptofish, you said "The lead refers only to one brand, by the brand name" which was very true, but as far as I can tell no other company makes the stuff and I think they have it patented but I'm not sure, but regardless I removed the 'Jenson' part.Invmog (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Alright then; I've copied it to my userspace with a link to this deletion discussion on its talk page. Thanks for all your help on improving it, Tryptofish, I appreciate it. Invmog (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

From: Talk:Something Awful
Actually, you know what, now we've gone through this discussion, I think it might be appropriate to have some kind of section detailing notable forum members. I'm not sure how many there would be but if it starts becoming some kind of trivial list we can work on culling it at that point. I'll look and see if I can find some. Thanks for persisting with the talk :) Fancy steve (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

From: User talk:Billreid
Ta, but that's the way I see it. The three of you have made and continue to make a difference to the what your trying to achieve. Too many i 's being dotted and t 's being crossed but good luck with it. -Bill Reid | (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just saw it myself Bill - many thanks for your kind remarks. A fascinating, if absurd process - not Wikipedia at its best despite the efforts of many good folk - including the excellent Tryptofish. Ben   Mac  Dui  11:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

From: Talk:Atheism
Another brilliant suggestion from Tryptofish incorporating comments made by others. I concur. You really deserve a 

Born2cycle has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

--Born2cycle (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

From: Talk:Dopaminergic mind
Nice improvements. And thank you for helping me with my first effort here on Wikipedia. Irishfiddle (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

From: Talk:Procaine
I thank you for your own watchfulness, and I hope I'll have to work again with you. Friendly regards. --Thierry (talk) 10:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

From: Requests for adminship/Thumperward 3
Except that can be quite a laborious process. So we get a lot of scrutiny beforehand. I agree it would be nice to have a trial process that ended with a more lightweight "sorry but it didn't work" sort of removal if warranted. Like Wikiversity and mentored custodians. But the chance of that is ... zip. So we get what we have here. I have a great deal of respect for Tryptofish and their oppose did weigh on my mind before I decided to support but I'm confident that Chris will take that on board if he's passed. ++Lar: t/c 13:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

From: User talk:Thumperward
Congrats! I'm proud to have supported you, and glad you made it. As I said in my comments to Trypto (who I greatly respect) I felt that while you were a bit "snippy" at times, that you would make a good admin. Here's hoping you will prove me right... Best wishes on your adminship! Jusdafax  20:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

From: Wikipedia talk:Protection policy

 * Oppose. Tryptofish sums it up well... I agree that using the "wrong version" template is the way to go... it clearly acknowledges (and with appropriate humor) that the protection is not an endorsement of the protected text... and that the protecting admin understands that someone is going to be unhappy, no matter which version is protected.   Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

From: Talk:Suicide of Tyler Clementi
Same here, not a strong feeling, just trying to do right by the encyclopedia. Always great to work with you, it's so easy. :) --j &#9883; e deckertalk 15:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

From: Talk:Silver Spring monkeys
Thanks for the measured comments, Tryptofish. You make some very good points. (Sentence about another editor deleted by Tryptofish.) Famousdog (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Also from the same talk, and I'm particularly going to remember this one!

That's a reasonable compromise, and a good analysis. Thank you for finding the sources. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 22:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

From: Talk:Ani*Kuri15
...So I still see little direct guidance on the point at hand but more policy than not seems to favor your recommendation, Tryptofish. I'll inform the other editor and you can remove the RfC tag whenever you wish or I'll remove it if there is no further discussion. Thanks for your excellent help here. -Thibbs (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

From: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators
Thank you for your very good suggestion, Tryptofish. This template was designed by a member of the old League of Copy Editors in 2008. The template as we now see it is a way to promote the Guild and its work. Not to promote individual editors or to get own-y about articles. I would support the removal of this parameter from the template. -- Diannaa (Talk) 16:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

From: User talk:Mkativerata
Hi there, I've just replied back. I am genuinely sorry to pick on your comments like this. I'm doing so because I have so much respect from you - so know it's much more likely that you, as opposed to others, will understand where I'm coming from.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

From: Talk:Atheism
Never! I regard you as a thoughtful and considerate editor. That you and I don't agree on some/many matters of perspective and approach doesn't mean that I don't trust you to have the best interests of the article in mind. Regards — Peter S Strempel &#124; Talk   01:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

From: Talk:Transgender
LOL Humility is a rare find on WP. (I think that makes me a Trypofan?)

Yes, Blanchard is well-known, and any discussion from WP would indeed suggest he is controversial. It's more accurate to say that his research led to a conclusion about the nature of transsexualism that some (prolifically vocal) transsexuals found un-flattering and attempt to discredit. (The big explosions started in 2003 when The Man Who Would Be Queen was published by J. Michael Bailey, bringing Blanchard's ideas to wider attention.) That's why I often seek external input rather than to repeat the same arguments with the same WP editors.

So, although our explicit conversation here is about good editing, the implicit conversation is the expectable one: Everything that agrees with Blanchard must be shot down, and everything that criticizes Blanchard must be included and emphasized, no matter how low the WP:RS bar must go. You'll notice, for example, that the Zhou finding is based on the smallest dataset ever reported, each aspect of that study failed to replicate, but it still receives the greatest mainpage attention even though the data repeatedly agree with Blanchard's prediction instead of Zhou's n of 6.

My personal opinion is that the Blanchard quote gives obvious context for the rest of the neuroanatomy section, but rather than take another ride on the edit war wagon, I'd likely follow your thus far uninvolved opinion.

— James Cantor (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

From: User talk:Thomea neuro
Hi Tryptofish, thanks for the warm welcome. I'm just working on my diss. which has a significant coding component, so I'm hoping I can spin some of that off into those sections. I'll definitely check into the Neuroscience project. Will be a little quite due to other writing requirements, and trying to find my bearings within wikipedia. Regards --Thomea neuro (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

From: User talk:NeuroJoe
That looks great, thanks so much for your help Tryptofish! NeuroJoe (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

From: Wikipedia talk:Pending changes level two protection for problematic BLPs
Couldn't have said it better myself. Well spoken. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 20:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

From: User talk:SchwarzeSchlange
Hello Tryptofish. I just found that it was you who created that userbox; very helpful indeed. Thank you for welcoming me into Wikipedia. Even though I am not quite new here, I am a bit unexperienced at editing. That said, I surely will find your expertise extremely valuable. Cheers! --SchwarzeSchlange (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

From: User talk:North8000
They were well deserved. You made a proposal which I would call a masterstroke. And you being on the opposite side of me in the the debate would not slow me down for a second in saying this. The big picture is that it's all good people there with the best in mind for Wikipedia; just different perspectives on what will work best. Thanks for the note. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

From: User talk:LillianLomas
That's so kind, thank you. :) I'm so far very impressed by the editors here! It's been a good welcome in all LillianLomas (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

From: User talk:FactController
Hi Tryptofish, thanks! FactController (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

From: User talk:CottageDream
Hello, thank you for your help and appreciation! CottageDream (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

From: what is now Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions
Excellent start. Perhaps some of the images on the shorter sections need to go, but they do otherwise liven up a discussion on a debated topic. and I'm fine leaving the "usernames" as you have them to make it clear which side things fall onto. --M ASEM (t) 19:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Good and evenhanded. (shortened by Tryptofish) The power of your essay is that it's evenhanded, and something that thoughtful editors everywhere can and should agree on. I think if you come down on one side of this particular issue versus the other here it's less likely to gain acceptance in that way. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Very good start. I suspect this page is going to become very influential -- the admin's cribsheet for FFD. (shortened by Tryptofish) There are probably some more things I could pick up on, but those seem like a good two to start with. Jheald (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all, congrats for getting this started. And really well started. Of course most of what will be posted here will be "criticism", but that's because we're working on improving what remains to be improved, and not because we have more bad than good things to say about it overall. That said... (shortened by Tryptofish) --damiens.rf 01:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I am, admittedly, not an expert on Wikipedia's non-free content policy, but I am interested in that area of copyright law, and all of this seems like very good advice especially when discussing NFCC areas. I would perhaps add more about other arguments often seen that do not add to the discussion. (shortened by Tryptofish) That would be the most important one I think you missed, other than that, very well done. HominidMachinae (talk) 03:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice. I wrote a similar essay Arguments to avoid in non-free image discussions which probably should be merged into your essay. PhilKnight (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

(shortened by Tryptofish) Anyway, thanks for writing this page - it was needed! Carcharoth (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(shortened by Tryptofish) Other than that, good job! For the most part, I think you just need to go through all of the content with efficiency in mind and get rid of any redundant, duplicative, or unnecessary material. Feel free to revert my edit if you disagree with it. Cheers. &mdash;SW&mdash;</b> chatter 02:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

From: Talk:Animal rights
{...} Third: Thank you Tryptofish; while i believe this is of serious need for discussion, I didnt check to see if there were more specifics beforehand. my apologies. 96.28.157.126 (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

From: User talk:Axle Road
Thank you for the warm welcome. I will keep you in mind if I need assistance. Axle Road (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

From: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence
Yes, Tryptofish, you've put it more eloquently than I have; dunno why I failed to make my point sufficiently well. Consensus can change... but a small group, no matter how interested, passionate, and involved, does not a community make. Jclemens (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

From: Files for deletion/2011 September 3
Thank you, Tryptofish and Mtking, for educating me on this. I think I'm beginning to understand now. One last question: if I replaced this photo with a digital snapshot of the subject taken by myself at a recent fan convention (June 2011), in that case would I then be considered the appropriate copyright holder and use of the photo be permitted? Or would that be a COI, since in that case I (the copyright holder) would also be the uploader? Thanks for all your help. LittleBrownWren (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)LittleBrownWren

From: Talk:Suicide of Tyler Clementi
Thank you again for another gracious reply. I have no doubt that you are passionate about the subject and want to make the article as good as you can.LedRush (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

From: Talk:Militant atheism

 * Support split or disambiguation of some kind, but have no strong opinion on how it should be carried out. It seems to me that a general principle of Wikipedia is that an article should be about a topic, rather than about a pile of different topics; Mojoworker's point about "cloud" and JimWae's point about "Georgia" adequately refute Anupam's contention that there must be only one article because different sources use the same term to mean different things. Throwing this unrelated material together is obviously intended to suggest that disliking religion is the same thing as persecuting religious people, which violates WP:NPOV. Or, in short, "per Tryptofish." –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

From: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates

 * Keep WP:Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions (I have little knowledge of the rest) -- this was created by, who has an exemplary record, independently of any of the others on the list, to try to clarify points that regularly come up at WP:FFD by editors who don't know or understand the often intricate policy stance in this area, and as a result make contributions that can only be dismissed as irrelevant, and fail to advance the discussions. The page has been highlighted at WT:NFC both in its development phase in user-space and on its subsequent move to project space, and has received praise and suggestions from several of the WT:NFC regulars.  Remarkably, this support has come from right across the spectrum of editors' personal viewpoints in the often contested NFC area, bearing witness to the hard work that Tryptofish has done to produce something which is genuinely informative, even-handed, and an accurate representation of NFC policy as it is understood.  Debates at WP:FFD all too regularly can become misinformed and poorly-anchored in policy -- which helps nobody, and can lead to poisonous rancour and bad feeling.  The page, which still a recent creation, has the potential to very much improve the quality of discussion in such debates, which is why it has generally been applauded, and should most definitely be kept.  Jheald (talk) 11:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

From: Files for deletion/2011 October 10
Thank you both, Tryptofish and We hope. I have taken both your suggestions, extending the article and moving the image to Wikimedia Commons with a PD-US-no notice (pre-1978, no copyright notice) license. I believe this means I can withdraw my objection to the deletion of the non-free image on Wikipedia, and the (reduced) image can be deleted speedily.

May I also suggest that it could be very helpful to articles using other railway images threatened with deletion if they also could be moved to Wikimedia Commons under the pre-1978 license, rather than randomly deleted when nobody happens to be around to fight for them? I see that at least one other is under immediate threat, to no-one's benefit and to the loss of historic value to Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

In re: an AfD
I don't usually pay attention to off-site comments, and I haven't otherwise included them here, but I'm making an exception. I started an AfD of a BLP, and had the through-the-looking-glass internet experience of seeing the subject of the BLP comment on her blog about the AfD while the AfD was discussing the page about her. Her posting elicited multiple comments, many with the usual wikigroaning, but there was one comment that I copy here:

4. Nepenthe says:
 * October 13, 2011 at 1:38 PM

If there’s anyone I’d like to set the tone for a deletion discussion about my biography, it's Tryptofish. I was expecting snide vaguely sexist remarks, not a seemingly reasonable discussion.