User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

October – December, 2010

Soccer cup competition/notability issue

Thank you for doing that. I was about to do the same thing. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that it was very reasonable. Thanks for thanking me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey

I'm given to understand that you have some issues with some of my actions. May I ask what these issues might be? I look forward to resolving the situation to our mutual satisfaction. DS (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, fair enough. I'll answer this one at your talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Although I understand your concerns, I strongly disagree with them; using that vernacular was the result of a calculated decision intended to defuse the 'us-versus-them' mentality apparent in that user's Wikipedia edits and Something Awful posts. DS (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, then thank you for taking the time to consider my comment. On this one, we happen to disagree. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Atheism

Thanks for your support with the associated 'polemicist' (aptly described). The anonymous editor then had the gall to accuse me of using WP to advance my biased viewpoint when I requested that the information be sourced. A pleasure as always, Obamafan70 (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome! It really seems to me to have been an open-and-shut case that the other person was, at best, inept and, at worst, a troll. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

tag causes of sz

Hi Tryptofish,

I've added an inclusive quote to introduce the article on Causes of sz, and am just letting you know I took the confusing tag off...I'm not sure it was the right thing to do so reintroduce it by all means.

Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've just replied at the page talk that removing the tag is fine with me, no reason to put it back. My apologies for not giving the page more time, myself, but someday I'll get around to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks mate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk • contribs) 21:07, 7 October 2010

Right idea, wrong justification?

Hi, I think you had the correct idea but wrong justification for the comment removal on IPU... NOTFORUM or NOTBLOG or NOTMYSPACE like justification would probably have been more appropriate - or better yet, me moving the talk to his page and answering there. Thanks for cleaning that up, including my continuation of it. -R ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 22:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I do think the person is a troll. The giveaway is the user history of going from page to page making useless comments about the subject in ways that appear to be "wikigroaning", along with frequent references to lulz. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

No, actually he's my adoptee, with a few stubs he's turned into successful GAs. After a rough start here, I think he's just going a little too far to become part of the community. WP:AGF Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 22:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Sound of shock, followed by self-trouting! He's your adoptee?! All I can say is yikes! Well, I guess it's just as well I didn't take it any further. You do know, don't you, that there was also a sock investigation into him? I'm afraid he doesn't look like a keeper to me, but maybe I'm wrong. I really do AGF—don't get me wrong—but this was pretty WP:DUCK and I'm heavily influenced by my own experiences with the nice people from Something Awful. Anyway, you might indeed have wanted to move that to his or your talk, for the benefit of those of us who didn't know. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The sock investigation, and too numerous other things to list here, all were covered in an AN/I more recent. He's under some editing restrictions and has come clean on numerous things on the ANI. Since then, gotten at least one GA, and a few other articles reviewed. So... (he's) still struggling a bit here to learn how things work, but getting there. I've seen other editors off to a far rockier start who've turned out to be very valued editors - or even respected admins... and flip-side, I've seen editors with far less rocky starts who've turned out to be nightmares. Funny how things sometimes work. Anyway, I've got a feeling that as he gets more comfortable here, he (and all of us) will find he fits right in. :-) Thanks, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 22:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

So be it, then. Peace, and happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

ID & DENY

re [1]: My own personal view, but I always try to give people a chance to be reasonable. Everybody gets annoyed and says stupid things every once in a while (hell, I could be the poster boy for that); you really can't tell that someone's trolling until you see them consciously step around a reasonable discussion to get back to nasty stuff. If the IP goes back to name-calling at this point, then we can be sure it's trolling; if not, it might have some interesting things to say. --Ludwigs2 21:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Sounded to me like they had gone back in that direction, but anyway, they sure weren't evidence in favor of ID. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV issue at Park51

This message is for you because you passed comment at Talk:Park51 in response to an RfC raised by User:NickCT. Please note that you gave an answer to this user on alternative wording to the introduction before the issue of Wikipedia's neutrality which was raised at WP:NPONV has been resolved. If you have not done so already, please read the issues as presented at WP:NPOV and and give an answer to the neutrality question. It is my opinion that the neutrality issue needs to be resolved first. Kind regards User:Hauskalainen

Thank you for asking me. Done. In my opinion, the WP:NPOVN arguments do not change my position. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Categories on redirects

Hi, I noticed this change on my watchlist but wondered if you know of a guideline that clarified this? I have contributed to other articles where redirects were deliberately left on appropriate redirects (for example where a separate article would be considered an arbitrary content fork but certain categories would not apply to the parent). Thanks, Fæ (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a good question! At the time, I was going by my general recollection that pages are blanked when they are redirected. Your question made me look for and find Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, which says that redirects usually should not include categories, but then goes on to describe all kinds of exceptions and ambiguities. In any case, in this case, I disliked the fact that the cyber-bullying category had been removed without giving a good reason, after talk had seemed to settle on keeping the category. I've stopped watching the page, and when I looked at the category from another page I watch, I noticed the edit I reverted. It was weird finding a redirect listed on a category page. And generally, I think that the categories are appropriate to the actual page, so I don't see the point of moving them to the redirect. But if other editors want to discuss what I did, that's fine, nothing etched in stone. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally I wondered about the categorizations when they were originally added (not too long after the article re-name) but do not feel strongly inclined to spend a lot of time worrying about cats. As you say, due to the changes back and forth it probably is worth mentioning on the talk page if only to gradually build a consensus and stick with the result. Thanks for being open to reconsidering the change. Fæ (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Started a discussion thread at Talk:Suicide of Tyler Clementi#Request for local consensus on categories for redirect page to, hopefully, reach a consensus. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Commented, thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

During my wiki-break

Party at Tryptofish's house! TJRC (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Good, you bring the beer! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Input needed at Talk:Christianity and violence

Tryptofish: Additional input could be useful at Talk:Christianity and violence regarding what material should be included in the article. --Noleander (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Christianity and violence

An RFC has been issued for Christianity and violence here. Since you have participated on the Talk Page in recent months, I thought you might be willing to review the RFC and provide your input. Thanks. --Richard S (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Replying to you both: will do, but see also WP:There is no deadline. On quick glance, it doesn't look to me to be the most burning of issues, but I'll look more thoughtfully in a while. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "there is no deadline". It takes time to build a good article. I think we're on the way there. Noleander seems to think otherwise and is threatening mass deletions. Please take a look when you have time. Thanx. --Richard S (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Assessing the current state of the article

I have made a comment at Talk:Christianity and violence here that references a comment you made here back in September. Please look at my comment and provide your input when time allows. Thanx. --Richard S (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Done, after a fashion. More doubtless to follow. Thanks for asking me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate your recent comments on Talk:Christianity and violence, I'd like to point out that you haven't addressed the question that I was attempting to pose immediately above. Back in September, you made a comment about "the massive amount of material that had been, wrongly in my opinion, removed from the page" and suggested that you wanted to restore some of it.

While I agree that there is "a lot missing from this article", I am not convinced that the old pre-AFD version of this article is the best place to mine for stuff to add. The old pre-AFD version was a coatrack that had a long laundry list of incidents in which violence was committed in the name of Christianity. The lack of organization and the failure to debate the causality and motivations involved led to that version being highly POV in suggesting that Christianity was a violent religion. I'm not saying it isn't. I'm just saying that the pre-AFD version failed NPOV because it made no effort to present the case for the opposing side.

I have gone back to the pre-AFD version and looked for stuff that should be restored. The single highest priority seemed to be the sectarian violence in Ireland. I have added that to the current version of the article. I also think the Gunpowder Plot is significant but I think it should be presented as part of a long episode of Catholic-Protestant strife in Britain. There is a lot to say on that topic, of which the Gunpowder Plot is only one small incident.

So... my request to you is: please look at the pre-AFD version and identify any sections that were removed from the article and that you think should be restored. Then, put those items on Talk:Christianity and violence and let's discuss them.

Also, the key point here is that I have taken the article in a very different direction because I have shifted the focus of the article away from describing incidents of violence by Christians and focused on the debate of whether Christianity is a "violent religion" and the extent and nature of involvement by the Church and clergy in those incidents. This approach is presented here. There is some debate from User:Cadwallader and User:John Carter. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this question as well.

Thanx.

--Richard S (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do all of that in due time. But in the mean time, I'll make some partial answers to you here, now. Part of the reason I've been a bit slow to comment more extensively is simply that your edits have been so many, so fast, that's it's been hard for me to keep up with them all. And I am glad that you have recently been going back and doing some pruning. I too am thinking of doing some further pruning, but I actually have been trying not to step on your toes while you are actively editing yourself. In particular, I think there's a huge need to get away from lengthy verbatim quotes, in favor of well-sourced summaries and paraphrases. If you'd like, please leave me a note here when you are at a pause point, and then I'll feel at liberty to go in and edit more actively when I won't be in your way.

About not just going back to the coatrack, I agree with you, and that's why I didn't raise any issues about it recently (but I did add back some material about the pogroms). I think Noleander has been making some good points about the need for you to provide sourcing to avoid those kinds of issues. Again, when there's a good quiet point, I can try to go in and help there too. But of course the problem with this approach is that the "violent religion" formulation leaves open the concern that some editors, like the ones you mention, will worry that it's tipping across POV. I'll give that some thought too, and will try to find some solutions. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I see... I appreciate your patience and forbearance. A lot of the "fast and furious" editing was driven by Noleander's challenging of certain assertions, most notably the assertion that slavery and antisemitism were forms of "violence" relevant to this article. I will post a "status report" on the Talk Page of the article. That will tell you which sections I am "done" with or "stuck". Any help you can give will be appreciated. --Richard S (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

the human brain is shrinking*

I'd like to cite this discover article, but I can't find it posted online. Here is a blog talking about the article, but I don't know if that meets Wiki standards. [2]--RaptorHunter (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me about this. Here's what I think. As I'm sure you realize, the blog itself really isn't a reliable source for these purposes. Also, Discover Magazine is more like a popular science magazine than a scholarly academic journal. For some kinds of content, that would be fine, but here, I think we need something more substantial, partly because we are talking about hard science, and partly because the language you used for the sentence (with its reference to procreation) carries a lot of potentially-POV implications about modern society and about some people being allegedly better or worse than others. The news source that you did cite includes some other possible explanations, which appear more verifiable than the one you put forth.

For these reasons, I think it would be wrong to leave it in the lead. If you want, it might be possible to develop a more nuanced discussion of the issue lower on the page, in Human brain#Structure. I'm now going to delete the sentence, with a link to this discussion in my edit summary. If you want to discuss this further, that's fine, but I'd suggest doing so at Talk:Human brain, rather than here, so that more editors can be involved if they want. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me just note that our brain size article has some material relating to this. Looie496 (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Looie. I put a link to it at Human brain. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

*Well, mine certainly is! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Animal testing

Hi Tryptofish,

Please read here before removing my change.

Best regards,

--Mparu ∞ (msg) 16:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV, and don't expect anyone to go back to an old archive of a talk page to know that you made a new comment there. If you wish to propose this change, please raise it at the current article talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I already know that we have to mantein a neutral point of view. I just thought that the validity of the archives remained in present days, for this reason I avoided opening a new section at the current article talk page. Of course I will follow your hint,

Best wishes,

--Mparu ∞ (msg) 17:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mparu, I think I should backtrack a bit. I did indeed misinterpret your intentions, and for that I apologize to you. I'm afraid that this article, and some others like it to which I pay a lot of attention, have historically been magnets for people who are pushing POVs, and your addition of the image sure looked like that. (And purely fyi, very few of us watchlist talk page archives, so comments added after archiving has taken place will virtually never be seen. You can, and should, always start a new thread on the current article talk, linking back to earlier discussion if you think it's helpful to do so.) I'll comment some more at the article talk page. Best, --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I can imagine the difficulty of taking part in discussions on certain matters. I see that we share a lot of interests ;). --Mparu ∞ (msg) 13:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and if you ever need help from a janitor please feel free to drop me a line! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Extra lines in my edits

Hi Tryptofish, I've noticed on a number of occasions that you've removed extra line breaks from text that I've edited. Thanks for doing that. For reasons that I don't completely understand, some combination of Windows copy-paste, Google Chrome web browser and my Wikipedia text editor is inserting these blank lines. I do try to remove them but obviously I fail to get them all. Just wanted to let you know what was going on because you seem to be paying attention to this and I would guess that you must find it frustrating to have to keep cleaning up after me. Thanks again. --Richard S (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Just so you know, my most recent edit wasn't about that, but about the fact that we already had a "Further reading" section, and so I moved that source to the existing section. As for the extra lines, perhaps you can see them by using the preview function before saving the edit, or, if not, by looking back at your completed edit before moving on to the next one. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)