User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 19

August, 2012 – October, 2012

Concern
I would like to email you, but you don't appear to have an email address connected to your account. Silver seren C 01:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That is intentional on my part. I'm very sensitive about privacy issues, and therefore I do not engage in e-mail via Wikipedia. Ever. I'm happy to discuss things on-site, with full transparency, but not off-site. If you are not comfortable discussing it with me here, I'm sincerely sorry, but that's where it ends. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's just that NewtonGeek would like to speak with you. I'm sure they would have been willing to speak with you on-wiki if that was possible. Silver  seren C 00:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I see. I hereby give you (Silver seren) my full permission to post here, on my user talk, anything that you would like to pass along to me on NewtonGeek's behalf. If anyone raises the point that you are helping to circumvent a site-ban, let me say right here that the blame should be placed on me, and not on you. I take full responsibility for it. (After all, it's no more a circumvention of the ban than if I allowed NewtonGeek to e-mail me privately, and no one has to look at my talk page if they do not want to. I'm also going to tell ArbCom that I'm doing this, for transparency.) That doesn't mean that I will agree with what I find on my talk page, or that I won't hat it, and it certainly doesn't mean that I will pass it along to anywhere else on Wikipedia. It doesn't even mean that I won't say that I will no longer accept such postings here. But, for now, I'm making that offer. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Message from NewtonGeek follows: "You appear to have read some things on-wiki that led you to think that I am another user. During the SPI I communicated with a bureaucrat, explained my identity, and offered proof. WRT me the bureaucrat concluded, correctly, that I am not another user and I was unblocked. I offered proof of my identity again after the ArbCom block. I am not another user. I confirmed my identity to the satisfaction of an Arb. My account was not created by anyone but me. I have always written on my own behalf.

There are suppressed or revdeleted diffs that are relevant to your being able to ascertain whether or not I am another user. I understand that you don’t see a way to reconcile what you can view on the SPI page with my response to you on my talk page. Please look at the SPI revision history and note that some information is not available for view. If you also look at the Agent00f RFCU talk and project pages you will see more information that is not available for view. Either my talk page or my user page revision history has more information that is not available for view. If you could view that information then you would be able to reconcile what I wrote on my talk page and the SPI.

I regret that I could not write more freely on my talk page. I’m sorry that you found my comments “strange to the point of being troll-like.” I have never trolled here, or anywhere, at any time. This includes both my online behavior and how I conduct myself offline. If you would quote me what you found strange, other than that I am not another user, I will be glad to explain why I wrote what I did.

Some of my talk page comments regarded what e-mails one or more Arbs were referring to. I had no way of knowing what e-mail it was since there were multiple e-mail exchanges with Arbs. I was trying to avoid miscommunication. No Arb had indicated in any of the e-mails the issues that I was later accused of. During that time while I was writing on my talk page I was trying my best to identify which e-mail one or more Arbs were referring to. This task would have been easier if any Arb had stated, "I'm referring to the e-mail you sent on X day at Y time." This would have allowed me to avoid cryptically referring to any e-mail in order to avoid miscommunication. This was about the time that an Arb had specified conditions for my unblock which had to do with not writing much outside of articles and confining myself to articles that were not highly contentious. I immediately agreed to do both of those things."

End of message. Silver seren C 01:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply to Silver seren: Thanks for passing this message along to me. From this point forward, I do not want any more messages from NewtonGeek to be posted on my user talk page, so please do not put any more of them here. I will regard any further efforts by NewtonGeek to contact me on-Wiki as disruptive.
 * Reply to NewtonGeek: Thank you for your attempt to explain. I have read it carefully, and I certainly am sorry if there was anything that I misinterpreted due to a lack of access to certain information. However, I think that it is now time for you to move on to other things, other than Wikipedia. There are lots of worthwhile and rewarding activities in the world, and I guess that Wikipedia and you just aren't a good match. No big deal, it's just a website. I thank you for your kind words to me in the past, and I wish you well. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. You can see why I was confused about the checkuser statement though, since if it has to do with use of sockpuppets, that could have just been outright stated. And if it has to do with Factseducado and past events, well that was already explained in the past to multiple people's satisfaction, Arbitrator and Bureaucrat alike. So I still have no idea what the checkuser data is referring to and that's why I still consider it to be suspicious. Silver  seren C 04:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Your statement about mind and brain
Hello. I've come here from the Brain talk page. You presented yourself as a “non-layperson,” so I'll assume that your understanding of the subject is significantly deeper than mine. In your own words, “'' The problem, from a neuroscientific point of view, is that you aren't going to find scientific studies saying: here is the place in the brain where the mind exists. It's just not the kind of thing that scientists have a way of defining ''.” But hasn't it been known for quite some time now that the neocortex is the source of rational thought in mammals? I mean, sure, some non-mammalian animals (e.g., common ravens) have convergently evolved mental skills just as remarkable as those of mammals without having the same brain structure, but that's a different story. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good question! Yes, you are correct about the neocortex. My point was that it's hard for a neuroscientist to equate that with the philosophical concept of "mind". One alteration of the cortex might affect word recognition, another might affect face recognition, and yet another might affect spatial reasoning – and yet, when do we say that those all add up to a "mind" in the mind's entirety? Obviously, we all have a common-sense understanding of what "mind" means, but it's surprisingly difficult to go from that to a scientific definition of the word. (Just imagine how difficult it would be to derive a mathematical equation for it! Experimental neuroscientists would settle for a lot less than mathematical precision, but would still need more than the common-sense definition.) But yes, one could certainly add any number of references documenting association between the neocortex and various definitions of higher-order thought processes. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and besides, it doesn't by any means all come down to the neocortex. The amygdala is involved in emotion; the hippocampus in memory; the basal ganglia in decision-making.  All those are usually thought of as aspects of mind. Looie496 (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true too. I forgot to point that out. There are even parts of the brainstem that are involved, along with higher brain regions, in wakefulness/sleepiness. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your answer certainly satisfied the curiosity behind my question. As they say, you learn something new every day. Occasionally I had wondered whether the cerebral cortex is the only part of the CNS manifesting on the level of conscious processes, but sleep-wake cycles are a rather primitive process of the mind, so I'm not too surprised that they are partly controlled by that “reptilian” area. I do acknowledge that the neocortex is not the only source of mind in mammals, and this is why I only said “rational thought” and didn't transgress to saying “the mind in its entirety.” The problem of semantics—and of measurement—is perpetual in science. There is no shortage of phenomena that, albeit lacking consensus as for their meaning, have been extensively researched and are of great interest to thinkers of all sides of the spectrum (e.g., the concept of intelligence). Although there have been plenty of attempts to reconcile the two sciences (i.e., neuropsychology), neuroscience and psychology remain distinct. The barrier between the brain and the mind is precisely that twilight zone where the concrete turns into the abstract. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been happy to discuss this, and it has been quite interesting for me too. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for your participation at my RfA. I appreciate your candor and consideration. Granted, I'm not sure if you've seen me around before, but I have been editing since 2007 (and registered in 2008); I've long since familiarized myself with the functions of +sysop. Nevertheless, I'm very grateful for your moral support and thoughtful advice.

And speaking of adminship... I just noticed that you actually don't have a mop and bucket. Before I'd visited your userpage a day or two ago, I genuinely believed you became an administrator several years ago! If ever you wish to apply for the bit, you can rest assured I'll be in the support column.

Take care. =)  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 02:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for going to the effort of commenting here. I really appreciate your kind words, and I really meant it when I said the (hopefully!) encouraging things that I said at the RfA. I just went and read your withdrawal statement, and I find it very graceful. At the risk of shamelessly plugging something I wrote, please let me recommend WP:AAFFD if you'd like a bit of a guide about those copyright things. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

A Question
Hi there, it's nosy me again. I would like to ask you a question if you don't mind. I went to my GP for treatment of depression, now I am on Fluoxetine which is an antidepressant of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) class. It is supposed to raise my serotonin level and alter my brain chemistry. But at the same time I have autism, and I read some research papers saying autistic people have higher level of serotonin in the brain than usual already? I thought they contradict each other, why is that? -- RexRowan  Talk  12:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Rex. Before I try to answer you, I need to say a few caveats. I'm not a physician, so I'm not really qualified to give anybody medical advice. Also, Wikipedia has a policy against giving medical advice, so let's stipulate that I'm saying this as the person I am in real life, not as a Wikipedia editor, and I'm just saying it here on my talk page.


 * OK, so here is my scientific understanding of the answers. First, SSRIs do not simply raise the overall amount of serotonin in the brain. Instead, they block the reuptake of serotonin back into the nerve cells that release it, so there's more serotonin outside the cell, but less of it being released by the cell at a given time. Therefore, it's really a change in the time course of serotonin getting to the serotonin receptors, instead of a change in the overall amount of serotonin that can get to its receptors. Second, there are different subtypes of serotonin reuptake proteins (where the SSRIs bind and act), with differing sensitivities to SSRIs, in different parts of the brain, so SSRIs don't affect all parts of the brain equally. Therefore, the effects on depression might be different from the effects on autism. Finally, we really do not know why serotonin affects depression, and we know even less about how significant or insignificant the brain levels of serotonin are in affecting people with autism. Therefore, we really have no way to know whether or not different parts of the brain might be involved in depression versus autism (and it kind of stands to reason that there must be some differences in the parts of the brain). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

 * Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

 * You are very welcome! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Have a beer!
While we're at it, have a beer. Cheers!


 * Wow! At this rate, I (or at least my talk page) will have to go on a diet! But it really hits the spot anyway! Actually, I'm not exactly sure what I did to deserve this. Is there a particular discussion you are referring to? (blush) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You deserve the praise for being an all-round good guy. But specifically, I was thinking about your level-headed contributions to his blessed noodliness' page. RAmen! LK (talk) 09:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks!! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thanks for helping put my inaugural article in its correct place...!

Makennedy101 (talk) 06:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC) 
 * You are very welcome indeed! And good luck with your article! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I see that you moved it into the mainspace, and that another editor has raised some issues about it. You will need to work on those issues. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

New Project idea
Hi Tryptofish, would you like to review this for me? Thanks a lot! It's at an idea stage, welcome further ideas! -- RexRowan  Talk  17:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Rex. I've looked at it, and I think the idea of an app like that, as a sort of ASD/neurotypical translator, is an excellent idea, and could be very useful to ASD persons on talk pages. It could perhaps be listed as a gadget, to be selected by users under "my preferences". At some point, when the proposal is developed well enough to be submitted to the community as an RfC, I'm very likely to support it strongly. Until then, I don't think I have very much to offer in its development, because I don't have any programming skills, and I don't really know that much about ASD communication issues, but I see you've approached other editors who do. Let me point you to Verifiability/2012 RfC/Comments, where there was a recent discussion in the community about similar issues that arise when writing policy pages. You can see there the kinds of opposition that can come up to new ideas of this sort, and I'm pretty sure you and the editors working with you will be able to put forward something that will get a good reaction, if you are aware of what people said in that previous discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! You have given me some valuable insight. I think the development may take some time but it's doable with the current technology and vast data base. Adding to My preferences is such a good idea! I think we can also use it in emails and web pages, ipads or even movie subtitles. Anyway, thanks a million! :D -- RexRowan  Talk  18:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Invitation for discussion
I invite you to discuss about a threatening message recieved from a registered user saying I have commited copyright violation and reverted his undo on my contribution twice. Infact i would tell you to do thorough research on how it became a copy and paste as i had done the work myself from the external written material resources not cyber and it took 5 days,discussing with users like Sphilbrick,not to disgust anyone but frankly saying is a waste of time and completely useless.you can point out extracts of what is written to show copyright similarities if you like. otherwise if u dont have time leave a yes or no comment on my talk page. --Johnyjohny294 (talk) 05:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC) or leave it completely--Johnyjohny294 (talk) 05:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Please keep an eye on Sphilbrick behaviour and asess him and his blocking policy if u dont mind--Johnyjohny294 (talk) 05:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for a detailed and prompt reply at WT:NPOV. It was extremely helpful. Correct Knowledge «৳alk»  16:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome! It was my pleasure. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Pain...
Saw the article you pointed out to me at the other article's talk page. Yes, I DO feel your pain, and that's why I'm not touching that general topic with a 10-foot pole unless you should require some simple polling votes or a dogpile of some sort. I have enough on my plate with one animal (!) (well, technically two, I seem to get into the cattle articles some too). However, should I need a poll or a dogpile, I shall seek you out, as I suspect you have your hands full otherwise! Montanabw (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * { Yes, I've had my share of dog fights! I got there by way of concern about how biomedical research was being presented on-Wiki. I've gotten pretty used to it, so it's become pretty close to impossible to ruffle my feathers any more. I'm steering clear of rodeos and agriculture though, and I suppose my username means I should stay in a tank. (End of clunky animal puns.) I sure do hope we are making progress on a new title, though! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL! Yes, I suspect we have similar goals (starting with NPOV).  Some people don't understand that "neutral" is "neutral" and that disagreeing with them doesn't mean you are an agent of Satan, or an agent for the dark side, whatever that may be... it means "neutral."  Or at least, trying hard to be.   Montanabw (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

you're not getting me
Thank you for the offer, but you're not getting me. My information was ABSOLUTELY correct and verifiable. Also, thank you for the offer of helping me. PLEASE NOTE- please answer this on MY talk page, not yours 'cause I might not get back to you, On my talk page! THANK YOU! DEIDRA C. (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey! OMG! I actually do need your opinion and help! Go to Papillon (dog) and look at the section HEALTH. Tell me if you think everything is verifiable. I included my source of information and also included templates for the cite, and used links and the information AND details about my resource! Isn't that great!? Go check it out! Answer this here on your talk page or on mine! Whatever you feel is most comfortable! Thank you for the help offer, (I really might need it again!"  DEIDRA C. (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I think that you provided the needed sourcing, just as you should have, but there were a few minor formatting things that made the inline citations come out looking wrong. You'll see that I made an edit to fix it, and you can look at my edit to see what I did. Within one of the source citations, the one about the "Encyclopedia of Dog Breeds Section: Papillons", it looks to me like you might, perhaps, have been trying to put in a URL (link to a web site), and it didn't come out right. If you can give me the link, I can show you how to correct that too. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't put a URL. DEIDRA C. (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll look again. Maybe you had text that appeared twice. (By the way, on talk pages like this one, you can (and should) use the : symbol to indent comments, so that the flow of conversation can be followed easily.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay. I tried to put a template again because my last one deleted, but this one refuses to work, so I'll leave it alone for now.  DEIDRA C. (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I just checked on it, and it's fixed. Bye Tryptofish! Happy edits!   DEIDRA C. (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * What happened was that you had a tag at the end of the citation, so that it swallowed up the Exercise section that followed it. The deletion was me fixing it. I also figured out that you had repeated that Encyclopedia of Dog Breeds reference multiple times, and only needed to say it once, so I fixed that too. Finally, Wikipedia does not use sentences telling readers "you should read this" about other sources, so you didn't need to add that. I took it out, because citing that Encyclopedia is enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay. DEIDRA C. (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent Edit
Hello. I recently received a disconcerting message from you regarding a page edit I allegedly made earlier this month on some page called 'FSM'(not sure what it was as the link in the message took me to the dis-ambig. page instead of a specific link). Anyway, I do not remember making any wiki edits lately and as such have a few concerns. I was hoping you could possibly provide me with more details such as what page was altered and how.

Thank you~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rekuzan (talk • contribs) 07:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no idea, and I'm certainly very sorry if anything was sent to you that should not have been! FSM is on my watchlist, and I revert vandalism there from time to time, but I definitely have never seen any edit by you there, certainly not in the last few months. Also, the only way I would send someone a message would be on their user talk page, and I see that there have never been any edits to your user talk page. One possibility is that it was someone other than me, making mischief and pretending to be me. Another possibility is that I might have reverted an IP editor and left a user warning on the IP talk page, and there is somehow some IP overlap between that IP address and your IP address. In any case, please understand that whatever the message was, it was either not from me, or not intended for you. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, awesome, I kinda figured it was just a glitch cuz the only recent page in my edit list is the Zoids Chaotic Century ep list. Thanks for your time.


 * Rekuzan (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Good! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Rekuzan was clearly editing logged-out, and made this edit, which you reverted. (Sorry for intruding; I just enjoy solving puzzles.) Looie496 (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether that IP was Rekuzan or not (and we don't need to discuss it, privacy and all that), but claiming that that subject is a real religion is a perennial troll edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And I AGF that, per what Rekuzan said, they aren't that IP, although I guess there could be overlap of IP addresses, which could be how Rekuzan saw the warning message that I left for the IP. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

adminship
I was going through people's user-rights earlier today (long story), and noticed that you aren't an admin...

I see the question at the top of this page.

So let me ask: Have you ever gone through an RfA already? - jc37 05:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't. I guess what it says above is still pretty much the way that I feel. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * mk.
 * Well please drop me a note should you ever change your mind : ) - jc37 15:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks (blush). That's extremely nice of you! I really appreciate it. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've had the (fortune?) to close several discussions where you were a participant. Your tendency to work with other towards a solution, your positive nature, and so on, really lends me to think that at the very least you have the temperment for adminship. (Of course having said that, the moment I look over your contribs, I'll find a raving vandal, right : )
 * Anyway, I was serious, and sincere: should you change your mind, please let me know. - jc37 15:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * { --Tryptofish (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Parental brain at GA
Did I already leave you a note about Parental brain, which is at GA with a brand-new reviewer? I thought you might want to give an opinion at Talk:Parental brain/GA1. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't ask me about it before, and I hadn't seen it before today. I made a few really minor edits there. It looks to me like there already are editors reviewing it, and I'm not exactly sure whether there's anything where I could resolve any differences of opinion. I'm a little busy these days, so I don't expect to do a top-to-bottom evaluation of the page, but if there's a particular issue that you'd like me to look at, I'd be happy to do that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I just wanna say THANK YOU!

 * You are very welcome! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Ref columns
What is wrong with two columns? Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm a bit of a perfectionist, at least when the edit is an easy one to make. I'm guessing that you are asking in a humorous way, but the serious answer is that the 30em format allows for readers with a wider variety of screen dimensions. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Contribution.
Hey, Tryptofish. Please help contribute to my WikiProject. This WikiProject is about different cultures. If you can take some time and help contribute to it, that would be very nice of you. I am starting this project this week and would like to finish by next week. Please help me with this project. Thank you very much. Please answer on my talk page because I might not be able to keep track of who is contributing and who is not. I would like you to also share your culture. If you can give me a little summary about your culture such as, foods, lifestlye, holidays, traditions, e.t.c, that would be extremely helpful. Thank you. So if you would wish to contribute, please reply on MY talk page. Happy edits! Have a great day! DEIDRA C. (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for asking me. I'm very serious about my personal privacy on Wikipedia, so I'm not going to take part in your survey, but I wish you good luck with it. I let it be known that I live in the US, but beyond that, I try not to reveal very much. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's okay. I mean it is only facts about culture and we are celebrating cultures around the world. But if you don't want to share that information, that is okay. Thanks anyway! Tell me on my talk page, if you change your mind! AGAIN- Thanks! Happy edits! DEIDRA C. (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)