User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 2

July – November, 2009

please check
Hi please check a copy of 'specific delusions' under delusions. Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm confused about which page you mean? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think I see what you mean: Delusion. I've read it superficially, and (although I won't have time to edit it myself) I think the material does fit there much better than in the "causes" article. I would make an overall suggestion for style: make the writing more direct and succinct, which you can do by getting away from the "Sims says" format, and, instead, state the source's conclusion briefly and then give an inline citation. As an example, change "(which the DSM says are rare)[13]" to "(which are rare)[13]." As long as you have that cite "[13]", it is appropriately sourced. I hope that helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Patch clamp
Hi Tryptofish, I really object to this this edit: The file description is actually blank, the image could be even forged and nobody would be able to tell, no signal, time scale, measuring conditions, no indication of what channel has been under the pipette - plain nothing, even worse than useless! (And besides a wrong cat is given on the Commons page). A better image, although not perfect, might be File:V-clamp-GlyR.jpg which gives at least the most important parameters. May I suggest to use the latter or anyone better than Image:Patch clamp.svg. Regards,--Burkhard (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Burkhard, thank you for getting in touch with me about this, and particularly for discussing it rather than just reverting. I guess I don't feel as deeply about this as you do. Let me explain. I noticed the image, and got the idea of putting it at patch clamp, by seeing it at action potential (so you might want to check it there too). I didn't really look into its background at the time. I looked now at V-clamp-GlyR, and I would not object strongly to substituting it for the image I put there. On the other hand, I see some downsides to making that change. The GlyR image is more complicated than the page really needs, and would require a more elaborate explanation with little payoff (especially keeping in mind that we are writing for the general public). It also has a misleading time scale. The image to which you object is very simple and clear. I do agree with you that it suffers from having no time or current amplitude scales, but otherwise, I think that your objections are a little over the top. The suggestion that it could be forged is very improbable, and the solution to a wrong category on the Commons page is to edit the Commons page. It is obviously a real single channel recording. So, my first impulse was just to agree with you and substitute the other image on the page. But, for the reasons I have stated, I would like to think things over instead. I'm going to put a note on the article's talk page, and see what other editors think. But thanks again for bringing this issue to my attention. Best wishes, --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Tryptofish, I already put a comment on the files talk page and my first impulse was to correct the files categorization - but what to choose instead? Every choice I could make would be merely based on guesses.
 * I am quite aware that's it is a real nice and easy picture and would be perfectly suitable to demonstrate the property of single channel recordings in clear manner, but in the current version it's useless - and I am really serious about that point. Without proper description you have nothing to compare or to relate it to. It's like a photograph of a planets surface at some undisclosed enlargement, saying: some planets surface. No serious journal would accept an article for print if the figures are not properly described, but we think that laymen WP readers will be content with it? If I wanted to inform myself about new technique, I would be eager to see information about the signals amplitude and time scale and really wanted to know what I am looking at. I hope you get my point.
 * With a proper description I would love to have it in Patch clamp and other articles, but as long as those pieces are missing, we really should look for something better. Maybe we could cut V-clamp-GlyR horizontally to have just the lower track. I really don't insist particularly in having V-clamp-GlyR, it was just the best image I could dig out (from the featured ukranian article) when I worked on the german article. Regards and Good night, --Burkhard (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Using just the top or bottom of GlyR might be a good idea!
 * In real life, I've been a professional patch clamper, and I'm no slouch for quality, but I find it surprising how "really serious" you are about this point. You seem to me to be refereeing it for J. Physiol. instead of editing for Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Statistical evidence on SSRI
Many article on SSRI have a bias against their use. I feel this is a result of a general dislike for drug companies combined with ambiguous statistical evidence of the efficacy and side effects of SSRI's. Perhaps you can look into removing the negative bias if you are so inclined. Neurofish (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Neurofish
 * Hi, and again, welcome. As I said at the project page, I have a lot on my plate right now, so please don't expect me to do that soon, but I will take a look when I can. I'm interested in correcting POV problems related to science (among a lot of other things!). Please don't hesitate to get back to me if you have questions about dealing with Wikipedia -- POV discussions can be a lot to get used to for new editors, and I'll be happy to help. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have become aware that there is a possibility that you are a sock. I hope that's not true, but if it is, my offer of help does not extend that far. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Mercy for Animals
Hello Tryptofish, I notice that you are involved in many animal rights articles, I just created the article Mercy for Animals and I was hoping you can review it and make some suggestions about the article. Ikip (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for asking me. I've done that, and corrected how a source was characterized in the last section. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Animal Rights article comment
Hi, Trypto. I'm sorry if my comment offended you. That wasn't the intent. I guess I just thought that it would have made more sense to let it go rather than dredge up old stuff about SlimVirgin and whether or not removing a tag was minor or not. At times, both of you have a heavy hand with editing, but as I've said before, I find your edits fair and well-referenced and generally feel the same way about SlimVirgin's edits. He/she was being snarky and it seemed that both of you were being overly sensitive. I'll try to be more tactful in the future. Bob98133 (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I also answered at your talk, but I want to say here a sincere thanks for that. And about me being overly sensitive in this instance, you are right, and it's a learning experience for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

FSM Parody
In response to your statement "the FSM was founded with the intention of being a parody", that may well be the case. But please also see it from my point of view, take a look at christianity, its history extends so far back that no-one is sure of the true. also their bible has so many "plot holes" and inconsistancys it couldnt possibly be true. no i belive that the bible is nothing more than a few storys that over the generations have been exaggerated. But i digress, in any point, just because something was set up as a parody or to take the mick doesnt mean it always has to remain that. the church of fsm teaches almost the same things as most "modern mainline" religions therefore why shouldnt it be taken seriously? Kira Chinmoku (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC) (Also i apologise for any spelling and grammer errors in that short essay of a message, its currenty 2:13am here and ive been away for nearly 19hours)
 * No problem, will answer at your talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Articles_for_deletion/Serpentine_receptor
hello again sir, thanks for your work on Mercy for Animals

Would you consider redirecting this article to neurotransmitter receptor right now? The article is obvious not notable in its current form, so this material can be removed right now, with only a redirect remaining. I could redirect the page right now for you and close the Afd. Please let me know as soon as possible, because as soon as someone else comments on the AfD, they must agree also before I can redirect the article and close the AFD.Ikip (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Ikip. Thanks for your offer. I thought of the redirect myself, but I decided it would be better to let the AfD process go ahead. I'm in no hurry (even though I agree with you about the article). Who knows, maybe someone at the AfD will come up with a good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S.: It would make better sense to redirect to Receptor (biochemistry) or G protein-coupled receptor, as many multi-domain receptors are for ligands, including hormones, that are not neurotransmitters. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you for the response. RE: the last line, I will take your word for it :) Ikip (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding me commenting in the AFD, you probably would be dissapointed in what I would say :) so better I stay out of it. Thanks for the invitation though. Ikip (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

COI - Clarification Request
Hi Tryptofish,

UTNeuro here. I'm new to Wikipedia as a signed in and registered user. To be honest, I've been busy with "real world" concerns and haven't had the opportunity to get up to speed on how to communicate with others on the site. For some reason, Wikipedia's software has never been able to verify my email address despite multiple requests so I could get that done. It appears that this page is my only recourse to contact you, so here it is; please bear with me, as I am a "newbie" to these parts. :)

Anyway: I was wondering if you could further explain your decision to remove some links I recently placed on Wikipedia under my username, for example in the External Links portion of the Cerebellum page, on grounds that they were a conflict of interest (COI).

Were such links made anonymously, or under a more vague username like 'FuzzyBunny77', I presume your concerns about a conflict of interest wouldn't exist. Had I known registering as a user would prove to be such an impediment to editing Wikipedia, I would have simply stayed anonymous.

The links appear - at least to me - to be in compliance with the suggestions offered on the Wikipedia page about "What should be linked" - specifically point #3, which says:

"3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons."

Applying this point to the links in question, the material seems to meet this standard: it is neutral in voice; it is accurate; and due to copyright issues it cannot be integrated directly into the Wikipedia article. The site to which the link leads is free to all, and does not require anything from the user that would result in any sort of benefit to anybody. There is no advertising nor clickthrough rewards for anyone.

UTNeuro (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing in this that strikes me as a conflict of interest, at least not an intentional COI. And I seek to contribute to Wikipedia in good faith. So if there is in fact a COI that I am blind to, what would it take to remove that conflict of interest?

I don't ask any of this sarcastically, by the way. I sincerely want to address this issue.


 * Hi UTNeuro, I think this is worth discussing, but could you please raise the issue at Talk:Cerebellum, so that the discussion will be at a place where people can find it in the future? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Looie, as it happens I almost had an edit conflict with you here, as I was getting ready to reply to UTNeuro. I think it would be very appropriate to have talk at Cerebellum about the applicability of the link to Cerebellum, but I also think UT asks some very reasonable questions of me here, that are more appropriate to discussing here, and so I would like to write a thoughtful personal answer here and not at an article talk page. (Please feel free to add to what I will say, after I say it.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Hi UTNeuro. Thank you for your thoughtful questions to me here. I want to say, first, that I have understood all along that you are very sincere and are acting in good faith, and I'm not questioning that, and I appreciate very much that that comes across in your message to me here. No one is alleging any sort of wrongdoing, and we welcome your editing here with open arms. (By the way, if you don't know about it already, you may be interested in WikiProject Neuroscience, which has its own talk page. And responding on one another's user talk pages is entirely appropriate, the way editors do things around here.) My comment to you at your talk was intended, instead, as advice. As for COI, that also can include the appearance of COI, even when, as here, the intentions were good. About your comment about registering with a username, I hope you don't come away with that message. Of course, the username you have chosen made me notice that the links you provided were also coming from UT, but a new editor whose edits all or mostly are adding similar external links to multiple pages will almost always get a similar response, if not from me, then from someone here. As a general rule, editors try to minimize the number of external links at the end of an article, in favor of inline citations within the page. So, for example, at Cerebellum, if there is a fact in the article for which your website could serve as a reference, you could add it as a reference there instead of as an external link at the end. In the spectrum of opinion among editors here, there are some (not me) who oppose almost all external links on the theory that Wikipedia should have all information here, and not be directing readers away from us. (Read here for a vivid example of a recent discussion.) More to the point, imagine if everyone in the Society for Neuroscience put links to their own lab's web pages at the ends of pages here. (I realize, of course, that you did not do that, and your link is to an online textbook.) We would have pages where the external links sections would be longer than the articles themselves. So we have to be pretty strict about limiting external links. A good way to get agreement about adding a link is to, first, propose the link at the article talk page (for example, Talk:Cerebellum, as Looie suggested above), and explain there why you think it would be useful and justified. If editors agree with you, great, and if not, you'll find out. Again, I appreciate your questions and fully understand your sincerity and good faith. Please don't hesitate to ask me more if you have more questions. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Rollback
I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And thank you! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

how i respond
when someone asks me a qy, I do not necessarily follow the direction they would like me to, but use my own judgment entirely. SV knew that, if one just wants support, I'm not the person to ask.  DGG ( talk ) 12:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As well you should. Thank you very much. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing
Um, hello. I'm really new in this part here so I'm not sure how to use the user stuff. Is this how to reply back to people's post? I would like to learn how to use this "interface". I'll just edit what I had read up on, as I'm just a student researching stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiJaZon (talk • contribs) 01:56, 27 September 2009
 * Will answer at your talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying, I'll do that when I'm free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiJaZon (talk • contribs) 02:00, 30 September 2009

Cichlid
It is exactly what I explained in history: If someone removes a sentence, that person also has to deal with associated refereces. People can't just remove a sentence and leave the reference, as it does not directly support the claim it now is associated with. First what the cichlid article said initially, then what it said after the removal (the part in green is what the 1st reference directly supports; the part in red is what the 2nd reference directly supports):


 * The actual number of species is therefore unclear, with estimates varying between 1300 and 3000 species, and one source suggesting 1900 species.

[ref's:]
 * The actual number of species is therefore unclear, with estimates varying between 1300 and 3000 species,.

Disregarding the minor problem of the people removing the sentence missing the "comma, full stop" issue in the end of this section, it is obviously very problematic to have a refence associated with a sentence it doesn't directly support. This is even more problematic in an article that has had as many problems as this has, where an IP for a long period (years, literally) continuously changed the number of estimated species while absolutely unwilling to provide a reference in support of the various claims (this has been discussed numerous times, e.g. here, here, elsewhere on talk of cichlid, and on talk of WP:AQF). Finally, after several bans and protections of the article, a number was agreed upon and a reference supporting it was located (Stiassny et al, 2007 - first of the two ref's in the above). So, if any sentence in this article needs exact referencing, this would be it. With my 2nd revert and edit summary I assumed later editors would notice the problem and deal with it. Regardless, now I've dealt with it. 212.10.78.109 (talk) 01:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

One of the funnier things anyone has said about me here
You're stupid. I was putting true information about peta, not vandalizing. You don't have to lie for peta, cause that makes you a petard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.146.157 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 8 October 2009

And a great pun on that here! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Tags
It's really only article tags I seriously object to, because they're right up at the top as the first thing a reader sees. Section tags bother me a lot less, and "citation needed" tags hardly at all. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I was saying that facetiously anyway. But if you want to delete that section, I won't object. More than anything else, I was reacting to the IP's deletion of material without an edit summary. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Aquarium fish
Thanks! I just recently got my tank, so I'm still pretty new to the aquarium world. Dancingturtle8205 (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Opioids
Substantial research shows that mu-opiates actually are related to the disorder, but I'm not sure of whether or not the delta, kappa, or nociceptin subtypes are. —  C M B J  16:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. If I had to wager, I'd bet maybe kappa. That's fine with me, so please feel free to revert me if you want. But I'd suggest finding and adding a source if you do. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Aquarium
Sorry for not adding the article as inline. But do you think you can add it somewhere within the article so instead of just removing it completely? I read that article and it seemed quite useful and would have been a good addition to the wiki article. I wasn't bold enough to add it inline as I wasn't sure where to add it in the most appropriate way. If there are other issues with the article then please let me know on my talk page. Thank you.Calaka (talk) 04:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ps:Here is the article for easy reference: Smith, Jesse "Getting tanked: The art, artifice, and ardor behind the personal aquarium., published in The Smart Set. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 04:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but it's not obvious to me where or why it's needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you click on the link though? It seems to go in quite a lot of detail about aquariums. A review like this is usually a good thing! Plus much of the references on the aquarium article would not be accessible to the average individual (since many are referencing the book). Would it hurt to have it in the article to further corroborate what the Book refs claim? But again, I am sure you are the fish expert so if you disagree then so be it. :)... Just trying to help!Calaka (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand and I appreciate your help, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Noleander
Tryptofish, I appreciate your good-faith effort to be a moderating influence at AN/I. But I think you underestimate the various ways in which Noleander has antagonized and continues to antagonize other editors. I believe your reference to the Inquisition was colloquial and innocent but upon reflection I hope even you would see that it was unfortunate given the way the Inquisition had been used as a weapon against Jews.

I made the ver first post at AN/I and I asped others if they thought that Noleander is an anti-Semite. I did this because what he wrote had the effect of anti-Semitism. It was very painful, deeply wounding. Since then Noleander has suggedted other motives and edited some of what he wrote. He even created another article on a book which someone immediately nominated for deletion, and I voted to keep it, and defended his creating that article. At this point I am willing to bracket, completely, my speculation about his motives.

But I ask you to take seriously that since that time several other Jewish Wikipedians have registered their feelings of having been attacked, as a race.


 * This is NOT, as your comment about Hitchens and Dawkins suggests, about religion. People are not concerned about specific criticisms of the Jewish religion, or consequences of Jewish theological claims.  People are concerned with the way he seems to be favoring attacks against the Jewish race.
 * In such cases I think all human beings have to make a choice, and the choice is between empathy and deference on the one hand, and a complacent faith in one's own objectivity on the other hand. For example, I once said something that I thought, far from being racist, was in solidarity with blacks.  A black person made it very clear to me that she thought I was wrong.  (I am not black).  Faced with the choice, I always chose empathy and deference - even if sometimes it is a mistake, I will always defer to a black's judgment as to what is offensive and hateful and injurious to black people because there is a limit to how far i can put myself in their shoes.  Now you have to make the same choice, concerning Jews.  Do you trust a Jew's ability to identify anti-Semitism over your own judgment (this of course applies only if you are a Gentile)?  If so, even if you do not understand it, even if it seems not to make sense, the only appropriate course of action is to apologize and perhaps invite a dialogue, what make sit anti-Semitice, why didn't you see it?

One of the problems is that once other editors initiated nominations for deletion (it was not I - I raised the issue on AN/I, but it was other editors who decided to propose that the articles be deleted), Noleander became incredibly defensive and at times went on the offense, criticizing people who voted no.

I have participated in countless AfDs. In most cases, when it is clear the article will be deleted, the author of the article does NOT take it personally, she just goes back to editing. Noleander seems to have taken it personally, as if every vote to delete the article is an attack against him. This is NOT how Wikipedia works.

I think Noleander feels an article deletion is a form of censorship. That would be a big mistake, because we have good reasons for deleting articles regularly (of course, different reasons depending on the case). Sometimes it seems as if he sees this as another case of Jews running things and censoring views other than their own - it is not clear, and if he says "No, no, this is not what I think, it is inot what i mean" I'll believe him, but I think some people interpret this as another criticism against Jews.

And I firmly believe that censorship is a total red-herring. I and other editors at the AfDs have suggested how material in these articles could be placed in other articles where they would have nore context and adding schiolarly analysis would fit, thus giving readers a context for understanding the examples of anti-Semitism or of racial conflict. I and others have tried to suggest ways to incorporate this material by making it more encyclopedic. This is NOT censorship.

All I can do is ask you to read through the votes at the AfD pages. As always you will find some "delete" votes that are needlessly, even cruelly, obnoxious. But i think you will also find many more "delete" votes that either register a sincere feeling of having been the subject of an anti-Semitic attack, or votes that have forwarded constructive criticism. In most cases I do not think Noleander responded well.

Thanks for your attetion, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 05:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to explain all of this to me, and for the very helpful and constructive tone with which you did it. You are correct that I was making a "good-faith effort to be a moderating influence", in that I would prefer to see the very understandable concerns that you and others have raised dealt with through the normal editing process, rather than through a topic ban or a similar administrative action. My advice, in turn (for what it's worth, so take it or leave it), would be to focus on instances where you believe the other editor was incivil in responding to criticisms at AfD, rather than on trying to guess at his/her editorial motives.
 * About "Do you trust a Jew's ability to identify anti-Semitism over your own judgment (this of course applies only if you are a Gentile)?": I make it a personal practice never to reveal my personal identity on site, but if you knew who I am in real life, you might actually be a bit embarrassed for having said that. Please let me draw your attention to these diffs of mine, which I think may interest you:, , , , , . Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome page for the SfN
Hi Trypto, thanks for your kind note! The welcome page I drafted for the SfN annual meeting is a subpage of the WikiProject Neuroscience main page, and can be found here. I'd be grateful for any thoughts or suggestions you have; several sections need "fleshing out", although I also want to keep the page trim and easy to scan. Some scripts are offered as well, in case you wanted to sign up for those; you might find them useful. I'm traveling, so my Internet connection might be spotty. Talk to you soon, Proteins (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Danke!
Thanks for the copyedits and the compliments. Both much appreciated. :) --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)