User talk:Tryptofish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Newsletters.
Check RfAs.
WP:ADREV.
Statistics on most-viewed neuroscience pages.
User:Skysmith/Missing topics about Neurology
Commons:Category:Smilies

David Rioch (1900-1985)[edit]

One of the most significant developments in biology in the past half century was the emergence, in the late 1950s and early 1960s, of neuroscience as a distinct discipline. We review here factors that led to the convergence into a common discipline of the traditional fields of neurophysiology, neuroanatomy, neurochemistry, and behavior, and we emphasize the seminal roles played by David McKenzie Rioch, Francis O Schmitt, and especially Stephen W Kuffler in creating neuroscience as we now know it.[1]

Note: we still have no article on David Rioch. Viriditas (talk) 10:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'm embarrassed to say that I don't recognize the name! As it happens, I'm about to be away from Wikipedia while, ironically, attending a neuroscience conference, but I'll look into turning it from red to blue when I get back (although any of my talk page watchers should feel free to beat me to it). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Maybe someone at the conference could address the problem. Viriditas (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't suppose it even occurred to you to have me invited to give my wildly popular PG talk. Harrumph. EEng (talk) 06:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, you're invited. But I will be at another session. (I didn't know you were an expert on Procter and Gamble.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
This film is Pretty Good
There seems to be some confusion... EEng (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
If discretion is required, I'll be very discreet. And, all joking aside, I want to very sincerely express my appreciation to you over the fact that we genuinely are making progress on that PG page. I'm happy that we are finding ways to make things work, and I thank you for your cooperation in achieving that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Still a red link! Viriditas (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and I feel guilty about that. I've been busy in real life, and there's a content dispute that has been eating up way too much of my time on-Wiki. There's also a page about a public aquarium that I promised to help with, and I haven't gotten around to that either. Mea culpa. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I just started User:Viriditas/David Rioch. Viriditas (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks so much! I've just put it on my watchlist, and I'll try to help with it as soon as I can. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
If you can provide copies of the sources listed in the further reading section, that would go a long way to helping. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

RfA: 'Some data that I would like to see'[edit]

Hi. See the most recent threads at WT:RfA and a current RfA in that context. Cheers, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Kudpung. I looked where you suggested, and I'm going to try to write my thoughts about the "data" section that I started, although I'm painfully busy with off-Wiki things right now. Was there something specific you wanted me to notice, other than the unexplained oppose and the "opposes" in the support section? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews[edit]

Hello Tryptofish. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

welcome back![edit]

hope SfN was great this year! i heard some good things. Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that was fast! Yes, I always find it a very worthwhile meeting. Now, I have to dig my way out of all the things I'm behind on here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Can you talk a little bit about the neurogenesis poster presentations you saw? I'm particularly interested in growing a second brain. Viriditas (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Myself, I have enough trouble with the one brain that I have! There were over 31,000 people at the meeting, so obviously I could not even come close to seeing everything that was presented, and neurogenesis is not something I follow closely. But what I do know is that a lot of progress is happening in neurogenesis at the cellular level, whereas we are many years away from being able to grow entire brains, and still some years away from being able to get small parts of brains to regrow. Here are some sessions that dealt with that topic: [2] and [3]. (Note: not peer-reviewed.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw them, which is why I asked. I've talked to a few people with TBIs who are in clinical trials, and I assumed (possibly erroneously) that they may have been involved in some kind of neurogenesis trial. I'm curious, what do you think what happen if we had widely available smart drugs (beyond provagil, phenibut, and the widely abused ADHD drugs). I mean, we already have "stupid" drugs, legal and illegal, that people can get a hold of, and that may contribute to the high levels of crime, violence, road fatalities and other public health issues. We all know about how much damage alcohol and tobacco do to a society, yet they are everywhere. Caffeine doesn't necessarily make people smarter but more alert, and my pet theory at this time is that caffeine increases aggression in people genetically predisposed to it. In any event, what would happen if smart drugs were available on every street corner? Can you envision how that would help or hurt society? Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I'm very skeptical that there really will be such a thing as a smart drug (as opposed to drugs that simply increase alertness and so forth, and make people think incorrectly that they are smarter). For one thing, the route of administration would matter (maybe intranasal, but not likely by mouth). For another, it's a question of increasing function in very specific parts of the brain without affecting function elsewhere. Drugs for improving cognition in Alzheimer's disease have been very disappointing. As for society, my best guess is that such a thing would first find its way to the very wealthy or powerful, before getting to the street. I think that something that truly makes people smarter would create terrible inequality unless it were provided to everyone equally. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
What do you make of the evidence that this is already happening? Take, for example, the offlabel use of ADHD drugs as nonmedical prescription stimulants by students in the United States. There are estimates showing that as many as 500,000 students are using the drug in college (on and offlabel), out of the five million prescriptions on file. It is also alleged that the "great Adderall shortage" of the last few years is due to offlabel use by students. Granted, this isn't necessarily a "smart drug", but it is being used this way and may be contributing to an "arms race" of sorts amongst students. In other words, students who don't need them might be pressured into using them to "keep up" with their classmates. I also know of a number of scientists in highly respected research institutions who use them offlabel to perform their work. Of course, the term "offlabel" is used very loosely here, as they can easily get a prescription by mimicking the symptoms and requesting the drug. Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I probably don't know anything about it that you didn't just say. I think the "arms race" is a very sad phenomenon. This is the first I've heard of it in the context of academic science, but I'm regrettably not surprised, having worked in the field myself for many years. I left the field, professionally, several years ago, for a variety of reasons, but one part of it was my growing disgust with what does indeed seem like an over-competitiveness over diminishing research funding and other resources. Academia, at least in the US, has become a rather ugly place to do serious basic science. Talking to friends of mine who are still in it, at the meeting I just got back from, makes me glad that I found a way to move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Do you see any potential in the brain-computer interface (BCI) sector, with products like NeuroSky? Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't know about products that are already starting to come into commercial production, but I think the basic research in that area looks splendid in the long run. Not for "smartness", but for neurological conditions that are neuranatomically localized, such as Parkinson's disease, where there has already been spectacular progress. I've seen some very promising preliminary work on applications even to major depression, although it's still very much in the early stages. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Shameless advertising[edit]

Whatever you do, don't read User:Tryptofish/ACE2014! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

ACE2014 question[edit]

Hey, I answered the question you asked me. Sorry it took me a while to get to it. Ks0stm (TCGE) 21:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and good luck! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Opioid dependence[edit]

I see you are working on improving opioid dependence. Do you have any insight into the efficacy of ibogaine treatment centers in Mexico and Canada, and the rationale for the United States to make it more difficult for addicts to get help? It almost looks like the US wants addicts to remain sick or die off. Viriditas (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, opioid dependence is something where I have a deep and longtime interest in the source material! I don't have much research experience specifically with ibogaine, but I've seen documentary coverage of it (maybe it was on VICE?). Anecdotally, it sure looks like it works, at least for some people. Hard to be sure why, and possibly it's like electroconvulsive shock. The tricky thing with opioid dependence (and in my opinion with all kinds of substance dependencies) is that individual people differ from one another, a lot. So there's really no way of knowing whether or not ibogaine works consistently or for most opioid addicts, without a controlled trial. And that leads to the second part of your question. There is absolutely no doubt (per me) that the long history of drug prudishness in the US gets in the way of drug research, as well as the fact that drug laws finance the for-profit prison industry. I don't think that there are any scientists or physicians who want to see addicts die off, but scientists have to get funding, and I know for a fact that the leadership of NIDA always have to look over their shoulders to see whether those genuises in Congress are going to dislike something they might fund. (By the way, it should be obvious, but I'm answering with my real life opinions, not as a Wikipedia editor.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm more familiar with the social history, and I've listened to a lot of audio interviews with former addicts. My understanding is that in therapeutic sessions, the majority of addicts lose the craving and feel at peace with themselves for the first time. It's like the addiction has been surgically removed from their mind. Of course, they probably require major followup therapy to avoid relapse, but from listening to the addicts, it's like a huge burden has been lifted from their shoulders. One would think that in an evidence-based medical profession, these treatment centers would be available across the US. I am forced to conclude, however, that someone at a very high level is benefiting from keeping addicts addicted, and keeping the drugs flowing into the country. I've read elsewhere that if the flow of drugs into the country was stopped, the entire, global financial system would collapse, as it depends and runs on narco-profits. I don't know if that is true, of course. It is unusual, however, that prior to 9/11, the Taliban had virtually eliminated opium production. After 9/11, the US was and continues to be flooded with heroin, which is destroying communities and adding new blood to the prison industrial complex. Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
As for relapse, that's a big deal, for people who are prone to it. And it's very possible that the addicts who make their ways to Canada or Mexico are different than the many more who don't. Some people can walk away from opioids, and other people cannot. No question about the benefits to someone in power, and it's the prisons who contribute money to Congressional candidates. All the evidence in the world won't shake loose the funding one needs to do the study to allow a treatment center to open, if the funders are afraid of getting fired if they give you the funding. (Added after edit conflict: What you added subsequently, about 9/11, I don't believe that.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
What part don't you believe? Is it true that prior to 9/11, world opium production had fallen due to the Taliban? And is it true, after the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan, opium production resumed and reached its highest levels, with increasing imports into the US while the US was occupying the country? Have you been following the long, series of investigations into heroin availability in the US in the major media for the last 10 years? And what about the similarity to opium availability during the Vietnam war? Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I'm just thinking about 9/11 conspiracy theories, but maybe I misunderstood why you said it. I sure don't think anyone in the West made 9/11 happen so that heroin profits would increase! Prisons being big business in the US and big business funding politics in the US are phenomena that predate 9/11 and continue for reasons having nothing to do with 9/11. But Vietnam – there's a great example of something I said above. Many US troops used heroin over there. A small percentage came home addicted. But the large majority came back and never relapsed; they just walked away from heroin without having become addicted. And think of alcohol: most people can use it socially without becoming addicted, but a small percentage are alcoholics. Many people like me, who have looked closely at the science, believe that most addictive substances are only addictive to a subset of people, not to everyone who ever tries them. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
The Taliban banned opium production in early 2001.[4] Feel free to delete or archive this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Competence[edit]

I felt I had to defend my intellect[5] ;-). Best, AGK [•] 23:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I actually realized that you intended it that way. But I sure don't have to tell you that it would have been just a matter of time before people would have found a reason to construe it the other way. Better to be inappropriate than to be incompetent, I guess. Face-smile.svg --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Some old discussion[edit]

[6], as you know that I didn't had enough time to contribute then, I was more concerned with few other issues and I couldn't describe better. I really meant to say "Except", I was saying that the section about non-creationism theory of Jains must not be removed because it has been criticized by numerous notable people, including Dayanand Saraswati.

I thought of removing that question from your comment, but then I thought of telling you about it. I hope that I have clarified. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I had completely forgotten about that long-ago discussion, and currently, I actually do not care about it at all, so what you are telling me here is no problem at all. By the way, according to WP:TPO, you should never remove parts of what other editors have said (except for some special exceptions that do not apply here), but you can always add a new reply of your own. In this case, I'm perfectly happy if we both just forget about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Of course I am aware of changing others comments, that's why I thought of informing you about the unanswered, instead of changing it. Anyways, having these articles on watchlist is good though as no one knows that when the material is being removed again, or it is nominated for deletion. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Wealth and religion[edit]

Are you watching Wealth and religion anymore? I am having edit war with SPAs. Although I had explained my changes on talk(page), some weeks ago. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It's still on my watchlist but I haven't been paying close attention due to other issues taking more of my time. I'll take a look now that you have asked me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, I've looked. I'm not seeing anything that is out of control, in that you have been able to revert the edits that you object to, and there isn't an active edit war. It does look like one or more other people come back from time to time, and reinstall the questioned material without really explaining why. Most of the material that was disputed is stuff where I don't have a strong opinion and I don't care very much. I do notice that the other editor said that some of the person names they tried to delete are not actually on lists of the richest people. It seems to me that is something that can be objectively checked in sources. So if there is good sourcing, add that to the page, and if there isn't, then you could agree to deleting the names. Also, I saw that you placed a rather strongly worded comment about sockpuppetry on that editor's talk page, and that leaves me with some concerns about WP:BITE. It's certainly possible that the IPs are the same person editing logged out, especially since they seem to have the same concerns, but they could also be different people who looked at the page and simply disagree with you. If you really are concerned, it is better to go directly to WP:SPI (partly because, if someone really is gaming the system, then telling them on their talk page actually gives them some clues about how to avoid detection). But I'm not seeing enough WP:Tag team behavior to make any of that necessary. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
The main article under that section is linked to List of the 100 wealthiest people. SPI is embarrassing to open if there is no abuse of multiple accounts. Not that I ever did that way, but I have seen that IP is not revealed by CU per privacy policy. If a user has frequently abused an account and an IP, a page protection or temporary block can be requested. Bladesmulti (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree. It looks to me like things are under control, but if you have any further problems let me know. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

WEF[edit]

Could you expand upon what you said here? Who asked for these changes? How does WEF's latest announcement meet editor needs? Chris Troutman (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm basing it on the discussion at the Education Noticeboard. You are free to disagree with me if you want. I'm not interested in having an argument about whether or not I should have complimented someone. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not looking to argue; I guess the text doesn't convey that. I'm honestly curious if you meant to take a swipe at WMF by pointing out WEF's action, or you were against the number of classes involved in Wikipedia. If you don't want to answer, that's fine. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I completely misunderstood what you meant, sorry. I thought that you were objecting to my saying nice things about WEF, but it sounds now like you are asking about my implied criticism of WMF, which is a very reasonable question. I didn't mean it exactly as a swipe, in the sense that I wasn't trying to be snarky. My intention was to leave a positive message. But I was thinking about all the things like the media viewer and the visual editor, etc., where some editors have felt that the software developers rolled stuff out that made things more difficult for experienced editors and that experienced editors felt insufficiently consulted. I'm certainly not of the opinion that all WMF folks are doing a bad job, and quite a few of them strike me as doing excellent work, although I've had my differences with a smaller number of them. Wikipedia:Petition to the WMF on handling of interface changes is a good place to see what I was thinking of, and I even linked to some examples of what I like and what I dislike in my comments there. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, ok. Thanks for the clarification. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your refugium welcome![edit]

Fothergilla (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC) I will surely take you up on your offer of help. There is a lot to learn.

You are very welcome! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)