User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

February – April, 2010

FAR

I have nominated Action potential for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Pyrrhus16 18:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries

Things have sometimes gotten a bit heated between us, but I'd say that we both recognize that Matt's approach is...in a class of its own. I firmly believe that all of us – Matt included – are involved in CDA with the best of intentions, whatever and wherever our differences of opinion may lie. It is regrettable that Matt hasn't shown a consistent ability to remain calm and collected in the face of disagreements; it would probably be best for him and for everyone if he backed off and found other areas in which he might be able to contribute positively. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that I've cooled off, just wanted to wish yas good luck, with the CDA. I'll be waiting for the RfC (both of them). GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, GoodDay. I think we all are starting to cool off, me included, and I hope very much that things are going to get back on a good track now. Best wishes, --Tryptofish (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do you & the other supporter have support in your voting? Ya don't need'em as you've both voted in the Support section. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've seen it done this way at many other types of polls on the Wiki, and I just like saying it that way. But you are, of course, correct that the meaning would be the same without it. Now, on the other hand, if I had put "oppose" at the beginning of a post in the support section, that would indeed have been pretty strange. No big deal. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You deserve this

The Resilient Barnstar
For your hard work in getting the CDA proposal together, even in the face of strong criticism. >Radiant< 17:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thread movement

[1]: given that the issues addressed no longer seem live, and that it has devolved into bickering about users, not about the RfC, I doubt anyone would object to moving it to talk, regardless of what was agreed upon beforehand. There is precedent for moving brawls out of issue discussions and onto talk pages.--Father Goose (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I know. I'm in the process of explaining in detail on your talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I was leaving my message as I got yours here. I hope we're ok on that now, really. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment about CDA

You say in reaction to one oppose... "making it sound like it would be too easy for ten malicious users to gang up on an administrator" - you are familiar with the internet, aren't you? :) I've elaborated my oppose to explain this. Just as the proposal worries about low level admin villainy (not big enough to merit Arbcom intervention) I guess I worry about low level editor villainy. Not for me personally, since I barely use my mop, but for the brave souls who figt the dragons (not wikidragons mind) every day. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for coming to my talk to discuss this issue. I'm going to make a brief reply at the poll page, but I want, first, to give what will be a long and rambling reply here. First (and the relevance will become apparent eventually), I want to say that I'm happy to interact with you directly. If you look at the categories at the bottom of my user page, you will see that in real life I'm a birder. When I first started editing here, I started following WP:BIRDS planning to edit bird-related pages. I was blown away with how good those articles already are (way beyond aquarium fish or neuroscience), and ended up concluding that I could contribute relatively little, and could do more in other subjects. In doing that, I noticed you and formed a very good opinion of you, and consequently I particularly noticed your comments in the present poll. So? OK, as you say, you rarely use your mop, and I would add that you do a lot of your work in a relatively drama-free corner of the Wiki. (One may debate jackdaw beak length, but I doubt there are many edit wars or POV pushers over it.) In contrast, I've encountered some fairly nasty corners of the Wiki without seeking them out. If you scroll up to the top of my talk, you'll see me saying something about how a large group of meatpuppets from Something Awful went through a period of personally attacking me over an issue at Crucifixion in the arts a few months ago. So, for one thing, yes I'm familiar with the internet, more so than I'd like to be. But for another thing, I've seen (at a variety of page subjects) what can happen when a few administrators do what I have called non-"bright-line" things in areas where editors really disagree. And at the same time, I've seen some of those brave souls to whom you refer come to my aid. Believe me, I understand how some pretty obnoxious people can show up on this site and give an administrator grief. And I have a pretty strong feeling that whatever policy will eventually end up being implemented will be improved relative to the one now being polled, with respect to having better safeguards for the accused administrator. But, as some other editors have correctly pointed out at the RfC, these kinds of hassles directed at administrators happen every day anyway; a good CDA policy will simply bring them to one place and provide a well-regulated procedure to deal with them. It will release the built-up steam of valid complaints, and put to rest those that are not valid. (P.S.: the comment of mine that you quoted was in the context of nominators not being anonymous.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I have a pretty strong feeling that whatever policy will eventually end up being implemented will be improved relative to the one now being polled, with respect to having better safeguards for the accused administrator. The devil is in the details. Given how many objections are because of this and other thoughts along the "something, but not this" line, this would be something that I suggest going forward is given some serious thought.
But, as some other editors have correctly pointed out at the RfC, these kinds of hassles directed at administrators happen every day anyway, All the more reason not to make things worse, surely? Administrator burnout / reluctance to be bold does not ultimately help Wikipedia. If this proposal increases both those things then is the benefit of weeding out a few less than stellar admins really worth the loss of some of the better ones? Especially when, as already noted by Casliber, there is another way?
a good CDA policy will simply bring them to one place and provide a well-regulated procedure to deal with them. Great. Go and get people to make one. The current one isn't good yet. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
As for your first and third points, I'm very receptive to them, while I'm also going to let the current discussion continue its natural course without jumping to early conclusions about its eventual outcome (and, in fact, that line of conversation that Casliber started is still ongoing). As for your second point, let's note that there are also issues with losses of new editors. How many new editors at Wikipedia walk away from the project because they have had a bad experience with an administrator? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Who can say, without doing some intensive research? I've fought to protect new editors from other thoughtless editors more often than I have thoughtless admins. But it is hard to assign values and costs. How likely is it that an editor, driven away by a hasty block, would have stayed and become a useful editor? We don't just want any new editors, we want new editors that aren't going to wikilawyer, POV-war, edit War, and generally make the rest of us work more. How likely is it that an editor scared away by an admin for mis-stepping wouldn't be scared away by another non-admin editor. These are questions that are hard to answer, because we don't have a social economist working out all the costs and benefits (a fascinating potential project if ever I heard of one), so we have to rely on best guesses. Personally, I think the Pedia needs to focus on the working environment of established contributors - article writers, copyeditors, vandal fighters, arbitrators and the like, rather than giving endless chances to POV pushers, cranks and sock-puppeters, who contribute some value but cost far more than they contribute. On how this reflects with your question, I think we have a high turnover of new editors of which only a few are ever going to become long-term contributors. Not everyone that leaves does so because they are put-off by the people, many just find it fun for a while, then lose interest. It's simple really, you protect the more valuable resource more than you do the the less valuable resource. If you assign an arbitary value of 10 to a valuable editor, and there is a one in ten chance of a new editor becoming such an editor, the value of any one new editor is on average 1. These are, I must stress, numbers pulled out of my arse. I'm not saying that we shouldn't look after new editors, I'm just saying that we shouldn't factor in their loss if we are going to lose them anyway, and we need to weigh their loss appropriately compared to the other costs. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, all of that. Of course I wasn't really asking for a number, but rather making a point. Overall, I also have a pretty low appetite for low-quality users (note that one of my few user boxes endorses abolition of IP editing, but that's an argument for another day). But I can tell you that when I was a new user, an incivil administrator nearly drove me away, and forced me to waste a huge amount of time on things that didn't really advance the building of an encyclopedia. I'm stubborn and I'm still here, and I'd like to think I'm a valuable contributor. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
On further reflection, something else occurs to me. The "valued contributor" concept is often applied in what I consider to be a destructive way. I've repeatedly seen it argued that we should let some non-"bright-line" bad behavior pass because the person in question also has a distinguished history of content contribution: sure, they're a little brusque, but they've got twenty F.A.s. In fact, I've seen that used as reasoning by ArbCom. Maybe the recent ArbCom is evolving past that, but if so, that reflects to no small extent the evolving standards of the community voting for ArbCom members, which in turn reflects the addition of new editors to the population of nostalgic long-timers. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
It would be a mistake to see this as a case of ying and yang dualism (not that I think you do) - valued contributors versus non-valued ones. We exist on a spectrum of value, each having positives and negatives we bring to Wikipedia. Someone with no positives and just low level negatives is going to get excluded for less than someone with some positives. So it is easy to see why there might be reluctance to ban someone with high positives.
Thinking more about WP:CDA, perhaps it would be better to have a more WP:FAR process. Rather than jumping straight into a up or down vote to kick an admin out of adminship, have a review of the admins's behaviour, discuss it, decide what needs to be done (if anything needs to be done), set up a timeframe, allow time to pass, then review. If insufficient change happens refer the case to arbcom with a community recommendation. Personally I don't see the need, given that arbocom has indicated that it is happy to review even non bright-line (whatever the hell that means) cases, and the unlikeliness of any case actually passing (to my mind). But it would allow the airing and discussion of problems in a setting less like that of a kangaroo court. You and other supporters repeatedly state that lesser sanctions are of course possible, but the very nature of the proposal and name of it in fact emphasises the ultimate sanction. WP:Adims for Review would be less confrontational, more open to multiple routes for solutions, and still placate the feeling many people have that more devolved power is good for the pedia (while not throwing too much red meat to the howling mobs). Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I would see that as being the same thing as RfC/U. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Testing hypotheses

Well, strictly speaking, your hypothesis has a slight flaw. It doesn't take into account:

population_sizethose who comment on RfC's > population_sizeTen's proposed angry peanut gallery

In other words, we can't disprove the existence of the peanut gallery (or their potential impact at a CDA) using a poll with a very high level of community involvement. (And sorry for replying to a tongue-in-cheek post -- just another scientist at work here :) Best, -- 21:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but CDA does require a minimum number of participants for action to be taken. Population size can be made a requirement, to any size we want. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Please

I don't know what you're doing, but I'm trying to tidy that article and you keep reverting from underneath me. If you have an objection, please make it on talk and don't keep reverting. Spain has granted rights to apes. All the sources say it. It was a bill, it was passed, it has all-party approval, the legislation is being written. There is no point in you, alone in the world, trying to change that. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 23:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I did provide the information on the talk page. Please see it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The sources call it a bill—because it was a bill. :)

SlimVirgin TALK contribs 23:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If there's new sourcing beyond what was available at the time of the previous discussion, then of course that's a whole different situation, and I'd have no objection. But I haven't yet read the sources you list here. This would probably be best worked out at the article talk page, not here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm surprised to hear you say you haven't read these sources. I started adding them in 2008. [2] I added more in January 2009. [3] Despite that, you deleted the whole section on July 30, 2009, [4] and have been edit warring about it in one way or another since then, but without producing sources of your own. If you have reliable sources saying that Spain did not in fact pass a bill, by all means bring them forward, but the onus is on you to show that the other sources are wrong. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 23:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Please stick to the facts, and not make innuendos about me. I hadn't yet read the links here on my talk when I wrote that. I have read them all now, and commented at Talk:Animal rights. I strongly reject what you are claiming here about me supposedly edit warring and such. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

TF, you've reverted at least 12 13 times on this issue alone. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] You're so determined to avoid the words "legislation" or "bill" that you want Wikipedia to call it "governmental guidelines." :) [18] Show me a single source in the world who called it a "governmental guideline." Yet you'll argue your position from one year to the next, in the face of all the sources, which you now admit you haven't read.

I don't want to talk about this anymore. All I know is that practically every time I've tried to make an edit to that article in the last two years or more (an article I wrote, about an issue I've studied academically), I've been reverted by you. You've even reverted me a couple of times on the talk page trying to archive. I've had to take it off my watchlist because I was so tired of what you were doing here and at other AR articles. What that means is that the article becomes stale, because it can't be updated or tightened, and there really isn't anyone else on Wikipedia who writes regularly about AR. So I'm requesting very politely, very respectfully, that it stop, please. If I write something that's wrong, post a reliable source on talk showing me that I'm wrong, and you'll find me very cooperative. I'm a source junkie, an information junkie, and I actually don't care what the POV is. I just want it to be educated and accurate. If you doubt me on that, test me. You won't need to revert me, you won't even need to post a single word, just post the source. That's all I want to say about it. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 00:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

And I will ask very politely, very respectfully, that you (1) stop framing my perfectly responsible editing as something other, (2) stop using those false claims about me as an editor, as an excuse for not addressing the actual content of the page being discussed, (3) please look at what I have said at the article talk page, (4) please follow the link I left there to the archived talk, where multiple editors took part and reached a consensus about how that section of the article should be written, (5) realize that you did not, above, even accurately describe what I edited on the page today (resolution, not guideline, for example), and (6) realize that I, too, am basing what I say entirely on sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
You've reverted me again, violating 3RR, [19] which says that any revert of another editor's work, in whole or in part, whether about the same material or different material, counts towards 3RR. If you do it again, at that article or any other, I will report you. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 00:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
You are just trying to bully me into not editing. You are applying a very odd reading of my edits to come to that many reversions by me, although a much more logical application of the rule would yield a lot more true reversions by you. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I think we both want to see those articles be accurate and well-sourced, so if we focus on that shared desire, rather than our differences, we should be fine. Anyway, thank you for your note, and I hope we'll be able to work together well in future. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 22:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

SlimV

Hey Trypt. Just wanted to note that I've also have issues with SlimV. I would say you got the word exactly when you said "bullying". Hopefully she'll play nice from now on, but if not, please let me know. NickCT (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nick. I AGF, and I've become pretty good at taking care of myself. Thanks for your good wishes. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Always wise to AGF Trypto. Not wise to fail to check your assumptions now and then though. Additionally, don't think I was implying you couldn't take care of yourself. NickCT (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Sure, understood. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Your conduct during CDA/RfC

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

The Special Barnstar
For your conduct during the RfC on Wikipedia:Community de-adminship, and especially your readiness to engage editors with competing or conflicting points of view and to promote calm, civil, and constructive communication and collaboration. Thank you. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! Actually, I'm not that disappointed. I think that, even though the present proposal seems very likely to fail, the process of discussing it has actually been very successful at figuring out how the community really feels and how to move forward to make something that will work. I'm very resistant to discouragement, and there's always tomorrow. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that you are right. Even if this particular version of CDA does not gain consensus to be implemented (as appears likely at this point), I think that is has served a positive purpose. It has already sparked several discussion about alternative proposals (case in point) and, after it is closed, can provide a foundation for additional discussion about implementing a revised process or developing and refining existing ones. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I second Black Falcon's comments re the Barnstar above. I am sorry I have so little time to engage actively at this point, but will attempt to do so asap. Whatever the result , congratulations on taking it forward. Ben MacDui 15:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tryptofish. You have new messages at MuZemike's talk page.
Message added 16:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–MuZemike 16:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks! I had a feeling that would be the case. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Old vote added again

Hi Tryptofish, regarding this strike, I just wanted to point you to this re-addition. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The stricken !vote is still there and has been there all along, so it should not have been added on redundantly at the end. Before I could finish figuring out what was going on, another editor beat me to reverting it. I think it's OK now. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Snideness is uncalled for

Please don't refer to me as 'my buddy'. You've made your opinion of me quite clear, over and over, and snide or sarcastic suggestions of friendship are unwelcome and inappropriate. You're free to dislike me as strongly as you wish, but I expect you to engage with me as a civil adult — or not at all. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually don't dislike you. And you haven't been particularly shy about expressing your opinion of me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I have quite openly, clearly, vociferously attacked your proposal. I have strongly criticized the lapses and omissions – as I have perceived them – in your (and others') arguments. I think that you're wrong on a number of points, and I think that your CDA efforts have been counterproductive and a tremendous waste of the community's time. I think that your attempt to solve a perceived problem without looking at any examples of said problem is ultimately futile.
However, I don't believe I've ever expessed an opinion of you. I've never accused you of working in bad faith (openly or by implication), nor implied any deliberate intent on your part to do harm. That is a level of basic respect which you haven't always granted me. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
All this, because I referred to you as "my buddy"? If that's the worst thing anyone has ever said about you, you have been very fortunate. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
It's not even the worst thing that you have said about me; that doesn't mean that it's appropriate. I've honestly tried to engage with you civilly and courteously, despite the veiled (and not-so-veiled) slurs and jabs. I don't think that mutual courtesy and respect are unreasonable things to request. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
My unsolicited advice to you is to take a deep breath, and put it in perspective. I've been subjected to some incredibly nasty comments in the course of this by other opponents. Not everything rises to the level of complaining as you do here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm asking you to set a standard for your conduct that's higher than the incredibly nasty stuff that other people have said. That's all. (And I surely don't think you're alone in being the target of incredibly nasty remarks.) You're not obliged to reply to my comments, but if you choose to do so, I'm asking you to engage with my ideas and arguments, and not resort to petty jabs. I've written off a few other individuals as not worth the effort; I'm holding out more hope for you. Is that an unreasonable desire? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, that reply is very interesting and though-provoking for me. In an ironic kind of way, I really have to end up, after all of this, saying thank you to you. I appreciate what you say about holding out more hope etc. Thank you for that. Look, in about 48 hours, I'm going to close the RfC as "failed". As the proposal was being developed, I was just one of a fairly large (and admittedly messy and often obnoxious) group of editors working on it. By the time the RfC actually started, I ended up being, single-handedly, the "face" of the whole thing. Not that I'm complaining, entirely. It's been a very interesting experience. But it's been a lot for me to juggle, and I have often felt attacked for it. I've tried very hard to engage with ideas and arguments, but I'm only human. Indeed, the nature of the issues debated has meant that feelings have been running high on both sides of the debate. And those strong feeling have not always been helpful. In a way, it has taken on an appearance of you-versus-me, as a result of the format of the discussion. Perhaps it's become inevitable that you and I both tend to see the debate in terms that are more personal than they objectively are. I've noticed that you are working on a sandbox piece that can be construed as you describing yourself as a wet blanket. I doubt others in the community see you that way, but rather as someone who did a better job than I did of framing this debate, and who did better than I did at summoning facts to support his argument. At the end of the day, this thing (Wikipedia) is just a website. It's not worth the gastric acid some of us (myself included!) waste on it. Peace, --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

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

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

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

You are very welcome! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

PETA

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

Thank you! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Template position

Noted you reverted my addition of templates to the sections of Nervous system. Is this a policy or technical issue I am unaware of? There seems to be a major need to create some decent navigation through a lot of the medical/lifescience topics and I thought these little collapsible template bars would be ideal for giving the casual reader an overview of the what's out there in wikipedia. Also it gives a way of reviewing the pages that are out there and trying to reduce some of the duplicated effort. At the bottom of the page (especially in neuroscience, which crosses into a lot of different areas) there is just a cluster of these bars, with sligthly spurious titles, all collapsed, often with duplicates collapsed within them and they don't really add anything for all the hard work that's gone into them. Arfgab (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for asking me about this. It's a policy issue. Since I see that you also raised the question at the article talk page, I'll explain there. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Bear Atheism

"described" is even worse than "regarded as". Described does not sufficiently carry the idea that what follows is intended as a def. Bears are dscribed as scary - but that is not any kind of def of bear.--JimWae (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Please raise it at the article talk, not here. You are wrong on this one, sorry. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I may be outnumbered on this one - but I am not "wrong". And we will see if I am really outnumbered. I doubt nonbelief (not in any of 80 dictionaries) will be widely accepted as the def of atheism--JimWae (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Numbers have nothing to do with it. You are wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
By what criteria? In my view you are just "wrongly" interpreting "wp is not a dictionary". You point to one phrase & say it supplies THE answer. I point to another phrase. You will have to remain agnostic on what the truth is on this. You will not find any policy or guideline to vanquish my concern. I can find many to support that we are expected to address the issue of def early - even if only to say that what follows is not intended as a def. WP, more than any encyclopedia I've ever seen, begins (nearly) every article with a definition - and the few articles that do not begin that way acknowledge that arriving at a definition is difficult. Presently the first sentence has the structure of a def & adopts the "absence" def as THE def, relegating others to also-rans (then repeating the absence def). --JimWae (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Btw, I find "chronically" a bit of a poor choice of words, verging on discussing people rather than the article topic. I do not think I have ever publicly disparaged you for what might be seen as a policy of appeasement, have I?--JimWae (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
You need to calm down, as do some of the other editors as well. I've just requested full protection of the page. My use of the word "chronically" was entirely descriptive and not disparaging. It is simply a fact that you have been making the same argument repeatedly over a long period of time. You might do well to remember that I repeatedly defended you when other editors wanted to completely remove the three definitions. I'm just calling them as I see them. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
You directed the discussion towards describing me rather than focussing on my posted points. I am remarkably calm, but I must wonder what frame of mind results in your straying into making personal commentary. I make the same argument not because of any flaw in my character, but because the point apparently needs to be repeated, unfortunately several times a month, while other editors appear to be unable to control their pride. Your comment, though relatively mild, still was personal rather than topical. --JimWae (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad you feel calm. Have a nice day. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Per your comment on the atheism talk page

Per your comment, could you point to section you want me to read. There is a morass of material on this page. NickCT (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound flippant, but you need to read the morass. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Well that's not helpful trypto. I took a quick look over what was written, I couldn't find anything that objected to "is". If you're asserting there is something, point to it. Else, don't assert. NickCT (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I see. You don't have time to read more than a quick look, but I have time to lead you through it. Look for the comments by Modocc. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Gracias. Frankly, if you are going to say "It has been discussed", you should also be able to say "It has been discussed here". NickCT (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
(Sound of me suppressing the urge to say "If you are going to comment on what others have said, you should read what they said first.") Oh wait, I guess I just said it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Dude, expecting people to parse through pages of chat is unreasonable. I made this point on a policy page some years ago. You need to need read through my entire contrib history and get back to me. (note - sarcasm to make a point) NickCT (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for visiting my talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tryptofish/Archive_6&oldid=1190135698"