User talk:Tryptofish: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:21, 23 April 2016

Welcome to my talk page! Unless you request otherwise, I will generally respond to your message here. New messages go at the bottom.

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

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37

Hatnote at "Fishkeeping"

Hi, you reverted my removal of a hatnote at Fishkeeping. I removed the hatnote because it doesn't lead to another article. The message that a certain page redirects to an article isn't helpful unless the reader might be looking for a different article. Thus hatnote messages like {{redirect}}'s "X" redirects here. For Y, see [[Z]] help the reader find page Z.

In this case, there's no "target" page ("Z"), so the hatnote doesn't serve a useful purpose, especially as users are already given a message by the software at the top of the page when they're redirected. Since the hatnote is useless, it should therefore be removed. Adding a link to the redirect itself just makes things confusing, since the redirect might look like it will lead to a separate Aquarist page while actually just looping back to Fishkeeping.

Would you mind removing (or letting me remove) that hatnote again, based on this rationale? Thanks, {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 20:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. No big deal to me, so no problem. (I had thought that your concern was that there was no link to Aquarist, so I had added the square brackets to make the link blue.) I had forgotten that readers do indeed get that small message at the top of the page that they have been redirected, so you are right that it's not particularly informative. On the other hand, insofar as I can tell, Template:Redirect3 is specifically intended to be used the way it was used there. I guess if this is something you feel strongly about you might want to bring it up at TfD. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{redirect3}} should be used with its second parameter to produce redirect messages that the other redirect messages can't. For example, there are a ton of species articles that use it to mention redirects associated with junior synonyms of other species. Using it with just one parameter ought to produce an error message, but, because it doesn't, it's used without it in a bunch of places. I've been doing some cleanup work on replacing instances where {{redirect3}} is used that it ought not to be. Many of its transclusions ought to be replaced with other templates, particularly {{redirect}} and {{redirect-distinguish}}, or deleted entirely (when they don't offer a target page). Perhaps I ought to add a tracking category for pages where the second parameter is unused… {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 22:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very helpful explanation. Thanks! The documentation of the template does not make that need for both parameters all that clear. For instance, right at the top of the template page, it displays the "wrong" way. That misled me, and it might mislead other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, thanks! I've tweaked that part to fix that. I should probably add a note in the documentation, too… {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 00:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much re drop the stick

Tryptofish,

Thanks very much for your comment regarding drop the stick.

User appears to have willfully ignored my comment where I pointed out I've been provided feedback in numerous different threads at that page regarding multiple different topics. DIFF.

I'm particularly appreciative of the DefendEachOther, Tryptofish, as the continued haranguing by the user in question is getting most tiresome.

The replies ad infinitum after each and every single comment border on inane disruption, at the very least.

Much appreciated,

— Cirt (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you are very welcome, and thank you for thanking me. I wish people would not take things so personally. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my DIFF. Thoughts? — Cirt (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking me. I haven't followed the history of whatever prior interactions you have had with the other editor. But I think it really boils down to this: if you are not doing it as "retaliation", then saying so should be enough per WP:AGF. To the degree that there is something approximately like a burden of proof on Wikipedia, it's up to the user making the accusation. Obviously, ANI is a WP:CESSPIT, so don't let things other people say get to you (of course that's easier said than done). --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've said as much. Three times. May I leave it up to others now? — Cirt (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand, I'm not an admin, and I don't give permission for anything like this. But yes. After all, that is also a way of dropping the stick. (In my experience, it's a mistake to reply to everything at ANI. And you don't have to defend yourself unless someone is actually asking for something to be done to you. Here, it just sounds like they are repeatedly saying that they don't think your position should count. Obviously, that didn't persuade me.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, thank you. I guess at this point in time I'll just wait and hopefully others will reply in my stead, instead? — Cirt (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Or it will just fizzle out. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, Tryptofish, sounds good, I'll try to defer to your wise judgement on the matter. :) — Cirt (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome ! — Cirt (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: He did it again, at DIFF. Does my reply there look okay? — Cirt (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, yes, it's fine. I see the SPI was closed with no action, but I also think that the other user is just digging himself in deeper and deeper. So, let him! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation for html editor

Tryptofish, Hi!

Thanks for your welcoming comments and offer of help. I have been editing the source code for discussion in the Talk forum, but this can be awkward. I use Mac OSX El Capitan. Have you any ideas to make leaving comments easier, maybe a recommendation for an htlm editor? kind regards RAMRashan (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty much ignorant on the subject of coding, so I really don't know the answer to that (and I also am running Windows Vista). If all you want to do is to leave comments on talk pages, all you have to do is use the Edit tab and use the Wikimedia software that runs automatically, and there is no need to modify the underlying source code or to do anything at the level of HTML. Also, if you go to your Preferences tab and then go to Editing, you have a choice of user interface. There are numerous options there that may interest you, and the last one in the middle section is "Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta". You can try turning that on or off. I always leave it disabled, because the visual editor isn't what I am used to, but some editors might prefer to enable the beta version. But if you want to get involved with the more technical aspects, the ideal place to post is at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). There are editors who respond to questions there, who are experts on these sorts of things. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. It's weird because although the "Edit" Tab appears on my browser for normal pages, only the "Edit Source" Tab is available for Talk pages. Looks like a bug of some sort, I'll check more. Thanks! RAMRashan (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Visual Editor is intentionally disabled for talk pages. E Eng 13:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks EEng. So, RAMRashan, if you disable the visual editor per what I said above, that should solve it for you. In my opinion, VE is lousy anyway. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Something else Tfish and I agree on. See User:EEng#visual_editor. E Eng 20:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some dim sum for you!

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's very nice of you! Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Regarding your ANI comment about further investigation, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Renameduser024. If you have any evidence to add there, it would be appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm very glad that this is being followed through on. Frankly, I don't really understand the underlying issues, so I don't think that I have anything to add. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Query

[1]

Why do you think this is "just fine"? Honestly curious.

jps (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jps - I am advising you that I also stalk this Talk page. DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the context and because of the tone of your own comments. Here is specifically why: You said "My god, but that's an awful source... it is by far and away the worst paper I've read in a long time." Now, as I also said (and DrChrissy should take note), the journal does appear to me to have been published out of Cuba and may perhaps be a low-quality source. But if you compare and contrast "the journal does appear to me to have been published out of Cuba and may perhaps be a low-quality source" with what I just quoted from you, there is a difference in tone (to put it mildly), and I cannot really blame DrChrissy for feeling insulted. I do, however, recognize that two wrongs do not make a right, so I also do not consider the diff you cite to be literally "just fine". I said that about the dispute overall. My advice to everyone (and not for the first time) is to dial down the perception that everything is personal and that everything is a battle. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert talk pages, whether you find things inappropriate is irrelevant.

Hello. Just letting you know I have reverted my comment on Talk:Suicide of Tyler Clementi. Your revert reason was 'Inappropriate use of a Wikipedia talk page.' A talk page is not like an article page you're not new here so you know this. If I want to talk about the price of fish in Tasmania on an article about quantum dynamics that's my prerogative.

However the topic raised was about an organisation founded around the suicide of a youth doing something that would lead to serious real world repercussions including suicides, by encouraging the publication of home addresses and personal information of people who were reported to be 'cyber bullies' arbitrarily to their body of self appointed judges. As this foundation is a charity this is an extremely notable thing. But regardless, by no means should you take it upon yourself to decide what is and isn't appropriate for another editor to raise on a talk page. Heck, this project of theirs is literally the highest media exposure the organisation has ever gotten. It's the sole reason most people even know it exists.

But again, you're not new to Wikipedia, you know all this and I would think your actions were intentional on those grounds alone. I can only submit that if you cannot refrain from manipulating other people's interactions on Wikipedia through censorship in such an underhanded manner perhaps you should excuse yourself and find another project more aligned towards your moral compass. <!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 03:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for discussing your concerns with me here at my talk page. You are correct that I have had experience editing and that I reverted your comment intentionally. I believe that you are incorrect about pretty much everything else you have said. You made this edit: [2]. As anyone can see from the diff, you referred to the family and supporters of a suicide victim as "morons". I reverted you: [3]. You did not self-revert, nor did you say anything along the lines of it being a noble charity. My revert was appropriate per WP:TPG, WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:RGW, and WP:ATTACK. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TPS

	The Ultimate TPS Award
	Is this not the cutest talk page stalker ever?!! We see lots of kittens, so I decided it was time for some puppies. I'm also working on some mini-pig pictures to go with my fun banners. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 102: / Line 102: @@
 But again, you're not new to Wikipedia, you know all this and I would think your actions were intentional on those grounds alone. I can only submit that if you cannot refrain from manipulating other people's interactions on Wikipedia through censorship in such an underhanded manner perhaps you should excuse yourself and find another project more aligned towards your moral compass. &lt;!//–  ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // [[User:BaSH_PR0MPT|user]] // [[User_talk:BaSH_PR0MPT|talk]] // [http://twitter.com/bashpr0mpt twitter] //–> 03:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
+:Thank you for discussing your concerns with me here at my talk page. You are correct that I have had experience editing and that I reverted your comment intentionally. I believe that you are incorrect about pretty much everything else you have said. You made this edit: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASuicide_of_Tyler_Clementi&type=revision&diff=715411673&oldid=648012066]. As anyone can see from the diff, you referred to the family and supporters of a suicide victim as "morons". I reverted you: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Suicide_of_Tyler_Clementi&diff=next&oldid=715411673]. You did not self-revert, nor did you say anything along the lines of it being a noble charity. My revert was appropriate per [[WP:TPG]], [[WP:NOTAFORUM]], [[WP:RGW]], and [[WP:ATTACK]]. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish#top|talk]]) 20:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 == TPS ==