User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 24

July – November, 2014

About Hitler's atheism
Some people want to prove here that Hitler was an atheist. I just found one of his many statements about religion. Of course he was an athesit LOL. What you think of it ? 46.71.226.51 (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's unclear to me what article at Wikipedia you are talking about, since the issue here ought to be how to make coverage of content more accurate, as opposed to general discussions of what Hitler was or was not. It seems to me that the link you gave me here is quoting him as expressing support for, not opposition to, religious teaching. I think that we have to be careful about not letting Godwin's law get interjected into discussions of WP:NPOV in Wikipedia articles. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * For political purposes Hitler portrayed himself as a Catholic, but it's clear that he wasn't sincere about that. In private he often ridiculed the Catholic church, and whenever the church came into conflict with the Nazi party, the church was always the loser. Looie496 (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I ment Atheism article, where some people wanted to put Hitler's name near Stalin's name (like to show how evil are atheists). 46.71.96.237 (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Looie. 46, in that case, my opinion is that editors should never want to put content into an article to "show" something is good or bad – instead, it's all about what the reliable sources say. I'll keep a closer eye on Atheism about this issue, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Following up, there really isn't any serious effort to add that to that page. What I do see is that, a couple of days ago, someone editing from an IP that geolocates to the same nation as 46 does tried to post comments on the talk page about Hitler being an atheist, pretty much in the manner of Godwin's law, and other editors reverted the posts per WP:NOTFORUM. There's really nothing more to discuss, unless someone argues for changing what the page says. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

nutrition and....
what is your take on Nutrition and cognition and Nutritional neuroscience and the relation between them? Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, as for the subject matter, it strikes me as a question of what happens when there is a serious nutritional deficiency. Obviously, there can be developmental problems with vitamin deficiencies, for example, but it's mostly pseudoscience when people talk about food that makes you smarter. I've noticed that recently there is some very mainstream interest in the microbiome and the nervous system. As for WP having two pages (neither is on my watchlist), I don't see much need to merge them, but maybe some need to reduce redundancy of content between them, with the former focusing on human health, and the latter on (mostly) animal studies of the developmental biology. I'm not sure if any of that is what you were wanting me to get at, so please feel free to follow up if I missed the point. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks that is exactly the high level impression i was looking for! thanks. Jytdog (talk)
 * Good, you're welcome! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Atheism in religions
Absolute atheism towards any powerful supernatural beings is very rare in the established world religions and I think that section should reflect that (without having to resort to a parenthetical phrase). So often either the universe is a conscious being which is trying to express itself or humans are trying to join the mind of the Universe, or there is an afterlife where humans can transcend to and gain power, maybe enough to become a being capable of helping lesser beings achieve enlightenment through supernatural means. That is beyond the devas, demons, celestial buddhas, arhats, brahma aspects of the universe, elementals, etc. I have never found a neopagan that didn't adhere to at least one of these concepts and find Paganism being included under atheism extremely dubious. Alatari (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The religions that have a belief in karma, (Jainism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, neoPaganism) also have the concept of reincarnation where souls are in a cycle of rebirth and an ultimate goal can be reaching the state of godhead/perfection/deification. Those that believe the end means non-existence, I guess would be atheists as per the definition of the atheism article, as long as they avoid concepts of a Universe with a consciousness, devas, demons, and incarnations into anything other than natural lifeforms. Alatari (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I am curious what the demographics of world population that are adherents within religions that actually fall under Atheism's definition of atheism. Measuring that would be nigh impossible but a few expert's on religion opinions might be found. Alatari (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Demigod word choice.
Demigod doesn't cover Arhats, Pantheism, Celestial Buddhas, (Amitābha) etc. What word choice or article encompasses all these supernatural, god-like beings? Alatari (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2
 * I don't know, myself, and I'm fine with the fact that you reverted me. Something that is becoming increasingly clear to me is that this particular issue, and the broader issues that you raise above, are simply too complex to be treated briefly in the lead section of Atheism. I'm thinking that, to do the material justice, it needs its own section within the page. Besides, the lead section of any page really should not include material that does not get covered lower on the page, anyway. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It took me hours of reading, the other night, to get to the level of understanding to create that (hopefully accurate) paragraph. Well, and calling on memories of visits to various temples, churches and pagan gatherings and FB atheist group debates to enhance my search within the sources for relevant paragraphs.  There is a lot of misconception about Buddhism and Hinduism in the Facebook groups.
 * There is a lot more of material on the subject. Having it be a separate section is fine with me.Alatari (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. Thanks for your work on the subject. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Psychology handout for student editors
Hi Tryptofish! Thanks for your incredibly useful feedback on the first draft of the psychology handout for student editors. I've tried to incorporate your suggestions and that of other editors to an expanded version here: User:LiAnna (Wiki Ed)/Psychology handout. If you have some time to review the content closely in the next week, I'd really appreciate it. I'm also looking for some specific help as outlined on the talk page. Thanks again for all your assistance! --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 04:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome! I'll take a look at the new material in the next day or so. I'm glad that you are doing these things, and I anticipate that they will be very helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I just uploaded the designed file to Commons: File:Editing Wikipedia articles on psychology.pdf. Would you have time in the next few days to give it one more look-over and let me know if you have any additional suggested edits before we print them? Thanks so much, Tryptofish! --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

On mediation and such
See... you do not seem to have ever been through the dispute resolution process. So that's why you reject it despite its well-known failings. There is never a bright-line for anything and that is what you and EEng are looking for there - so much is wasted on useless banter when EEng is willfully abusing and refactoring talk page posts and no one seems to care. Talk about misplaced priorities. No one cares that EEng is abusive and regularly breaks the "bright-line rules", but it seems I should go outside my comfort zone and come to some conclusion that goes against accessibility and normal procedures because he seeks to validate his disruption. There is absolutely no reason he needs to use half the templates on Phineas Gage and he's done everything to make it as inaccessible as possible - EEng is not even supposed to be EDITING that page to begin with. Its ArbCom or bust for dealing with the likes of him - and quite a few editors realize that. If you really are blind to the situation after your attempts to resolve it unilaterally with him failed, just remember that RFC/U and Mediation are completely different and ArbCom is equivalent of a firing line. EEng is incapable of working with others on anything he has a vested interest in - the COIN discussion was proof of that. Its no surprise EEng has these conflicts with other editors, its just a shame that as a whole nothing can be done unless everyone wastes a whole month to deal with him. You may mean well, but you don't understand what I am even talking about. That's why you will continue to shake your head, complain and do nothing about it. Though that's about all any of us can do unless it goes to ArbCom. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you feel that way, but you are uninformed about my familiarity with dispute resolution. Actually, I don't think that he wants a bright line any more than you do. I'm not the one who is complaining and doing nothing about the situation. I wish you good luck in moving on, putting this dispute out of your mind permanently, and finding happier places to edit productively on Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Female use of urnials
Hi Tryptofish,

I noticed that you removed the image of women using urinals from the Urination article stating that this practice seems unusual and insufficiently common to be mentioned. We have a full article on the subject of women urinating while standing called Female urination device. This is a common enough practice among women that some urinals are designed specifically for women. Would you object if I readded the image to the article?

Neelix (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking with me! I looked at the page you linked. The sourcing there looks awfully thin to me. Instead of adding an image back, how about adding a sentence or two of text, linking to that page? When we put an image on the page, it seems to imply that this is something common. Do you know of any reliable sourcing about how common the practice really is? If you feel strongly about the image, I'd suggest starting a discussion on the article talk page, and an RfC if necessary. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the recommendation. I have added two sentences with a citation to a book and a link to the relevant article. I have also added a more conventional image. I hope you find this solution agreeable. Neelix (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks; that is a good solution, and I agree entirely. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Email
Can I email you? Alatari (talk) 10:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm extremely sensitive about privacy, so I do not do e-mail on Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Question
Hi Tryptofish, have you ever thought of doing an RFA for yourself? I'd think you'd be an excellent admin. --Randykitty (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! That is very kind of you, and means a lot to me. In fact, I've thought about it a lot, and been asked numerous times. I long kept my responses to previous requests at the top of this talk page, but recently got tired of looking at them, and archived them at User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 23. I more or less still feel the same way that I felt there, although I am also keeping the door open to changing my mind in the future. Every time someone asks me, I feel a little more like I should change my mind, but I'm not quite there yet. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * For a long time, I had a userbox on my userpage stating that I wasn't an admin and didn't want to become one, but then gradually changed my mind and finally went for it. Well, you know best when you're ready for it, but I'll keep an eye open for your future RFA and will be a certain "support" !vote. --Randykitty (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's very kind of you, thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I already thought you were until I looked closely last night. Alatari (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

arbcom archiving
hey trypto - you seem to be wise in the arcane ways of arbcom. i wanted to check in on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Pseudoscience but that link goes nowhere, and i don't see archives on that page. i can see from the history here that it was archived (and find out what happened, which is what I wanted to know), but where did it go? thanks ! Jytdog (talk) 00:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I went through the edit history of the ArbCom clerk who did the archiving, and it's at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Apparently (I didn't know this before), the procedure is to archive requests for clarification on the talk page of the original case. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus new version
A user is going to ask for Dispute Res on the new version. He added 14 new sources that supposedly counter the consensus view of biblical scholars. Weren't you involved in that page some time in 2012 or is that a memory glitch on my part? Alatari (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think that I was involved, at least not that I can remember. I am aware that this is a contentious content area, and I think I want to stay out of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Please restore my comments at WT:RFA
My comments at WT:RFA were not vandalism. Therefore, you had no basis for removing them.

Please restore them forthwith.

If you do not restore them within 1 hour, I will report you at WP:ANI. Sidney Pontoon (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * They were WP:NPA. No need to wait an hour, cf WP:BOOMERANG. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Content ~and~ 'Rules', please.
Are you actually reading the content that I removed (a move that you reverted)? The entire paragraph is around little-shared-by any-other-source opinions and quotes from a single little-known book ('a short history of Christianism') and author, hardly a commendable practice. I know about the delicacy of theist-atheism 'debates' (especially between atheists and theists who are editing only to give atheism a bad name), but I left this detail out of earlier discussions as it would only have further served to flame the affair. I was good enough to let (a lot!) of time pass before I removed that paragraph, but by reverting you draw attention to the 'rules', not the content, and anyway I ~was~ using WP:BRD: the normal thing to do would be to edit and discuss if any objections are raised; you are doing the opposite, as what are we supposed to do, discuss ~before~ any changes are made, indefinitely? The article would never change. Cheers. THE PROMENADER  04:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * All you have to do now is to take it to the article talk page. I'm happy to discuss it there. Editors revert other editors' edits all the time, and it's nothing personal. My concern, by the way, is that your edit shifted the POV of the section, after there had already been a very extensive of how to balance that POV, and yes, I did read it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Again? Talk before editing? That is anything but WP:BRD. My objections were valid, and if the contributing editors had any problem with my removal, ~they~ would bring it up on the talk page (as I expected them to if they objected, ), or they would simply revert and ~I~ would have to voice my objection to that. As it stands, the article spends too much time voicing the opinions of an obscure but dedicated theist as fact (look at all the references to the same book 'A Short History of Christianity'), a book so little-known that the person citing it created its article here. Speaking of this, you do realise that the original contributors (namely the book-citer) came with the goal of equating 'atheism' with the world's worst despots and dictators, right? The former argument was delicate for sure because of this, and we did accept a compromise (or face a 'majority' army of on-call editors that would simply (out-)revert any changes), but it is time to move back on track to getting the article back to the objective POV it had when it gained FA status. None of that little-shared Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot (leaders that wanted to crush any dissidence, competition, and critical thinking, not 'atheism') opinon was there then, so go figure. It would perhaps be useful to pay as much attention to the content than 'enforcing rules' (from your point of view - and who gave you this role?), or you'll be just another obstacle to improving content. Cheers. THE PROMENADER  20:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My role is simply as an editor who disagrees with you, and there's nothing "enforcing" about anything that I did. I don't have to agree with everything you say. But here is what I will do. Right now, I'm going to start a discussion at the talk page, for you. If other editors agree with you, fine with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You object to my ~actions~ ('rules!'), but you have not a word about my motivations for them (content!). Why are you taking all these actions in 'everybody else's' name? By making a post on my behalf, you're not only perhaps voicing my objections inaccurately, but making them look petty. The best thing to do is let things run their natural course. THE PROMENADER  20:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatever. I've started the discussion, and I never tried to speak on your behalf. If you don't like anything I said, you can correct it there. Talk:Atheism. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, my content objections do look petty now. You do understand that you have, by citing 'former discussions' (well in the past) for a reason for preserving content that you pay no attention to at all, that you have simply corrupted the editing process? It is this that I object to most, and it is for this reason that I am talking to you here. If you had reverted because of the content (and gave a reason for it), I would be talking to you on the article talk page, not here. I'll see what happens on the talk page, but I think, thanks to you, any focus on content is gone. Cheers. THE PROMENADER  20:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I smell bad, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

How quaint. Based on your comment to that reply, it looks you get this problem often: if you're going to impose yourself as a 'negociator', you have to be informed of the topic being discussed. Would you, for example, apply 'equal weight' to arguments for or against climate change (and enforce 'wiki consensus' thereof), when the documented scientific consensus is that a major part of global warming is man-made? Not. Or would you? THE PROMENADER  07:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
Kinda new in that I made my account like 7 years ago and never really used it until today, mostly just a passionate reader of Wikipedia. But I'm kind of interested in doing more detailed editing of G-protein coupled receptor since I have some free time on my hand and it would get me to learn while in the summer.Jerry911 (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, and welcome again. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

EW warning
Please note that you ware well past 3RR at Creation Museum and I suggest you self-revert your latest revert.


 * 1) 20:24 18 Aug
 * 2) 19:14 18 Aug
 * 3) 18:50 18 Aug (largest revert in a sequence)
 * 4) 23:38 17 Aug (end of extensive sequence of reverts)
 * 5)  19:23 17 Aug

4 reverts in under 21 hours, 5 reverts in 25 hours. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Your "technical self-reversion" is risible. so this is going to ANEW Collect (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that you are pushing WP:BATTLEGROUND a bit too much. (And I find your use of the word "cheers" in this context to be sarcastic.)
 * 1. I believe this is a justified edit per WP:BLP.
 * 2. I have now self-reverted.
 * 4. That was not a revert at all. I was changing a word that I had written to another word, per advice from an editor at WP:NPOVN.
 * So that leave me at 2 reverts and 1 BLP revert, according to your own list. And, in any case, I am not going to make any more reverts at that page or related pages (whatever they may be), so there is no need to prevent anything.
 * And I suggest that you not invite inspection of your own conduct.
 * --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

For the record, the 3RR complaint was thrown out:. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is EEng and edit warring. Thank you. —Bgwhite (talk) 07:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've given my input there. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for welcoming me! I'm actually gonna be more focused on video game articles, but I've been keeping violet gobie's for years and thought I'd take a look at the article. I think the pic I uploaded show's them off much better than the old one, don't you think? Kitty Kat Katarina (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's quite an interesting fish! I'm afraid that video games are not so much of an editing interest for me, but welcome! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Note
Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard - you might be tangentially involved in this. But I am pinging the others as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I replied there, and I think that you have behaved very badly in opening this. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Still you do not understand COIN - you dismiss the endorsed return to COIN and it was you who threw accusations around and wanted EEng topic banned. This article is very important and EEng is a valued contributor, but I much rather have EEng in a supervisory editorial control and COIN is about coming to terms and moving forward. And calling for blocks and topic bans left and right is not productive, there is no "blockable" offense and you'd are aware that even I opposed the ANI block for EEng. Just what role do you play in this situation's resolution and what initiatives have you made to that effect? Has EEng not wasted hours of your time and derided all your opinions and thoughts the last time - and then gone on to insult you about it? It is embarrassing when that Phineas Gage article's errors are pointed out in real life - that EEng does not care and does not intend to give even 1000 words or to use the numerous non-Macmillan sources to their full effect. Even now, I am considering restarting that alternate version to replace the current one, but I don't suppose you'd be willing to assist in that collaborative project? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that you feel that way, but you are just plain wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Am I? How? Is there or is there not a conflict of interest in editing a page dominated by references to materials co-authored by yourself and your colleague? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's see what other editors might say at COIN. Beyond that, I would prefer not to continue this discussion here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * One more thing. Recent experience shows that the community is not really going to resolve this dispute, so either the dispute will quiet down, or the dispute will end up at ArbCom. If the latter happens, you ought to consider how you will look. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Tryptofish, I don't want to sound rude, but please make sure you have the facts before making allegations. At the ANI you said we (EEng + I) refused this mediation, but it was you who withdrew it and Sunray had to close it. Your edit summary in apparent response to EEng and the situation was "I withdraw this request." Now at COIN you were the one asked for a topic ban and to have EEng only access the talk page - not me and I refrained from commenting on it. You have twice taken your own positions and applied them incorrectly. Please be more careful in the future and please correct your mistake at WP:COIN. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You are being both rude and inaccurate. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Opioids article
I would like to know why you and another Wikipedia editor undid almost all of my edits (all factual, all with citations) on the opioids article. Right now, this article is very high level, reads like it is written by a pharmacist or someone involved in some way with pharmaceuticals (and the composition thereof). I was trying to add -- in a balanced fashion -- the many concerns with over-prescription of opioids and accidental addiction. Both the governments of Canada and the U.S. have declared opioid addiction a public health crisis -- why was this removed from the article? This is not an opinion, but a fact. I was careful to leave up all the discussions of how useful the drug can be, etc., but the public health information should be included here as well otherwise it is not a balanced article.

Also, this article is not plain language. I was trying (a first attempt) to do much more to make this article accessible to those who are not doctors, pharmacists, in chemistry, etc. It is a terrificly meaty article, but needs a plain language intervention. : )

So, my question: how can I proceed to include all the information I know well on the issue if you and the fellow editor take it all down? What's the process? I've not had that happen to the numerous other edits I've undertaken over the years on Wikipedia.

I can see if what I was adding was controversial -- but it's not. It was all factual.

I can see one paragraph was left (of my edits), which I'm happy to see. But frankly, this article still reads like a pro-opioids piece, and there are many issues that are not adequately raised. (I'm not anti-opioids for the record).

So, again, I'd like to know the process for making edits to this page. Who is 'in charge,' so to speak.

Thanks if you can help.

kathleen5454

Kathleen5454 15:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathleen5454 (talk • contribs)
 * this discussion belongs on the article Talk page. i would be happy to join there. Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Kathleen5454. As Jytdog said, I'm going to reply to this in more detail on the article talk page, if someone hasn't already started that discussion. But as for "who is in charge", the answer is a combination of "nobody" and "everybody". The process is described at WP:Consensus, and your opinion counts just as much as everyone else's does, and also no more than anyone else's does. Just so you know, it wasn't me who really changed what you had written; it was the other editor, and most of what I did was just to make some copyedits that did not change the meaning of what you wrote. Also, the other editor did not delete what you wrote, so much as move it to a different place on the page. That editor's reason for those edits is explained at WP:MEDRS, and it has to do with Wikipedia's very strict policy (with which I happen to agree) that applies to anything having to do with medical information (in this case, the safety of opioid medications), and requires that the sourcing must be from peer-reviewed evaluations of the scientific literature published in medical journals and the like, and not general interest news sources. The other editor moved part of what you wrote out of the section about drug safety, and into a new section about government regulation, so that those sources would not be used in a section of the page about how the drugs are used medically. I hope that explanation helps. And I agree that it is important that the page include coverage of the problems with overuse and misuse of opioids, so long as medical information is presented in conformance with WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated response. I clearly have more learning to do, re: the technical side of things since I've clearly misread a few things. Apologies -- and I'll try to remedy this before I edit further. I've edited dozens of smaller articles or created new ones, but nothing so technical with so many players. I may bug you for some help as I progress, but I'll read up on the guidelines further first when I get a moment. I'm hoping to edit a variety of health policy pages where I have expertise. Thx again.

Kathleen5454

Kathleen5454 16:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathleen5454 (talk • contribs)

Kaldari sockpuppet investigation
I wonder if you might weigh in on the Kaldari sockpuppet investitation (Kaletony is a possible sock) that I initiated. What motives folks may have re this is a tad confusing to me -- perhaps you have better insight re this? Thanks Memills (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Review
Thanks for the review. Hebrew Warrior (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You are welcome, of course, but it's no big deal. It's just that when somebody creates a new page (in this case I think it was your user page) it gets checked by someone else to make sure that it isn't vandalism. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Notification
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 02:42, October 4, 2014‎

Republican In Name Only
Thanks for helping with the redirects. What should be done with Republican In Name Only? It's really a subtopic of Rockefeller Republican, and frankly, shouldn't have a standalone article. It would probably be controversial just to up and move it. Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did those adjustments to the redirects because I think there are ArbCom sanctions about anything having to do with the Tea Party, and I don't want to see some editor coming along and complaining that the redirects were intended as slurs. Anyway, I don't know what to advise about Rino, because I've heard it so many times that I'd be inclined to !vote for keeping it as a standalone page (and I'm also not that interested in it, as a topic for me to edit). I guess the safe way to go would be to start a discussion instead of boldly moving it. You could do it as a requested move (to a redirect) on the Rino talk page, and see what other editors say about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's just when I see a short article and a longer article cover the same ground, I'm tempted to propose a merge.  I mean, it's not like RINO is going to grow as an article, and if you remove the empty spaces and paragraph breaks, you've really got a small stub on the topic. Viriditas (talk) 03:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey! What's up?
Read the talk(page) of EEng. I had received notification as one of the user had linked my name.

It is not rare to find me in a edit war. Edit war happens with two types of people:
 * 1. They know that they are correct.
 * 2. They like to impose their views on others, regardless of whether it is right or not.

I agree with your definition and assumptions about edit warring. It is great to see that you are still around and speaking in behalf of editors without looking like an advocate. :> Bladesmulti (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello! I'm happy to see that you are settling in as an editor. Be sure that you don't get sucked in to those edit wars when you come across them! And thank you for the kind words. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks and welcome! Bladesmulti (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Neuroscience
Hey thanks for the welcome! You have guessed it right i am very much interested in the field of neuroscience; and WP:Wikiproject Neuroscience platform would indeed encourage many neuroscience lovers like me. I am greatly thankful, i would surely ask you if i need any help. Ciao Dr.Ashlesh.P (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent! I look forward to working with you. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Things your mother never told you . . ..
No. 1 - Never invade Russia without a good sweater and several pairs of warm socks. Cheers, 'Fish. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, my mother has constantly told me to put on a warm sweater! As it happens, very early in my career as a fish editor, my very first AfD nomination was a page about a young woman who was the inspiration for a popular song, but in my naive estimation, not notable for anything else. From what I had previously seen of AfD, I expected an angry response from editors who were music fans. Instead, I got an angry response from editors who were sports fans, because the subject had also tried out for an Olympic team, even though she didn't make the team. It ended as a "keep". So anyway, I totally hear you about being careful about Wiki-battles. { --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please ping me through the "Email this user" function on the lefthand menu of my talk page. Thanks.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. Maybe my mother never told me this, but I am a stickler for privacy on-wiki, and I never communicate via e-mail. Please consider telling me about whatever it is on-wiki, and if you cannot, maybe someone else can help you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

religion and atheism in china
Hi Tryptofish - in your edit in atheism regarding religion in China, you've switched it partly back to the Communist Party claim that they permit Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, and Christianity to "exist openly" - but this wording is quite misleading, as religion in China is actually highly regulated by the Party -- to the extent that Roman Catholicism for example is actually not legal (Chinese Catholics can only belong to the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association). Then there are the intense restrictions on the pratice of Tibetan Buddhism and Islam in Xinjiang -- not to mention the every day monitoring of churches, temples and what not throughout China. It's a bit of a bug-bear of mine that the Chinese embassy wording has been inserted across a few pages on wikipedia, when it is clearly misleading. Anyway, I'm sure your edit is in good faith, just wanted to share my thinking with you. Have you got an alternative wording that can recognise the reality of the restricted rather than "open" practice of religion in mainland China? If no, I can share these comments on the discussion page, as the chinese situation is not yet adequately covered imho. Regards, Ozhistory (talk) 23:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for discussing this issue in good faith. I've thought about it, and I just deleted the sentence entirely. It occurs to me that it was in a paragraph that was not otherwise about China, and as such, it was not particularly necessary to include the sentence at all. I see your point that the official position is misleading when one gets into the details. We already talk about Mao in the paragraph before it, and my advice would be to leave it at that. If we try to have a lengthier passage about China over time, it will become a source of a lot of disagreement over NPOV, and it just isn't that important at a general page. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * In fact I think China does deserve more of a mention. Presently the article suffers a bit from being Euro- or Western-Centric. China is one of the few countries left where an officially "atheist" organisation rules the roost, and the numbers of people that that fact affects is simply huge. It's nearly 40 years since Mao died, so there's more to the story than what happened in his day. Ozhistory (talk) 08:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a valid point, I think. I certainly am in favor of correcting what may be Wikipedia's anglophone bias. At the same time, I want to strongly caution against making it a "China is bad to religious people" opinion piece. If we do that, it cannot simply be focused on suppression of religion, but also give balanced weight to ways in which atheism in China, or the Far East generally, might represent whatever it is that sources portray in a positive light. If you are receptive to that kind of balance, then I'd suggest bringing the issue up on the article talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That final wording you've done is ok, thanks. And, yes, edit wars are easily sparked on these topics, so you're right to urge caution. But let's not be over-cautious -- the CPC's position on atheism is highly noteworthy, and has not been characterised by "tolerance" for other views, even if there has been a softening through most of the country in the last 30 years. Remember, the CPC does not believe it is "doing bad things" when it suppresses religion so it is not "unbalanced" to matter-of-factly record how the Party has done this in different ways since 1949. But then of course there is the philosophical underpinnings, which are a different topic. Anyway, that's enough adjustment for the time being. Regards. Ozhistory (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Aquarium
Hello,


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AAquarium&diff=629062517&oldid=628951900
 * (revert changes that introduced numerous errors (clean-up crew are animals!!))

Perhaps, though, they are as poorly served by being described as a "fish term"..?

I'd appreciate learning what was incorrect elsewhere so I may bear it in mind when re-editing the template.

Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking back with me. As for clean-up crew, they are mostly invertebrates, so they clearly are not equipment. But I'd be fine with moving that link to something like "Other concepts", since it fits well with the links currently there, and of course, invertebrates are not fish.


 * Here are all the other points:


 * Title line: It really is mostly about the hobby, and not, for instance, public aquaria, so I'd be inclined not to change it.
 * Types: It is sufficient to just call it types, rather than types of aquarium.
 * Types: I wouldn't pipe the noun biotope to the adjective biotopic, because that's a very unconventional term to use. (But I'm fine with simplifying the others by omitting the word aquarium.)
 * Equipment: I would not treat the Berlin method as a parenthetical, after filter, because it is not simply a kind of filter, but more an overall arrangement of the aquarium, more analogous to deep sand bed.
 * Fish terms: It is tricky to call a painted fish a "type" of fish, so I'd be more inclined to call them all fish terms rather than types. Likewise, dithering is not so much a classification as a way of use.
 * Other concepts: I think the word concepts is a bit more apt than aspects.
 * Lists: I think you can simply call the group Lists. Although there is some value in grouping the lists by the type of aquarium (fresh, marine, brackish), I thought that the way you laid it out was difficult to read.
 * Overall layout: For some displays, your changes made the template wider than the screen. I don't see what was wrong with the template width before.


 * --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for this comprehensive list and noting the malfunctioning width. Since, fundamentally, the template is about fishkeeping, how about renaming it as Template:Fishkeeping and using a version such as this? (It retains "Types of aquarium" and adds "/ types" to "Fish terms", but the clean-up crew is now one of the "Other concepts" and, hopefully, the "Lists" presentation works acceptably.) Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * PS I also meant to ask: The "Other concepts" group has its links listed alphabetically; should this apply elsewhere?
 * Thanks! Your work has been very helpful, and I think it is resulting in a significant improvement of the template. I just made some further revisions to the sandbox version myself. I alphabetized pretty much everything except the first section, about types, where I tried to follow a sort-of-logic, based on water types followed by community versus biotope. Given that it will only be a template name, and not something that our readers will see, I think it would be better to continue to name it Template:Aquarium. (Some types of aquariums don't have any fish, as well.) I like the way you organized the lists, very much. I also made various changes to the group names. As far as I'm concerned, the current version of the sandbox is ready to go. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree and so have just made it the main template; your revisions improved it further. Thanks and best wishes, Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Vaguely related
Since you know something about fish, can you check I didn't mess up the genus/mouthbreathing stuff here ? Also, something I overlooked somehow: Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Boston_Society_for_Medical_Improvement -- the ubiquitous Phineas! EEng (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome back! Hey, a new genus of cardinalfish! As it happens, in real life I'm quite interested in cardinalfishes, and have some of them in one of my aquariums. I really ought to edit those pages sometime. I looked at the hook (is that a fish hook?), and I don't see any errors. Myself, I'm not a mouthbrooder, but I might well be a mouthbreather. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Still heavey...
...for maybe another week, but I am pursuing some technical issues in the meantime. EEng (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As long as it isn't Ebola! That's OK, please take your time, and I'm plenty busy with other stuff. And, when you do get back to more editing, please steer clear of conflict. I don't want us to lose you! After all, it's just a website, and never worth battling over. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP/N, etc.
'Fish, there are some very oddly behaving people who are apparently regular participants in BLP discussions. You saw the aggressive commenting from earlier. Take a look at my user talk page recent history. It's some rather strange stuff. I'm reminded now why I have avoided discussions of political content disputes on Wikipedia for my five and a half years on-wiki. It brings this sort of conduct out of the woodwork, and it's apparently accepted as perfectly normal by some editors and administrators. It's intentionally calculated to avoid crossing the line into overt NPA territory, but it's nevertheless intended to be insulting and to draw an angry response. Not sure when this sort of unprovoked conduct became acceptable, but I find it deeply disappointing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * really man. drop the fucking stick. "intentionally calculated" my ass. i stopped participating in the discussion, mostly because your attitude and behavior have been insufferable for me. i don't want to interact with you but i will pop up on pages I already watch when you write crap like this about me. again - "intentionally calculated" my ass.  Jytdog (talk) 04:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, Jytog, the latest round of nonsense has nothing to do with you, but with Viriditas on my user talk page. After you read Virditas' comments there, you may just want to do us both a favor and delete this.  It's really not all about you.  Cheers.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I want to suggest in a friendly way to Jytdog that he drop the anger a few notches. Personally, I think that the stuff at the Tyson BLP should probably not be included on the page. As for Viriditas, he may perhaps be watching here and is certainly welcome to comment; he and I have clashed very seriously in the past, but are currently interacting in a friendly manner. Dirtlawyer1, if there is anything more specific where I can be of help, please let me know. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Rephrase request
Could you rephrase the latter part of [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_comment%2FBASC_reform_2014&diff=630298507&oldid=630297852] -- I know you did lots of good work -- and you definitely got some cranky responses -- but "blown off" probably isn't really fair. "Not adopted," "not followed through on" or something like that would be better. NE Ent 22:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for raising this point with me, and please see how I responded to your concern there. And please feel free to follow up on it with me here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

 * holy cow you framed that really well. kudos! Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I gave it a lot of thought, and I'm very happy to know that you are pleased with it. Let's hope this process leads to some progress. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Betta Fish
Finally someone to ask this! The page "Siamese Fighting Fish" is a bit awkward from both a scientific and aquarist perspective. The page is mainly focused on "domesticated" betta fish, yet has scientific data regarding B. splendens, the wild species. They are treated separately in the aquarium trade and by fishkeepers, therefore I think it warrants separate pages. At the very least, the page should be cleaned up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genetics-man (talk • contribs) 22:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to try to help. Yes, I'm aware that the page has had problems. I remember there was some controversy a few years ago about those naming issues, and I've kind of just given up paying attention to it lately. Now, I'll start watching more closely. Let me suggest that you WP:BE BOLD, and go ahead and do what you think is appropriate to fix things. I'll be paying attention now, and I'll step in whenever I can help. If you think that any issues need to be discussed, you can raise them on the article talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Can I add this back now?

 * &#9835; This is the dawning of the Age of Aquaria! &#9835;
 * &#9835; Age of Aquaria! &#9835;
 * &#9835; A - quar - ri - a! &#9835;
 * &#9835; Uh - QUARE - reee - UHHHHH! &#9835;
 * -- EEng (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't even notice this until now! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The timestamp was misleading. You know I can't resist a joke. EEng (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I figured we are not in the realm of relativity or wormholes, so I knew that it had to be added after the comments above it. I just had gone through all that RfA discussion yesterday without having noticed this up here. And by the way, don't audition for American Idol. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

 * Shall I pack you some trail mix, adult diapers, antianxiety medication, and other supplies you may be needing? EEng (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I actually requested this, and am looking forward to it optimistically, as something that may lead to progress. Adult diapers? Do you wear those when you are formatting the references on the Gage page? Please don't answer that! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

RFA?
I'm pretty sure I asked this before, but you are among the most well-qualified for the tools and I know you will put them to good-use. I know running for RFA is rather scary nowadays but I believe you will pass easily. Try giving it a run, I'll be happy to provide a strong nomination statement. Thanks Secret account 04:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll add some scariness if that would help. EEng (talk) 05:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm halfway tempted to accept purely for the pleasure of being able to block EEng, full protect Phineas Gage, and then blank the page. Just kidding! OK, serious answer: Secret, that is incredibly kind of you, and I feel more and more guilty with each successive time that I say no thank you, not now. But I'm going to say no thank you, not now (while leaving the door open for the future). I am thinking about it, but it just feels wrong to me at the moment, in terms of how I'd like to spend my editing time. Thanks again, and all the best, --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do I get all the nuts? EEng (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You are what you eat. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Case in point. EEng (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * How exactly does being an admin hinder you from allocating your editing time as you see fit?—John Cline (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess it's more psychological than procedural. I'd feel an obligation to do administrative stuff, and the amount of time I give to Wikipedia is finite, so I'd spend less time on things like, for example, teaching EEng how to make the Gage page better. (Come to think of it.... ) One thing that I've been thinking about in this regard (and mentioned some previous times when I was asked about this) is that there are certain things that go on in real life for me, outside of Wikipedia, that make certain demands on my time. I'm looking forward to when those things might change in such a way that I would actually want to increase the time I spend on Wikipedia (something I'd actually like to do), at which point I think I might change my mind and agree to an RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand. Either way, you currently personify what I call, an administrator without tools. I can't believe I haven't told you that before now, or thanked you for the many things I have gleaned by observing your fine example.—John Cline (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You just get off on having everyone begging you all the time. EEng (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This, from someone who offered me adult diapers? Yes, I want to block you! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Too late! You're INVOLVED! My plan is working perfectly! EEng (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC) This trick adds to the fun somehow, doesn't it?
 * Even better, I could block you and then be desysopped. Or, I might just hire a hit man, and take care of it off-Wiki. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Now you're REALLY involved. Or do death threats not count? EEng (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Disclaimer for the humor impaired: Tryptofish is not actually threatening my life, and there's no need to notify authorities. Um, right, Tfish?
 * If that's what you want to think, go right ahead. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ignorance is bliss. EEng (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm glad that you are so happy. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I was talking about you. EEng (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ha! I will shortly be on Wiki-break, attending the annual meeting of the Sfn. Therefore, when I return, I shall be an expert on that template, and you shall have to respect mah authoritay! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)