User talk:Tryptofish

Newsletters.
Check RfAs.
WP:ADREV.
Statistics on most-viewed neuroscience pages.

Personal reflections on the Crucifixion controversy

It's been a couple of the most interesting days in my editing experience. :-) Given that a lot of the discussion has been about me, I feel it might be appropriate for me to say some relevant things about me. I'm doing it here, because it clearly does not belong on the article talk page.

First of all, no, I do not have Asperger's syndrome, although I have the utmost respect for people who do and who make valuable contributions to society. And I deplore the hate-speech that has occurred.

What may be more interesting is that I also do not particularly like anime. It doesn't make me upset or have any particular salience for me, but I just don't think it's much of a big deal, or particularly interesting. I'm not a fan of it. Also, the editors who know me from WT:BIO, where I frequently argue against recentism and fancruft, would likely be very surprised to see me arguing for pop culture in this case.

So, what gives? My personal likes and dislikes (or those of any other editor) are irrelevant to whether something is or is not notable and encyclopedic. I care, a lot, about Wikipedia telling the truth in an NPOV way. And sometimes, that means questioning people's preconceptions about what is or is not worthy of inclusion. Think of it as a sort of one-person Wiki Civil Liberties Union. What erupted at Crucifixion is still being sorted out, but at least some of it was various forms of Idon'tlikeit growing out of Christian or Western or various other Points of View. Material that is notable can sometimes make people uncomfortable, and they'll find ways to object to it for reasons that sound objective and reasonable, but which are really unexamined. I'm convinced that's happening—with some editors, certainly not everyone—in this controversy. Wikipedia is richer if that gets examined.

And another thing: I have no use for bullies. Bullies show up from time to time on this website, and most good, thoughtful, editors are not very good at dealing with them, often just giving in. What happened over the last few days has been a massive display of bullying masquerading as a snow closure, and the bullies chose the wrong editor to pick a fight with. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

FSM Lead + Suggestion

I shaved some more off the lead and got it down to three paragraphs. I think it's good now, but your input would still be helpful.

As you've noted, the talkpage of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a perennial troll magnet. (And, were the page not semi-protected, the same would be true of the article.) Consequently, I think that we should write an FAQ similar to the one on Talk:Barack Obama. Smaller, of course, but addressing the never-ending "this offends me" and "it's not a parody religion" comments. Is that appropriate?

Thanks, Mnation2 (talk) 03:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. A very big "YES" to the FAQ idea! I'm still thinking about shortening the lead, and maybe I'll make some suggestions on the article's talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Reaction and a query

More power to you Tryptofish! I do not like bullies either, but likely don't have your written jousting skills to deal with them. I haven’t looked at what has happened at Crucifixion (yet) but from my experience with you (Animal testing talk), I am sure you are fighting the good fight. I saw that the firestorm I inadvertently lit there has finally died out(?). I am starting to come around to your view that editors should be registered, and I'm only an IP(so far)! But being registered, as I'm sure you know far better than me, is no guarantee of editorial ability or conduct. Maybe an IQ, written English and personality test are needed too?
I actually came here to get your opinion on a message some 'editor' has left on my talk page. This is probably outside the Wiki 'dispute resolution' guidelines and I will understand if you don't want to get involved in any way. In fact after 4 months (≈500 article edits) of almost constant Wikipedia activity, I am considering giving it up. As I said, I don’t have good written (or verbal) jousting skills. If you just have a look at the end of my talk you will see the message I am upset about. [1] This is not the first time I have 'encountered' this person, and they often seem a bit abrupt, to say the least. I mean I should be able to make a comment, or query something in an article without being demeaned and belittled, as I see it, by an administrator! If you feel like giving an opinion I would value it, if not, no worries. It's about 8 AM here And I have only had a few hours sleep, (in my computer chair!) a very common event since I became a wikiholic. So I will have to go and try to get some more rest. Ramen! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and replying at your talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, much appreciated. Unfortunately I and the other editor tend to edit in similar areas. Just for the record I am an Electronic Technician, ≈20 years experience, have repaired computer memories using ferrite cores & I cannot recall a ferrite ever being called a ceramic (of course I may well be wrong, but for me it wasn't really important). That dreadfully unreliable source (Wikipedia) Ceramic article states "A ceramic is an inorganic, non-metallic solid prepared by the action of heat and subsequent cooling" Ferrite is metallic! (To the best of my knowledge).
Re editor 'shrinkage' this [2] may interest, don't know how true it is. Past 10AM now! Have to get some 'sleep'. "May you be touched by his noodly appendage" --220.101.28.25 (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

AIV

Sorry for the implication; I had only been able to review a few edits, and the most recent fell within policy as I said (Also, lately it seems to me we've had an awful lot of spurious or well-meaning reports to AIV of things that really should be taken somewhere else, so maybe that informed my reaction as well). A deep, ongoing issue like this should probably be taken to AN/I where you can explain it in more detail. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Crucifixion in art

Wow, things are getting a bit heated. I have a hunch as to why, but I'd really rather talk this over than let a shitstorm brew. The article was discussed on SA, natch, but to be quite honest it wasn't intended as an attack, or as vandalism, or as anything negative. Some people disagreed in particular with anime's strange prevalence in Wikipedia. Which is fine, in my opinion. People didn't like the way an article was and they edited it. But it wasn't like "let's go screw with those Wikipedia guys" at all. The image in question (that, as of writing, isn't there) didn't even represent a crucifixion; it was simply a cross and would have been better suited to Crosses in art or some such article. Now when I get my DVD back from my friend I can get a fair-use screenshot of Lilith on the cross, which would fit a hell of a lot better (or if you can remember what ep it was from take a shot yourself), but until such time I don't feel the image is necessary. And wouldn't the whole passage on imagery in anime belong under "movies and TV" anyway? Whatever happens happens, I guess, but I'd like to talk about it instead of reverting each other. ZS 04:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ziggy, thank you so much for coming to my talk page and making these helpful remarks, as well as the helpful comments you made at the article talk page (where I've just finished replying before coming back here). I've already discussed there the "Lilith" image, so I won't repeat it here. Well, you sure are right about the "heated" nature of it, that's for sure. As I see it, it's more complicated than what you describe. Some people are, indeed, just bringing a reasonable disagreement about content to the page, and are doing so civilly, and I really have no problem with that. You'll see that I've (with a few human mistakes on my part, to be sure) generally gone out of my way to discuss things constructively with them, as I try to do at all the 300-400 pages on my watch-list. The problem is when people do stuff like this, which is, sadly, not at all atypical of what's been coming my way. There is no reason for me to just go along with that kind of stuff, and I have no intention of doing so. I have every bit as much right to argue, within policy, for what I think content should be, as does any other editor, and some of these people have no sincere desire to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. The problem is compounded when the constructive and the disruptive editors are all talking at the same time, and I think that's what you just saw. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

CDA proposal finalisation poll

Thanks for voting. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome, Matt. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I note that the initial part of the discussion now archived at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC Archive 3#Proposed simplification of page structure remains unconcluded. I think there is merit in your suggestion there, although I don't think it is a major issue. I just think we need to be clear prior to going live.

Are you otherwise happy with the Guide, RfC and FAQ?Ben MacDui 20:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I archived that too soon - I will replace it if you want(?) Matt Lewis (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me. Don't worry about that Matt, it's OK. MacDui, yes I guess I basically am. (Q7 of the FAQ will need a link that isn't there yet.) As we agree, I do think the "Guide" and the "main CDA page" should be merged, and I guess I'd like a chance to see that before "going live". Beyond that, I don't think I'm planning any further edits to those pages. It is still not clear to me when we can "go live", given that we will need to decide how to interpret the responses to Matt's poll. Bottom line: don't hurry, get it right. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Important notice about VOTE 3 in the CDA poll

You are receiving this message as you have voted in VOTE 3 at the Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll.

It has been pointed out that VOTE 3 was confusing, and that voters have been assuming that the question was about creating an actual two-phase CDA process. The question is merely about having a two-phase poll on CDA at the eventual RfC, where the community will have their vote (eg a "yes/no for CDA” poll, followed a choice of proposal types perhaps).

As I wrote the question, I'll take responsibility for the confusion. It does make sense if read through to the end, but it certainly wasn't as clear as it should have been, or needed to be!

Please amend your vote if appropriate - it seems that many (if not most) people interpreted the question in the way that was not intended.

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

new idea

Was it you that started a new heading because I didn't start the new sub-section. Whatever or whoever, it's not important to know.

Remember, you wrote "I think you've actually come up with a variation that no one else has come up with so far, which is really saying something, considering how many different versions we've discussed!"

This option would slightly but temporarily empower non-admins against admins. Non-admins sometimes feel bullied. However, temporary 1 week desysop would be a nuclear option because admins could only suffer this twice a year and still keep the tools 50 weeks of the year. Socks would be useless against admins because of the 2 times a year limit. Furthermore, misuse of the temporary desysoping would result in 1 week blocks. Temporary desysoping is also less severe than blocking because the admin would still be able to edit.

This proposal could reduce drama because abuse of it carries a high price to the user misusing this power (they get blocked). Yet, admins would not want to suffer loss of prestige by being rightfully desysoped for a week (twice a year maximum). In terms of speed in resolving bad admin behavior, this fast procedure could defuse problems quickly unlike the regular process which creates a lot of slow drama. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I wrote the comment, but it was someone else who changed the headings. Stuff is happening fast and furious there! My suggestion, and it's nothing more than one person's opinion, is that your idea is really something separate from CDA, and might be best floated separately from it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Thank you for your Welcome. I have been admiring your contributions and your trophy page. I will seriously consider joining the Wiki fish project. Fishman 51 Fishman 51 (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Tag revert

Please do NOT revert quality tags on article, but IMPROVE the article Crucifixion in the arts. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I have. Have you? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not to improve the article, but comment on it. It still misses the mark by miles. History2007 (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You say: "I am not to improve the article". That says it all. I've written much of what the article now contains, and worked to improve much of the flawed content added by other editors. Please be careful how you address me. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI thread

Hi -- you might be amused by a look at WP:ANI#Probios and hoax article strumus. The issue is resolved and doesn't need any action, I just thought it might interest you. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just glad the thread isn't anything involving me! :-) Isn't "strumus" something one spreads on pita? (bad joke) Anyway, I've been kind of distracted from my more usual editing at neuroscience-related pages by some stuff going on lately at other pages, but I expect I'll be back to it sometime soon. I've seen you've been doing a lot of re-writing of late, and I really ought to go through those pages myself. Best, --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

please check stats to make sure not weezle

Hi Tryptofish,

would you have a look at the last sentence in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_schizophrenia#Hypoxia

I got the odds ratio from table 3; but I am wondering if we are legitimately allowed to interpret a figure like that.

Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Just on this same section, with your doctorate, is there a bit of confusion with the maths. The strikingly elevated risk of 5.75% seems to be calculated from the number of schizophrenics in the NSS group which was selected and matched for a total of 693 NSS and controls, then divided by the whole sample (either 3078 mothers or 4140 births). Surely the selected and matched groups are meant for logistic regression and not an epidemiological risk for the whole population. I am already embarrased, I know I'm wrong somewhere, but when you get time have a look. Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 11:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Knew I had something wrong, sorry about that. Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, yes, sure I'll be happy to take a look at that, although I won't be able to get to it right away. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

everything's ok. I simplified what I wrote in the first question and I realise where I went wrong in my second question Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, good. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Getting ready to roll

I see you're going through the FAQ too. Once that's done I think it could go live anytime.

To do's - tweak the FAQ and Guide wordings to state that the RfC is live.

Just to let you know - I will be offline from Sunday 31st to Tuesday 2nd. Ben MacDui 21:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't start this by 'rolling' it before people like myself, Jehochman etc are happier. Things that start on happy terms have a much better chance of succeeding. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope I'm not the person who decides when we go live! (said with a smile) In my opinion, we are getting close to being ready, but I basically agree with Matt about not rushing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussions that go on for ever have no hope of producing a result. There are numerous things that could be changed, but if they are neither make or break issues, nor have been raised in extensive prior discussions as being of importance, what is the point of spending time on them? There is very little sense of "building a consensus" at present - its just a few people disagreeing with one another. Ben MacDui 09:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

As much as I feel your pain, we are in no shape to go ahead yet. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

And I feel the need to strongly disagree. Ben is in the right of it; we need stop dithering and start moving. The longer you delay the more disruptive some are going to become, as the last 36 hours has shown. Jusdafax 18:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel your pain too. (But how did my talk page become discussion central for this?) I, myself, am not delaying. I'm trying to fix the mess, and make good use of what isn't a mess. Please allow me to get back to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I will of course be watching and continuing to assist where I can, but I have to say that at this point I am wishing I had taken Jusdafax's advice and gone live some time ago. This process is in danger of spinning completely out of control and it looks like it may take considerable patience to fix. Every time I try and analyse what has happened since the previous stable point it has changed yet again! Ben MacDui 20:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was just about to leave a message on your talk when I got the orange banner here. I've pointed something out about the "nominators" section, which you can see at the bottom of the Guide talk page. If we can agree on that, I think it's basically settled. I'd like to give it 24 hours to sleep on, to check for errors with fresh eyes, and to agree on the global message to everyone's watchlist pages (and probably to revert Matt a few more times), but then, I'd actually be ready to agree to go live. We're almost ready now. :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Come on MacDui - you had (and have) no right to 'go ahead' and do anything, not at any one person's advice - not without consensus. What an astonishingly anti-Wikpedian lack of WP:AGF towards me, from you both I am reading here! When I read these comments I realise how important it was that I stopped a tight group of three people completely running the show. The truly-negative critics were happily waiting for you to do rush a bad CDA through, while the more positive critics were all clearly appalled. You were a consensus of three for crying out loud! IMO, you had no proven (or real) consensus on anything you were running with, and the proposal was so unprofessional as it stood it would have been torn to pieces. The notion of it being a consensus 'text' is a complete myth, however much 'Uncle G' is name-dropped to give it some kind of (slightly weird) weight. Did you guys actually read the Motion to Close? It is a warning with bells on. You have both been clutching the WP:OWN to push this through, admit it. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The guidance

1. You state in your edit summary here "it's been extensively and specifically discussed", though you don't link to the discussion. Could you point me in the correct direction, as the wording is odd as is? NJA (t/c) 18:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
2. You re-added this, which is fine. However it seems to need tying in with the first paragraph of this section.
3. This. I didn't remove it, but I do wonder what is meant by stale signatures? Either the editor met the 500 edit, 3 month proviso and signed it, or they didn't. In what instance would it be made stale?

Generally though, you're making widescale revisions to changes that were aimed to improve clarity, and not everything requires extensive discussion or approval. I realise some of it may need discussion, but general readability points are trivial and will need to be made at some point. Can you explain why you believe changes to wording for clarity aren't allowed at this point? People have put in a lot of time to make the guidance more understandable, and generally permission is not required to do this. NJA (t/c) 18:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me about this. I'll explain in detail as I go along. Right now, I'm in the middle of it. Please be patient. I've seen your comments, and I'm quite sympathetic to your concerns about WP:OWN. Please rest assured that I will make sure that we do not rush anything through, and your concerns and everyone else's will be given all the attention you want. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ownership is not my concern, my main concerns (actually more like questions at this point) that I'd like addressed are numbers 1-3 above. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 18:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Good, I was worried that it sounded like we were implying that editing was unwelcome, when it's more like we're just worried about overturning consensus that already happened earlier (like a week or two ago!). I'm trying to wade through about as much material as my brain can encompass right now, but I promise to answer your questions when I can. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, here are my answers:

• 1. Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC/Archive 1#16. Improve language
• 2. That's a very good point. I think I fixed it now.
• 3. It means that all the signatures have to be within 7 days. If more than 7 days go by and there are not yet 10 signatures, and then some more signatures show up on, say, day 8, then the signers from day 1 have to re-sign. Ten signatures all within a 7 day period.

Thanks for your patience. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I realise you're trying to roll on with the draft, and I've made a post outlining my remaining concerns (I even coloured them). Essentially there's four things that I think need simple clarification or a rethink before I'd personally say at RFC 'looks great'. I do not think anything would require the removal or addition of anything substantial to the policy draft. I'd be WP:BOLD and do it, but I rather allow for you and Ben to read it over and see why there may be some concern from someone with fresh eyes. Also, while I disagree with Mr Lewis on a few of the things that he marked as needing discussed, we should keep an open mind that consensus may be open to change. A solution could be to possibly mark them as not having support, and allowing discussion by the community at RFC?

Anyhow, thanks for the work. I hope that we can agree that the final concerns I raised today do not require major revision, and I strongly believe addressing them would make the policy draft more understandable to those who haven't actually drafted it, and thus likely to be more successful at RFC. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 11:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for the excellent work. You've been very receptive to my feedback. I've just went through the section, and I marked things  Done where I completely agree with you that it's sorted and where I had no further comment. I'm down to one red, and two oranges, and literally it's all minor wording things. I've commented below you (in this sub-section) where I had observations. Have a good weekend. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 13:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm out this afternoon but will be back tonight. Remember the community aspect of Wikipedia both of you, won't you? That section was pretty much only suitable for two contributing editors only. As much as anything, we musn't forget how things look. NJA - can you look at my response to you on my talk page. Cheers, Matt Lewis (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Trypto - You don't accept email, but I have a query I'd like to ask you. nja247ymail.com NJA (t/c) 18:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

EL on Neuron

Hi -- I have to disagree with you here. It's so much easier to simply add a link to an article than to edit the text that I feel we really have to take a stand against adding content that way, lest our articles devolve into nothing more than link pages. I wouldn't have any objection to adding a section with the link on the talk page, as a reference for future writing. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a case of why can't we revise our edit summaries. I was thinking I should leave you a talk note afterwards, but didn't get to it. My bad, my apologies. Please take a closer look. I realized right after I saved my edit that it sounded like I was reverting you. I wasn't! There were two (2) ELs added and then reverted during that time period. I agreed with your reversion. I was restoring the other EL! OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh! Gah, I should have looked at the diff before reacting. I don't think this quite deserves a trout, but we can each hit ourselves with a wet goldfish, maybe. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've got a full fish tank. Feel free to jump right in and join me! Best, --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Are ya asking me?

Howdy, your indent has confused me, at the CDA proposals. GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused too. I think you may be referring to where I was replying to Sswonk, and thus, not to you. Could that be it? I am sure that I didn't pose any questions to you recently. Please feel free to reply where you want to, and not where you don't want to. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It's your 23:36 post (today), which I was alluting to. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I don't know which one that was. Or maybe you meant where I responded at the other talk after you and Matt? My indent there was meant as a comment-to-all, not a query to you. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ya gotta remove the indent in those situations (I think). GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Help:Talk page#Indentation. Anyway, I think we're good, which is what mattters. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked the indents. GoodDay (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, no prob. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

[3] was not vandalism. A comment left by someone who perhaps doesn't know that comments go at the bottom, and brusque, but not vandalism. Please do not call, and template, things vandalism that are not. --Golbez (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

[4] Noted. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

CDA update

"Not that I'm getting paid for this" - indeed, and whilst virtue is its own reward I do occasionally have paid work to attend to and will be off line again until Sat am, save perhaps for a short time tomorrow am. I've answered the questions as best I can and with any luck it will be ready to roll this weekend. I might have try a few more tweaks tonite but its getting late. Ben MacDui 21:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. That's my assessment of where we're at, also. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've deliberately stayed away for a number of days, hoping for the dust to settle. You know my take on the matter, so here's hoping that what should be, shall be. Thanks to you both for your hard work. Jusdafax 17:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Tryptofish

I naturally follow all CDA discussions, and when I see these "I feel your pain" type of comments about me obviously I am not happy. During this process, I've shouldered a load of crap which was really aimed at you and a couple of others (namely railroading and ignoring criticisms) - perhaps you could think about that for a moment, instead of just cringing at my responses? Also, you often don't seem to get the main points in my edits (inc the FAQ ones), and seem to think it is okay to label them as some kind of 'well-meaning naivety'. The idea of "meaning well" is just not a Wikipedian one. Think about it. None of us OWN's cda, and we will all of us have to wait till it is done - via the wide consensus - not the little mini ones, or per any past little polls, or out-dated originator's text - before we get to see it at RfC.

I have thought and worked outside of the 'group', which has been really essential for progress. I realise that if CDA fails it will to some people be my fault, and if it passes it would of course have done so without all the 'added drama'. It's a thankless task for me, but I'm still here working on this. I don't actual want thanks, just some base-level repect.

I am more than just a "vote", I've done more than you realise for the proposal, and the hard work is not finished yet.

On the subject of respect - there is no reason at all why I should back down on ratio's - so why the hard time for standing my ground? It not out of "ego" I assure you. I may yet concede there is consensus for it (as I've said) providing you can get consensus for it. MacDui seems to like it, but FT2 didn't, which I think is rather ominous given his status. It's a huge switch to pull on everyone right before the RfA. Also, it would have to be at least 6:1 (not 5:1) - if not closer to 9:1 (ie 90%). Ratio's or no, we have to reflect the poll results. Ask yourself this: would you go with ratio's if everyone voted for 80%? You have to try to lose your strong bias towards "80 and no higher" when you read that data.

If you tell me which of the 'none' votes (first and second choice) you find ambiguous, I am happy to ask all the voters individually what exact meaning they meant. Regarding any ambiguity (which I just cannot realistically see), people are just as likely (if not more so) to avoid voting for 'none' in a misinterpreted form, than to vote for it. I urge you to objectively think about it. Going over 80% will not be a disaster in polling terms - it will just show that we adjusted according to new data - a good thing, not a bad one, And the converse argument is true too. It will far more likely be one of the number of important fine-tuning factors that win it. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC format

Could you do me the courtesy of a bit more comment than this when you revert a series of my edits, each accompanied by detailed edit summaries?

As you say there, please present your own views in the discussion section of the poll. I haven't challenged or criticized the decision by the project's proponents to open the discussion with a lengthy presentation of their position and arguments, even the arguments which have been extensively critiqued in previous discussions. However, the introduction of the RfC should be as absolutely neutral, unbiased, and straightforward as we can make it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I am trying very hard to show you courtesy. If you don't believe that, just look at the bottom of Ben MacDui's talk page, where you will see me trying my hardest to get the concerns you have raised heard. Please also note that I made an edit to the poll page attempting to incorporate the parts of your edits where I felt you had made a fair point. But that does not mean that I have to agree with you on every detail. You previously asked me about making sure that your comments, and those of other editors who do not support the proposal, will be fairly heard on the poll page, and I've told you of my intention to support you on that vigorously. For example, I will oppose any effort by proposal supporters to refactor or delete comments by those who oppose the proposal. You still want me to take that position, right? Then please reflect on what you did here. You refactored comments by those with whom you disagreed. And, although I largely reverted you, I did incorporate some of the points you made. If you feel entitled to rewrite what supporters have written, then don't be surprised if supporters feel entitled to rewrite, collapse, refactor, or delete what you may be planning to write. This cuts both ways. Imagine an RfA where an editor who opposes the candidate were to modify the nominator's statement or the candidate's answers to questions. You have my absolute blessing (not that you need it) to say, in the discussion section of the RfC page or in the poll section of the page, anything and everything you want about how you disagree with me about the wording at the top of the page, and how you disagree with me about anything else. But that is the proper place for it. Please understand that. Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It looked to me like you blanket reverted every edit that I had suggested: [5]. Then you moved the content and replaced it with a redirect, so that my edits and explanations weren't even apparent in the page history.

I don't object to the proposal's supporters making their case in the poll's Discussion, but I believe that the sort introductory text – explaining, in clear terms, what the poll is for – should be scrupulously neutral. I have explained this on the talk page of the new location of the proposed poll. You're asking what text should appear on the proposal at the instant that it goes up. In exchange for that preemptive advantage in presenting your point of view, you also take on a moral obligation to give the poll a scrupulously neutral introduction. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

But please note this: [6]. As for the neutrality of the introduction, as with so many things NPOV, editors on opposing sides of the question often perceive it differently; I think it is neutral, whereas your edits upset that neutrality. (The page move was simply something that was happening at the same time, no evil intent to hide the edit history there.) And please feel free to express your concerns at the discussion and poll. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's not kid ourselves; the FAQ is not a neutral document. (If Matt Lewis and I can actually agree on that point, it says something....) You can put it wherever you want in the 'Discussion', you can even make it the first line of your comments — but it doesn't belong in the intro. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

[7] and [8]. (Yes, if you two agree, that does say something, but about whom?) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why you insist that the FAQ belongs in the 'introduction' rather than with the rest of your platform in the 'discussion'. In any event, perhaps this discussion is better placed on the talk page of the proposed poll. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

For better or worse, it is now live. Win lose or draw, I think you have done a fantastic job. Ben MacDui 11:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

As I am sure you can see Matt has twice closed the discussion and there is now a short proposal at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/RfC#Start/Re-start. Ben MacDui 14:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you commented on it, I wanted to let you know that I have closed and deleted Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ben MacDui as it was never certified. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Personal query regarding monomers

Hi Tryptofish, do you know of any evidence for a species difference between human and rat striatal d2 monomer receptors? I am thinking of Dr Seeman's article: Dopamine D2-Like Sites in Schizophrenia, But Not in Alzheimer’s, Huntington’s, or Control Brains;Synapse Vol 25 1997; pp137-146, for [3H]Benzquinoline; copyright 1997 PHILIP SEEMAN, HONG-CHANG GUAN, JOSE NOBREGA, DILSHAD JIWA, RUDOLPH MARKSTEIN, JA-HYUN BALK, ROBERTO PICETTI, EMILIANA BORRELLI, AND HUBERT H.M. VAN TOL

In this article a clear increase was recorded in d2 monomers. He pointed out that the influence of neuroleptics on rats could increase d2monomers by 108%. But there seems to be a species difference as control humans could not detect d2 monomers, yet they were present in rats. Further, there didn't seem to be any increase in monomers due to neuroleptics as shown in schizophrenics who showed zero scores, despite neuroleptic treatment, and patients with other diseases on neuroleptics also showed zero scores. So I don't know if we can apply the possibility of a doubling of monomers due to neuroleptics in rats?

Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 06:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If d2high are monomers, then it would seem there is some difference as this link says wild type mice for example have a 20 something% d2 high,(http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/114211708/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0) whereas I've read for humans it is 5%.

Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC) - sorry about all that - got lost in the detail - the 1986 Science study on never medicated schizophrenics answers the big question Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 10:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that worked out. I apologize for not being more active at that page, but I've been preoccupied with other things lately. I'll try to help out some more soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Tryptofish, the graph of d2-like sites or monomers in schizophrenia that I added to that site reveals a much higher exageration of such monomers than two fold as compared to controls and is collaborated by Dr Seemans study in Nature where he found a six to seven fold increase. Why is it that the 1986 Science article only produced a Bmax difference of two fold between controls and schizophrenics?

Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry it took me a few days to get around to answering this, but, at last, I can now. I went back and looked at the article in question, and what stands out to me is that they used [³H]benzquinoline as the ligand to label the receptors. I did a PubMed search on that ligand, and apparently no one has ever published a study using it since that one, and that was well over a decade ago. That is a pretty big red flag that there must have been something amiss with the ability of the ligand to label accurately the receptors it was claimed to label. Just thinking about the chemical structure of what I assume benzquinoline to be, it strikes me as very lipid-soluble and not particularly dopamine (ie, catecholamine) like, which makes me think that it could very well be prone to non-specific labeling of non-receptor binding sites. The authors also note a few things, like non-stereospecficity, that suggest non-specific binding. My guess is that the data in the 1997 figure are not accurate, and some sort of non-specific binding gave rise to the atypically high Bmax values reported. That kind of thing happens frequently in radioligand binding studies, and it's usually prudent to be skeptical of a single study giving results that are not reproduced by other labs. Most studies do, indeed, show a two-fold or less increase, and so this one study most likely was wrong. Caveat: please understand that I am saying that while stepping out of my role as a Wikipedia editor, and instead answering in my real-life role as a professional scientist who has worked in this field. Therefore, I'm telling you my personal opinion (just as a friendly answer to your question), but, for editing purposes, it is OR and not something we can say in the article. But I hope that answers your question. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I was just reading Abi Dargham's research and she seems to confirm what you said that there is in vivo a two fold increase; and this also seems to be the conclusion of the methylspiperone studies. But there is still something that makes me think the 1997 graph could be accurate and that is that it reached the same conclusion as the widely repeated post-mortem studies after 1993; and I think the results of these experiments could be described as non-stereospecific too. As they used the subtraction technique. In also finding no other studies as you did, I did find one using live subjects and 11C SDZ GLC 756 which didn't seem to be able to differentiate betwen d1 and d4 receptors and found no differences between live pretreatment schizophrenics and controls. The reference to that study is under the graph. I'll (1) write to Dr Seeman, he usually answers questions so we have a first-hand point of view and (2) include under the graph the comments in the study about non-stereospecifity so it is not misleading. Thanks for your educated reply, if you delete the graph I'll understand, but if it turns out to be credible, I'll see if I can reinstate it with explanation. It will be disappointing to me if it has to go as both Philip Seeman himself and Wiley gave us permission to use it, so you would think they thought it was credible. Thanks for setting things straight.

I only wrote to Dr Seeman a few minutes past 9 Toronto time, and he may not reply anyway, so in the meantime I've included the receptors that GLC756 binds to, and you are right, it is non-specific; but I think we need to keep in mind that this means the function of schizophrenia is wider than dopamine, and in this sense the graph is essential to the whole page and its' proposal of various causes; and the fact that it was used for other pathologies and the difference was specific to schizophrenia.

• • I think this was that question:

Hi Professor Seeman,

would you refer to a discussion myself and another Wikipedia editor are having about your 1997 Synapse graph. Please give some feedback on the credibility of the ligand as far as dopamine goes. If it is credible please frame your words so your reply can be kept at Wikipedia for future reference, as the same question will come up again

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tryptofish#Personal_query_regarding_monomers

This specific discussion comes up after the remark 'Hey Tryptofish...

Thanks.

Hi Dr Seeman, I've adjusted the caption below the graph at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_schizophrenia#Dopamine to show schizophrenia is multifactorial - not just dopamine. A reply from you would be useful to avoid Original Research. Steve.

The caption which I added to the graph says, your graph may point to wider-than-dopamine problems in schizophrenia but we are not allowed to use original research.

-Steve

Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 04:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Do you think we should copy this discussion to the talk page under the article? Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 05:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I don't think we need to copy this to the talk page, unless, later, there is some disagreement among other editors about the matter. (A caution about the subtraction method: if either or both ligands have any experimental error, the subtraction will actually amplify that error.) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Tryptofish, hi, this is Dr Seeman's reply, I'm not sure which specific question he was replying to; over some time I sent him a number of questions about this graph; but the answer will be in here. I asked him specifically about the caption as it stood so that is why he only indirectly answers other questions. I don't think there is any affirmation or concern about the caption from him and he doesn't say anything you didn't already know; my question follows:

"Answer to your question:

"The data in Fig. 4 of my publication (Synapse 25: 137-146, 1997) show the densities (Bmax values, in pmol/gram of tissue) of [3H]Sandoz GLC 756-labelled dopamine receptors in post-mortem brain striata tissues measured in the presence of 20 nM SCH23390 (to block D1 and D5 receptors) and 130-200 nM raclopride (to block D2 and D3 receptors). Nonspecific binding of [3H]GLC756 was defined in the presence of 100 micromolar dopamine.

"The sites that were not blocked by SCH23390 and not blocked by raclopride were the D2-like receptor sites, the nature of which is not known, other than they are D2-like. The compound GLC756 is a partial agonist at D2 and an antagonist at D1 (see Markstein et al., 1996, reference), so it is clearly a dopamine-like compound, as many of the benzo[g]quinolines are.

"These sites or receptors are sensitive to dopamine-like drugs (NPA, NA, Apo, DA, etc.), as shown in Fig. 3.

"It is important to emphasize that the NON-SPECIFIC binding of [3H]GLC756 was done in the presence of 100 micromolar dopamine. In the abstract of authors (including R. Markstein) using [11C]GLC756, they injected [11C]GLC756 into 4 schizophrenia patients but did NOT DO NON-SPECIFIC binding. In other words, each of these patients should have received two brain scans: one brain scan with [11C]GLC756 alone, and a second brain scan with [11C]GLC756 together with a low dose of a dopamine-like drug (e.g. Apomorphine) which would define non-specific binding."

• • Here is the last question I asked him. I ended up proposing a solution to him as I realised the results could be nonspecific from the experiment itself and from your advice.

Hi Dr Seeman,

I just tried to call you twice and for some reason both public phones cut out.

Could you have a look at the caption I used on your graph to see if it's ok? In the article you mention 45-50% of binding was nonspecific at a certain concentration of dopamine and in conclusion you mention that it would be good to find out what the specific binding sites of GLC756 are - in the caption I mention a 2006 article which lists the binding sites for GLC756.

I have not been able to find a source which says the GLC756 used in this graph has picked up serotonin receptors etc and that these were probably in your study in Nature of 1993 and infer schizophrenia is caused by widespread disturbances (I would like to say by hypoxia http://sites.google.com/site/schizophreniahypoxia/ ) Do you know of a source which lists serotonin, dopamine, TGF (or is it TNF) as being abnormal in schizophrenia and that you would apply to this graph?

Here is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_schizophrenia#Dopamine

Thanks Dr Seeman,

Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

He actually is not answering the same question that you asked me. He is instead describing how the measurements were done, without really addressing the question of why the results differed from those in other studies. He does point out, indirectly, that his study was specifically trying to measure only the D₄ subtype of the D₂-like receptor group, although, in my opinion (note: OR), using raclopride to differentiate D₄ from D₂ and D₃ is unconvincing; also 100 μM dopamine is a high concentration that could make non-specific binding look specific. When he says "the nature of which is not known, other than they are D2-like", he is really indicating as much. So, bottom line, that doesn't really change what I said already. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree and was just typing this when I got an edit conflict: It seems he is using the competition method in much the same way as his 1993 Nature post mortem, but this time with a radioligand; and the impression I get is that he knows the residual receptors from the competition method could be other than dopamine. I asked him for a source to quote which would say the competition method revealed sz is the results of other neurotransmitters, as seems to be the case here, but he didn't supply it, and I think as far as integrity of finding dopamine specific receptors is concerned, which I asked him for, he doesn't show that, so if we keep the graph, I think we should show it as an example of the competition method, which I will change it to immediately. Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC) I just realised Dr Seeman did actually check for the serotonin receptors by checking for binding of serotonin itself. Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA (everyone who voted in VOTE 2 gets one)

Hi Tryptofish,

you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;

Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?

As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;

Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?

Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3) How to help:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;

• Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".

• In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).

• Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 10:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Reply. I still favor 80% and oppose numbers higher than 80%. I also reject the implication that there is any such thing as "a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop". There is no such thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Everyone I'm posting this to knows that the percentages are "rule of thumb", and I've said this above a number of times. Nobody thinks that "automatically" means instantly - it just means that crats can decide that the consensus is so strong that the public has spoken, faith has been lost, and as FT2 put it on his talk page; there's really not much question about it and no "judgment" (is) needed. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikihounding

Please drop the stick and refrain from wikihounding me, or I will take this issue to AN/I. Also, you're still using meme incorrectly. DaiZengar^{Smite evil} 23:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)