User talk:Tryptofish

Retired, and not coming back. [4] [5]

I do want to say thank you for the kind words to the editors who posted here. But this is permanent. It makes no sense to donate volunteer time and effort if I am going to be treated with disrespect.--Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Very sorry

I don't pretend to understand the entire back story, but I'm very sorry to see this. I greatly enjoyed working with you, am proud of what we did, and know that this place will be the poorer for your absence. KJP1 (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Ditto. And again ditto. And thrice ditto, alas. A great loss to the project. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC) p.s. I don't pretend to actually understand any story, but never mind.

Really ?

That would be such a loss. please reconsider.--Iztwoz (talk) 08:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I appreciate the contributions you have made to wikipedia over the years, and I think your ability to work in areas of conflict while avoiding personalization of disputes is a great asset to wikipedia. I encourage you to return when you feel ready.Dialectric (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Hey Tryptofish. Yah lately has sucked :-( Thank you for all your efforts over the years. I have truely enjoyed working with you and it is with great sadness to see you go. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll chime in here to say it will be tough to see you go. Dealing with stressful topics is already hard enough even though you've done it well (and it's helped make stressful topics I've edited slightly more manageable), but regardless of personal stuff going on, you deserve a break. Considering that personal stuff though, I won't speculate on if it's an acute short-term or a more serious long-term issue, but definitely don't feel like you owe more to Wikipedia to the point it draws you away from obviously more important things at this time. If your editing did indeed end yesterday, you've done more than plenty to be able to say all done. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I was sorry to notice this. Thank you for all you did for Wikipedia and farewell, Tryptofish. I'll always be glad to see you around should you return. —PaleoNeonate – 10:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Hope that, at some point in time, you will reconsider. Sorry to see you go. Best wishes, El_C 11:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

No!!!

We took a vote and it's been decided that you're not leaving. Wikipedia can't afford to lose you. Yeh, Wikipedia is badly and intractably screwed up in some areas and abuses it's best people. Just gotta avoid those and eventually try to fix them, which will take some fundamental fixes and that will need the top 1% best people like you. So please strike your post :-)

More seriously, you owe Wikipedia nothing (quite the reverse)and you deserve a good and pleasant life so do whatever you need to to have that. If we're lucky that will include you being here tomorrow or some day. May the wind be at your back.... North8000 (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedians also known as Le Poisson de Trypto

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedians also known as Le Poisson de Trypto requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Because our readers cannot find useful information if there are empty user categories. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Of course, C1 doesn't apply to categories that are populated. But once they delete the category, they'll also remove the red-link category from this talk page, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians also known as Le Poisson de Trypto has been nominated for discussion

Category:Wikipedians also known as Le Poisson de Trypto, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

To anyone who still watches this page: could you please keep an eye out for this kind of crap and see if you can do something about it? I'd like to be able to take a quick look at my talk page without being made to feel like my head is going to explode. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know the background of what led you to leave; I assume from clues above that it was not this. But if it was, I'd understand. This place is becoming increasingly, relentlessly anti-human being. FWIW I commented at the CFD. But while I'm here, I just wanted to add my voice to the chorus. You'll be missed. You're good people, Tryp. Not quite as good as me, but damn close. Vaya con Dios. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. There's a diff that I put at the top of this talk page, where another editor summarizes (with a few inaccuracies that are not related to what concerns me) what led me to this; interested editors can work back from that to get the details. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I've been remiss

...partly because of a health issue and a little Doc-In-The-Box surgery, and now that I'm back on track, I came by to say "hi" only to find this sad news. It's not often that one finds me speechless but this is one of those times. 💔 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Atsme, and no worries. I do continue to look here from time to time, as I have every right to do, but I really am done donating volunteer effort to improve content or to try to help resolve disputes. But I do want to let you know that I heard the interview with you on Innovation Hub, and I knew that it was you right away. I really enjoyed that! (While I'm at it, I also hope the health stuff is fine for you now, as well as to let everyone know that the health stuff of my own that I mentioned just before leaving was utterly trivial and had nothing to do with my leaving, and that I'm just fine physically and mentally. Insert joke about "mentally" here.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Good to know you're in good health and will be checking in from time to time. Thank you for letting me know about IH - I didn't know the interview was included on their website podcast. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

What in the world is going on?

I've been chasing diffs for 20 minutes now and I can't find any indication of what this is all about. EEng 20:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict):My sincere apologies if anything is leaving you feeling frustrated. What's going on, as far as I'm concerned, is that I am through with donating effort to this project, and would be quite content to make no posts here whatsoever – but I feel that I have every right to simply read here about anything going on that refers to me, and to be offended when something is hostile to me. If nobody takes any shots at me, I'll be entirely silent. So all I want is to be left alone. I don't think that's asking very much. I know that's not what you asked, but I don't think that it would do anyone any good for me to put a detailed complaint here. The locus of it follows from the two diffs at the top, and if to some extent it doesn't make sense, that's because it doesn't make sense, and that's all I'm going to say. But, really, I do appreciate your concern. After ec: maybe what comes below explains it to some extent. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: start here, here, and here, for the context behind this, where Barkeep49 merely suggested both parties could get a fair hearing at AE.

Trypto, please decide if you are retired or not. Per this, no I did not notify you (you said you were not coming back) and no, I did not suggest administrator action against you,[6] any more than Barkeep49 did. I am sorry that you seem to find simple directives, asking people to walk back commentary or AGF, apparently offensive. I am sorry that you didn't tell us about your draft while you were working on it, only letting us know at the 11th hour, but we all did our best. Since, as a retired user, you want to be notified when you are mentioned, please consider that you are. I believe my good faith efforts, asking you to stop pushing toward an arbcase, are in plain view on your talk page before you blanked and retired. I continue to ask same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I have to go fix my sister-in-law's heat, but I'll just say quickly that implying Tfish is "high-maintenance" isn't going to get you very far with experienced users throughout the project. It may be true (I don't know) that in this particular situation he's asking for some unusual (for him) level of consideration, but he's built up a large reserve of capital he's entitled to draw on now.

Tfish, I'll try to untangle this when I get back (not that I have any hope of being the one to change your mind) but, y'know, [insert usual stuff about not burning bridges, saying anything you might think better of later, etc etc etc and so on and so forth]. EEng 21:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@EEng:, in these particular discussions, it could be helpful for you to note who the "experienced users" are. IMO, the page I linked to describes editors who retire at the mere mention that their conduct (along with others) might be reviewed impartially at WP:AE (with no blame assigned in either direction), and then ... don't actually "retire" as stated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

By experienced users I mean editors who have seen and worked with Tfish on many articles, policy discussions, and dispute resolutions over many years. EEng 01:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Where I tend to use that term for editors who have been building top content for 15 years ... that's the crowd I am most associated with. As a group, we tend to hold WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:NOR, and WP:WEIGHT in high regard. YMMV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Just want to add that I hope you realize (and I'm sure you do) that there are a substantial number of editors who have been building top content for far less than 15 years, and that those editors (as a group) also tend to hold WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:NOR, and WP:WEIGHT in high regard. To relate only to a specific group of editors' capability based on "tenure" rather than ability demonstrates to me how easily WP:CIR can be misconstrued, and why we should AGF before jumping to conclusions (although that may be the only exercise some actively engage in). I have 8 years invested in WP, and while Tryp has not always been on my side (to his fault ), I have always respected his input, mediation capabilities, and sincere desire to find resolution. No one is perfect but we all deserve a proper level of respect for our input, regardless of whether it fits within the realm of popular opinion. I think the long and short of it is that sitting on a high horse means you have a longer distance to fall if/when you get bucked off. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Did you find a "sincere desire to find resolution" in the diffs I provided? Or a desire to enact one RFC format, rejected by many editors for various reasons, which was worked on without telling anyone else until very late in the process, while repeatedly raising the issue of an arbcase? (I appreciate and respect your eight years of solid content work, I suspect I may have been on many more bucking horses in my life than you, and you might re-read the evolution of the "experienced users" commentary to distinguish use of the concept as it applies to these discussions.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

editors who have been building top content for 15 years ... that's the crowd I am most associated with – even if you do say so yourself, that is. Just so you know, I am substantially less impressed with the FA crowd's talents than are they themselves (though as a group, they exhibit powers of self-congratulation that are truly extraordinary). High horse (Atsme's words above) hardly does justice. EEng 06:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

So, I was wondering why you walked in to the "experienced users" issue here at all, considering the most "experienced users" in the discussions are in agreement about Wikipedia policies. From what I can gather, it appears you meant to say, "experienced friends of Tryptofish". Have you now had a chance to catch up on the discussions ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I brought up "experienced users" because you termed Tfish "high maintenance", and the fact is that editors with wide experience in article and project space would have a hard time seeing him that way. I'll add that many of the FA crew do not qualify as widely experienced, because long dainty teas during which every added or dropped comma is the subject of multiple posts, thank-yous, and ritual congratulations, instead of someone just doing it, doesn't get you what I would call wide experience in the project's many facets. EEng 22:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I did not term Trypto "high maintenance". I linked to a page that explains why one might ignore editors who left in a fit, as an explanation for why I didn't ping him. (Why are you so focused on FAs?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Your link implicitly characterized him. I brought up FAs because you bragged about "building top content for 15 years"; if by that you didn't mean FAs then that's a relief, because there are plenty of FAs which ain't so great. EEng 22:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

So, back on topic after the odd reference to "experienced users" (there has only been one non-"experienced user" by any definition in the discussions to my knowledge, but curiously, Trypto quotes them in diffs at the top of this page).

Trypto, whether or not you are retired, I am asking you, again, the same thing I asked repeatedly before you put up the retirement post: please refrain from stirring the pot. It was unbecoming before, and is even more unbecoming now that you offer unfair criticism of Barkeep49's very moderate approach from the distance of "retirement", and it is not helpful towards efforts to a "sincere desire to find resolution". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Sandy, I'll be blunt (and I can generally only recall positive things from you when I've come across you before), but the tone of your comments here really does come across as stirring the pot to the point of badgering regardless of intent. Especially since Trypto has indicated they don't intend to really interact outside brief somewhat recent comments at this talk page anymore, it's probably better if folks just drop the stick on this particular section. EEng had a question, Trypto responded (also indicating they wanted to be left alone on this subject), and it's probably best for others not to "jump in" given the nature of what was lead to this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

You may have missed a piece: the fact that Trypto made an accusation aimed at me in his last post.[7] That's not "stirring the pot"; it's answering a direct accusation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I think you'd really be better off leaving this discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Sad

I didn't think there was any point in writing something here because I saw the retired notices. But since you're reading occasionally I would just like to express how sad I am about your leaving. I am also regretful the actions I did that precipitated your choosing to step back. I hadn't realized how close to the breaking point you were and if I had I would have phrased some stuff differently. I don't think my going long there is likely to help things (but if it would let me know and I'll write more). So let me just conclude with the fact that I think Wikipedia is a better place with you as an active editor than you not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Thank you, sincerely, for that message, which I appreciate very much. I feel that I should give you a response, but with the caveat that I do not want it to precipitate a flurry of comments from other editors who want to take issue with anything that I say. First, it is entirely correct that I have been questioning whether or not to continue here for quite a few months now, starting around the time that MPants had his conflict and continuing through what happened to Ritchie (who I'm happy to see has returned) and through the Fram fiasco. That all happened before the present situation. But I do not see it as me being "close to the breaking point". It was an entirely rational decision on my part, and it's not like I owe Wikipedia anything or need to satisfy any sort of criterion in order to decide to stop being an active editor. I made a comparison of the pluses and minuses just after the comment you made about AE, and concluded that this had become a net negative. And I'm quite enjoying having a couple of hours each day being freed up that I am spending on other things, quite productively.

But, since you came here to comment, I'm going to give you two specific points of feedback, as to what went wrong. (And that will also spell it out for other editors who have been asking me what happened.) First, I had told you very clearly on your talk page that I would be able to refute each of the accusations that were made against me, but that my doing so would necessarily be lengthy. I did not want to do that unilaterally, because I knew it would trigger a rebuttal to my rebuttal, which would have made things worse instead of better. So instead I told you clearly that you should ask me for my side before reaching any conclusions in your role as an admin. But you expressly did not do that, and were even somewhat dismissive about it. The second point is that you expressed a clear, and incorrect, opinion as to what should happen if the AE complaint against me had been followed through on, and you most certainly did not (as portrayed in other comments above) state it as being a neutral place where both sides would be able to work out their differences. And that, in turn, would have set up a predetermined outcome against me if the other editor had chosen to follow through. That's what I think, so take it or leave it. And please understand that I do not want anyone to treat what I said as a reason for de-adminning. God no! It's just honest feedback, in case it helps in the future, and nothing more.

And the bottom line to all that is that I'm not seeing any reason for me to volunteer to subject myself to that kind of experience. I continue to watch with interest what is happening with that dispute, but I'm not going to be involved with it in any way. I'm also watching an ArbCom case that has implications for what bothers me about what happened to MPants. And who knows, maybe the time will come when I will think to myself "I told you so" about both of those things. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

PS. I just remembered a third point. Although you made one comment to me about redacting one thing that I had said, you never really told me that you had any broader concerns. If you had, I would have listened. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. FWIW I did know you could produce diffs if requested and I did not presume what the outcome of an AE filing would be. In the end I didn't feel comfortable with levying any formal sanctions against you and choose not to. I wish I had made that point clearer at the time. Anyhow I really do appreciate the feedback and will definitely return here after I've processed it a bit more to read again and further consider how I can improve as an editor and sysop. Best, 22:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the hard work

		The Fishy Barnstar
		Thank you for all the work that you have put into aquarium fishes and aquascaping articles!  — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tryptofish,

I very much appreciate the hard work that you have put into aquarium fishes and aquascaping articles. Simply studying aquascaping, shrimp keeping and other related hobbies is very satisfying, rewarding and peaceful as I'm sure you know.

I believe that if you take some of the drama areas out of your watchlist, and focus on the fun and satisfaction of editing within the hobby, then you will have a more pleasurable experience. I also believe that you have much more to contribute and share with the readers who are the silent majority that never find their way to the talk pages to say "thank you". I think that you have had a greater impact for their benefit than you know and I hope that you will continue to do so.

Perhaps a bit selfish of me but I would like to see you upload photos of your tanks as well as the inhabitants in them. I would enjoy hearing about them. I surf Youtube quite a bit to see what others are doing in the hobby and I think that you might appreciate the experiments in this list. Among other things, he's had some success converting terrestrial grass and mosses into candidates for the aquarium. I also imagine that his sentiments about the hobby's community in his channel video linked above are apropos here. I believe that you have edited here for many of the same reasons that he does what he does.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

A very fishy thank you very much for such a wonderful message! I appreciate it very much. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I see that the WMF servers crashed today. That's what happens: I go away and everything here falls apart! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I was hoping you’d notice. I crashed them in protest of your leaving. EEng 00:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe that crash is the perfect excuse for them to change their name to Wikipedia Foundation. 😳 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Like --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Seven years!

Bad timing, it seems. Tryptofish, I hope I always treated you with respect, you and others. You and others, if you feel I don't, please tell me. I decided to stay in this mess in 2012, then because I felt I'd not do those a favour who would just have liked that, and still today because I came to believe that I can make this mess a bit less messy. So could you, but enjoy a break if that's best for you. I remember those who can't change places any more, including Fylbecatulous and Brian, with thanks for what they did. Thank you for what you did! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Last call

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices will close soon. I know you've been off wiki for a while, but you spent a lot of time and effort in the early phases, and I didn't want you to miss your chance to influence the outcome, too.

IMO the RFC has gone remarkably well and has been much more pleasant than the discussions leading up to it. There is a lot of good information in the comments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you, but...

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

In 2018, you offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has now accepted that request for arbitration, and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas³ (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

SPI

On your question about socks (not a huge fan of multi-editor discussions on someone's talk page), there was this case ironically. Wouldn't seem like a match based on some edits anyways, but I know I'd come down like a hammer on them if that actually was the case. I can't think of anything that would really make me say sockpuppet for sure rather than new editor quirks overlapping, but if I do, you don't need to worry about it and let others do that. Enjoy your mental health and avoiding these sorts of things.

Glad to be done with workshop comments on that related issue. Lots of text on my part unfortunately, but I also had to deal so much on both sides (Jytdog issues and other editor issues) that I felt the need to speak up. You were very justified too (and I agree on harsh restrictions if they come back). In the end, they exhausted community support on their legitimate behavior issues despite the other messes that I would hope they know they're entirely on their own and not getting help on improving if they do come back. I gave up on that awhile ago and was mostly there for my own concerns, despite claims, rather than Jytdog coming back. At least it's kind of nice to say I'm not going to worry about that anymore after airing that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Although I can't really say that I exactly "enjoy" my mental health, I do thank you for giving the sock issue some thought. (And per the typo at the workshop page, I also "command" you for all the effort you have put into this, wink, wink.) At this point, I think I'm ready to go back to being gone, with a sigh of relief. BTW, I've gotten interested in theoretical physics, of all things, and have been teaching it to myself, which I'm actually enjoying (and Wikipedia's pages on the associated mathematics are abysmal). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

PS, for anyone wondering, we are talking about this: [8]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll clarify then and say enjoy what not having to worry about these things can do for your mental health. I took enough of a break at least that I'm kind of excited to get back into some bug editing now. I'll agree that some math pages are horrible; I have some on my to-do list for statistical analyses I have some good background on, but I kind of dread starting in on them. That's a broader issue than just Wikipedia when it comes to literature in that field though. There are some papers I kind of want to ask the author(s) if they didn't want people to use their statistical method when they wrote the paper. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that you corrected the link in your opening comment, and that makes a lot more sense to me. Obviously, it wasn't Jytdog, but I had not known about there having been that kind of overlap. Makes me think all the more that there is a "good-hand, bad-hand" thing going on here, but... not my problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Was just reminded of this, and while I couldn't pin anything down, I agree there's some mannerism that seems familiar. Hopefully it's just deju vu on both our parts, so I'm just going to write it off as that since I'm also trying to avoid any "new" drama.

Also, apologies for "involving" you at AN. I guess technically you were already being involved before I chimed in, but I almost didn't ping you just to respect your retirement. Thanks for your comments on civility too. Even my patience has been wearing thin in that realm, especially when someone tried to a pull a "maybe they're acting that way because of COVID-19". That sure flies in the face of those of us who don't act uncivil even though we've lost people to it. Either way, I hope all is well. Critters are still crittering over here, and that's taking up most of my time nowadays. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

About the SPI, I've come to the conclusion (based on what I've seen since then) that the resemblance was just a remarkable coincidence, not socking.

About AN, no worries, and thank you for what you have said there. I really had intended to stay out, out of consideration for the 1-way IBAN making it impossible for them to respond to me. But I got in because of my own free will, and it was the garbage being spewed by some other editors that I felt the need to counteract.

I'm doing fine in the real world. I just realized from your comment here that you might have lost someone to COVID-19. If so, I am very, very sorry. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

If you're watching...

I had you in mind when I added this. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

That's so nice, thanks so much! I'm watching, briefly, but I really don't want to post anything unless someone else initiates something where I feel it fitting for me to reply. Just fyi, I watched Chasing Corals per your recommendation (see, I am watching!), and was deeply moved by it. And I liked that article about Wikipedia (except for where they misnamed NPOV, and where they interviewed that oddball grandmother). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The trick is being a grandparent and not looking the part but then, one has to wonder who set the bar on looks? ^{No, not that kind of bar, although it may help. Atsme} _Talk 📧 21:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 21, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Grade II* listed buildings in Monmouthshire

Hi Tryptofish - just to let you know that the above made FL yesterday. It wouldn’t have but for your intervention, for which I am hugely grateful. I hope you are keeping safe and well in these difficult times and that you are enjoying doing what you are doing. Ever. KJP1 (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for the multiple pings

I realized after I left my first comment where I did, that it really applied equally elsewhere, so I repeated the header in those two places, which, of course, resulted in the multiple pings. I wasn't trying to hurry a response. Respond or not as and when you like ;-) Paul August ☎ 17:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Paul, no worries! And that's very kind of you to say that. I have responded, in detail, and it took me a long time to compose it.

For those playing along at home, this is about the ArbCom Medicine case, that grows out of the same problems that led me to, unsuccessfully, retire. I've temporarily come back in order to try to make that case come out right. I'm also finding that doing so has been terribly unpleasant for me, and I'm very eager to be done with it. In just a few hours, the workshop phase is going to close, and I'm looking forward to it.

And, Paul, I've been quietly looking in at other things here, including, from time to time, the talk page of my little friend EEng, and I've seen what you have told him about civility, and you are right! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm very sorry about your retirement, and other problems. As for EEng, he seems one well worth saving, so I've become his personal scold and Socratic gadfly, we'll see. Paul August ☎ 20:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, and I'm actually quite enjoying having more free time (except for during this case). Perhaps EEng would respond to a spanking. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The workshop has closed, and now (hopefully) I'm going back to not being here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

What is going on?

The evidence[9] does not match the remedy.[10] See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Proposed_decision#Comments_by_bluerasberry. Since you know about the case can you tell me what is going on? I had a minor role in pricing. QuackGuru (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what to tell you. I think that there was a sense that you had a lot of sanctions before, and they felt the need to do something serious, and the topic was simply the topic at hand. But I don't make the decisions. Perhaps Barkeep49 could explain it better than I can. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I think ArbCom is best positioned to speak for itself and don't think I am able to say more about what is going on than has already been said. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Tryptofish, it was good to see your input today. I know that you remain fed up with incivility here, but I just want to mention that you are missed and that all your past contributions are appreciated. I am hoping that you will check in from time to time. Be well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, I really appreciate that. I do look in pretty regularly, out of curiosity, and it's kind of sad how frequently a new drahmah pops up just as the previous one ends. But I'm very much withholding any content contributions. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

What the critics are saying

I was looking at, um, another website, and found this: [11] (scroll down to June 7, 3:29 AM). Quotes me and describes what I said as "extremely dumb". Happened ten days ago, and I only saw it just now, but I figure I just have to share! Now I know I'm doing something right! (In fairness, I once long ago called the person who said that "a fourteen year-old white boy", and maybe they just saw that now.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

For saying this. Not necessarily about that case specifically, but the general sentiment. I’ve become much more frustrated of late that the community seems to be insistent on giving people every chance to prove just how incompatible they are with our values and ideals. Maybe I’m jaded, but I don’t see that as a healthy thing for any group. Anyway, it’s a frustration that I know a few others have had lately. Community moods shift and we’re apparently in an AGF above all else moment now. Anyway, you’re not the only one who has similar thoughts, and it’s nice to hear a Recognized Name(tm) say them on occasion :) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for saying that, and thanks also for getting the entire process started. As you can see here, I'm retired-and-yet-not-retired, whatever that is. I'm just flat-out disgusted with what the culture here has degraded into, and I'm only dropping in from time to time to, I guess, be a single-purpose account whose purpose is to try and do something about it. If things improve, maybe I'll eventually resume content editing, but if not, not.

I'll say to anyone reading here: remember the last time you recorded your favorite TV show on VHS tape using a VCR? Me neither. There is no fundamental reason why Wikipedia cannot become obsolete too. The most essential feature of WP was "anyone can edit", that wiki-style crowdsourcing would actually work. It was a terrible idea on its face, and yet has worked absolutely brilliantly, and vastly better than the alternatives. So far. But I think that we are starting to bump up against the limitations of "anyone can edit", and it remains to be seen whether we can adapt. The servers aren't going to go dark as the hasten-the-day folks predict, but the creation and maintenance of content will just gradually peter out. I mean it very literally when I say that "anyone can edit" is starting to be something that is accepted without critical thinking, in the way that cults do. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I’ve never really been huge as a civility enforcer guy (think Eric and some of the usual people that refers to.) People argue with each other on the internet and I generally think that in cases of people who mean well and are actually trying to align with our values, then yes, we should find a way to try to let them contribute.

What I don’t have much tolerance for are the individuals who in archaic terms have shown that they are not people of good will. I don’t think our principles require us to find a reason to assume that people who bait others and laugh it off as a joke, see every discussion as a battleground, manipulates facts to the point of lying, etc. as assets. I think there’s an unfortunate trend in this community now that thinks AGF means that we have to try every way to keep someone who has been around 6+ months and has a few thousand edits. AGF really is important, but so is keeping people who actually are people of good will vs. those who appeal to the principle to cause more problems. Anyway, my mini-rant. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I also have no problem with people who joke around, as some of my best wiki-friends frequently do, even though we also have users who disapprove of that. It's like: if you use a dirty word, bad, if you use humor in your user space, bad, but if you condescend to other editors or if you live in an alternative reality and want everyone else to join you there, well, that's just the diversity of the community. It's like the view of civility of a peevish child, with no nuance. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

:) ?

[12] EEng 22:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean! Not to worry. I've been getting huffed at for "not coming back" but coming back; that's why. But just now amid edit conflict, I had actually decided to replace it with something better. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

FYI

Special:WhatLinksHere/Chris_Sherwin ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Was there a particular series of edits that added so many links? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

No - the other articles that linked to Sherwin's page are related. It's a spreading vine of knowledge and Chris' article is part of that. It made me smile. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

He's listed on Template:Animal welfare, quite appropriately, and that's transcluded on a lot of those pages. (I took a quick look, and at first had trouble figuring out where the link to his page was.) Thanks for letting me know. When I think of all the people WP has lost, there's so many of them. He is much missed. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, Tryptofish, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Interview

I've been meaning to ask you a lot of questions since we last talked. First and foremost, what's your take on Neuralink? I used to live a few blocks from their offices. Viriditas (talk) 07:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I haven't followed that particular company at all, but I've been (on and off) following the basic research in that field. I think that the basic research is making progress at a really impressive speed, and looks quite promising. I'd say that we are probably still about five years away from routine clinical use. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't regulate the templars?

I love you. :D GirthSummit _(blether) 21:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

--Tryptofish (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

[13]. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Jim Bowler

If you want to help out with Jim Bowler, I'm happy to have your input or helping hands. Viriditas (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, but since I'm sort of "on strike" with respect to content work, and since the topic isn't really in my wheelhouse, I'll have to say sorry for now, at least until I start feeling more positively about WP. Any of my magnificent (or otherwise!) talk page participants: please do help if you are interested! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

No worries. Apparently, the Mungo Man discovery had several running controversies attached to it, and I want to make sure I represent them fairly and accurately. Thank you for your consideration. Viriditas (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Missing you

Yep, I do. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

That's sweet of you, much appreciated! (For those following, it's re: [14].) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Oops - there I go again...brevity screws me up - never fails. Thx for the clarity. Maybe editors will be more tolerant of my tl;dr responses, although I have improved greatly. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Uhmmm...well, hell - I just saw Girth's "I love you." That changes everything! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Missing him? I didn't even know you were shooting at him. EEng 02:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Just like shooting fish in a barrel! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

And here's an a yarn or two to go with your idiom. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Careful, it might shrink when wet. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Nah - that only happens when it's cold. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Blast from the past

A couple days ago I ran into an old edit of Elvey's, and seeing as they're banned, is just making edits over it ok given that they can't reply and it's a minor issue? Creeper Ninja (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know the details of what you are referring to, but WP:BEBOLD is what applies here, so I don't see why not. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

ANI pban from 2016 that you acted in. Mostly wanted a second opinion here on what to do. Creeper Ninja (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for asking. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Fungi intelligence

Seth Shostak and Molly Bentley recently discussed fungi intelligence on their podcast with Merlin Sheldrake, author of Entangled Life. I was curious if you had given it much thought. It sounds like a topic that might interest you. Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that fungi are more intelligent than Donald Trump. (See also what Stormy Daniels said about mushrooms and part of his anatomy.)

But seriously, this is a topic I haven't given any thought to previously. Obviously, this depends very much upon how one defines intelligence. With life forms that do not have nervous systems, it's got to be approached with that concept in mind. Certainly, organisms do not need nervous systems to respond to their environments: cf Plant perception (physiology) (and be careful of Plant perception (paranormal)!). Fungi can assemble into networks through which chemicals can be transferred; Plant to plant communication via mycorrhizal networks is quite interesting in that respect. But calling that "communication" should not be taken anthropocentrically to imply language. Nor should evolution be misconstrued as intelligent design. And I think evolution, natural selection, is really what this is mostly about. Fungi, like a lot of other seemingly "simple" life forms, have evolved to take on some pretty impressive abilities to function and adapt within their environments. Whether to call that "intelligent" or just "impressive" is a matter of how one chooses to define those words. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Am I a stalker? Not sure, but I was curious, intelligence of dogs an' all that (a little foreshadowing here). Wossname never falls far from the tree, does it? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 21:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to stalk me as much as you want, Roxy. Just bark to let me know you're there. ;) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad you havn't left us completely, but I haven't been keeping up. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 22:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Jiminy Cricket

I did it again! WTH is happening? I had too many tabs open in the browser while hunting diffs, got distracted, then when I came back to edit, I lost my place, and awaaay we go!! Holy moly, 2020 has been the craziest year ever! Had nothing to do with Happy Hour. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I looked to see the context of that, and although there's so much I could say, I'll restrict myself to the following:

1. Don't feel bad about it, it's a pretty easy mistake to make (and I trust that you really don't feel bad, just amused!).
2. Maybe Happy Hour would actually help!
3. Discussing reliable sourcing for current US politics is likely to make anyone unwell, and is contraindicated for those seeking peace of mind.
4. And as for the undeniable weirdness of 2020: Medical science has a way of being right, even when politicians find it inconvenient.
5. So wear a face covering. And other clothing, too.

--Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Love it! I'll print it and hang it on the fridge with a magnetic frame. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I've been going back-and-forth in my mind about whether to say this or not, but regarding #3, it seems to me to be asking for trouble, and better just left for other people to worry about. For whatever that might, or might not, be worth. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

There's enough room in there for back-and-forth? I've contemplated your #3, and decided the best first step and venue would be an RfC at VPP. A single key point from (1) NPOV, (2) V, and (3) RS will be stated in respective order, and the RfC question will ask if WP:RS/P is compatible with the 1, 2, 3 key points, requiring a yes or no answer for each. Pretty simple, don'cha think? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

As for enough room, not to mention piece peace of mind, we both know that if I had half a mind, I'd give you a piece of it. As for the rest, I dunno. In general, an RfC is always a good way to take an issue to the community and have it settled there. I didn't look closely enough at this particular issue to be able to give you advice on how to construct an RfC, and I don't want to look at it any more than I already have. But my concern – and as always it's just a suggestion – is more along the lines of not editing at all in that topic area. It's just too toxic, and you already have people who want to take you out of it. So many other things to write about, that are so much more pleasant. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

You will be happy to know that my time is actually measured in controversial areas, and even then, the opposition still wants to take me out over the least little thing but that's WP-wide regardless of topic and I blame systemic bias for the most part. I joined Project Dogs thinking it would be fun.^Groan. Commons is typically one of my escapes from the madness but haven't been there in a while, and so is being on Bonaire, but my truck is in the shop so I've been spending more time on WP over the past few weeks creating and helping to promote articles to GA, and whatever else I do. I don't have anything ready to nominate for the grueling process of FA just yet, much less the incentive. When not on WP, I'm submerged in a Netflix marathon when I should be submerged underwater taking pictures. I just finished 8 seasons of Arrow - it's like an addiction. I've watched all the Merlin - Arthurian Legend type films, Outlanders, Anne of Green Gable (Anne with an E), Hell on Wheels, Godless, Reign, Tudors, Borgias, Medici, etc. One of the benefits of my former career that has endured over the years is my mental training to not remember movies I've seen or scripts I've written; therefore, reruns are like premiers to me. 😂 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Whereas mine is measured in seconds, minutes, and hours. But then again... --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

That's what all the guys say. ^{[stretch] Atsme} _Talk 📧 20:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Well preserved ancient neurons

May I assume you've had a chance to read this paper? I'm reminded of writer Dennis Potter and his delightful series Karaoke and Cold Lazarus. It's hard to believe that his speculative, fictional work is 24 years old. I remember watching it as if it was yesterday. Viriditas (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually, you give me more credit than I deserve! No, I wasn't aware of it. Until now, of course, so thank you very much for drawing it to my attention. Some of the images there are pretty awesome! Striking resemblances to modern-day specimens of axons. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, could there be any utility to brain vitrification? Just curious, because serendipity plays quite a significant role in scientific innovation. Viriditas (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Obviously, not likely to be useful therapeutically. But as a research tool, especially to be able to see neuroanatomy below the surface of brains, something like it has already been in use, and found to be quite useful, since 2013. Our page on CLARITY describes it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

There is a beautiful video about it at [15]. Talk page watchers may want to take a look; you won't be disappointed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Time cells

• Why Some Memories Seem Like Movies: 'Time Cells' Discovered In Human Brains.
• Time cells in the human hippocampus and entorhinal cortex support episodic memory

This is going to be a wild week. Viriditas (talk) 08:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

How prescient of me to have started the page on Phase precession!

As for current events, I've been dreading this upcoming week, and I sure hope it ends sooner rather than later. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

October harvest

thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks delicious, thank you! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

"A single cell that is not a neuron has everything you need to make a decision.”

• Popular article (2019)
• A Complex Hierarchy of Avoidance Behaviors in a Single-Cell Eukaryote (Original paper)

Any thoughts on this research and its implications for brain evolution? Viriditas (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I guess that I would say essentially the same things as I did above at #Fungi intelligence, with Stentor (ciliate) in place of a fungus. "Everything you need to make a decision" is clearly hyperbole with respect to all the possible decisions that could ever, possibly, exist. More like everything it needs to make the kinds of stimulus-response choices that it needs to make to survive – which, admittedly, isn't nothing. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Especially for something that can only reproduce asexually. No wonder the poor thing looks so horn-y. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

ACE in the whole

Tired of elections? Me too! But this one is different:

User:Tryptofish/ACE2020

--Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

No

Arbcom's block of Jytdog was deserved. Saying so is not "grave-dancing". Paul August ☎ 21:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, we are talking about this: [16].

Thank you for coming here to discuss it with me. I don't disagree with you that ArbCom acted correctly. And I'm quite ready to agree that you said it in good faith, and did not intend it in any sort of mean-spirited way. Nor do I disagree with you over anyone's right to say it. My concern, however, is about saying it on his talk page. I could make a very, very long list of now-gone users about whom I would readily say "good riddance". But I'm not going to say that in their user space. If there were a discussion in WP space about whether or not those users should be allowed back, I would certainly feel justified in expressing my views there. But not on their talk pages, even if their wiki-friends have posted comments that, from my perspective, lack a certain NPOV. If we're going to take seriously the values of treating one another with respect, which is very much where Jytdog himself fell short, then we need to hold ourselves to that standard. Anyone who looks back at the ArbCom case of a couple of months ago, where his appeal was denied, will see me trying very hard to be fair to both "sides": [17].

I meant everything I said in my edit summary, including the high regard in which I hold Risker and you. (And I'm surprised that I haven't been reverted by anyone, yet.) And I really felt badly about making that edit. But if you look at the edit history of that talk page, you'll see what I'm talking about, and I mean it when I say that it would be wrong to revert others while not reverting the two of you. I hope very much that you will not think that I regarded your comment as having been in bad faith. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Sigh ... But the talk page is where the discussion was taking place. Where else could I have expressed my opinion? Paul August ☎ 00:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused. As Paul August says, that is where the discussion was taking place. And you left the comment by SMcCandlish untouched, even though it is in exactly the same vein. When future users come to see that discussion, they will have no good way to understand why Jytdog is no longer part of this community. That's not grave-dancing. We're giving you the chance to self-revert, rather than creating an edit war on a user talk page watched by over 500 people. Please self-revert; the community deserves to know what actually happened. There really aren't that many users who were oversight-blocked twice who got a third chance and still created problems. Risker (talk) 06:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstand something, so let's see whether or not I understand correctly. As for whether people who come new to the talk page can see what actually happened, it's still linked very clearly at User talk:Jytdog#Block. To my knowledge, there is, at this time, no active discussion about whether or not anything should be done about ArbCom's decision (nor in my opinion is there any need for such a discussion at this time). The comments at his talk page are comments from well-wishers, and they had mostly petered out over the last few months, with nothing between April 12 and November 27. In the interim, there had been some negative comments that I and others reverted, culminating in an administrator saying that the next user to restore those comments would be blocked: [18]. Just prior to the two of you, SMcCandlish did indeed post a new comment. But his was a friendly one, beginning with a joke (yes, it's clearly a joke about what Jytdog did wrong) and then going on to say that he misses Jytdog and appreciates Jytdog's work on COI issues. (I'll leave it to him if he wants to, to expand on the MEDRS attrition to which he refers; I understood it to be about the recent ArbCom case on Medicine, possibly including DocJames' tban from drug pricing.) That's a far cry from what the two of you wrote. As for where else one could go in order to re-open discussion about the things Jytdog did wrong, I guess that depends upon how one feels about wanting to start a new discussion about it; as I said, I think it's a closed matter and no need for such a discussion has suddenly arisen.

But please let me make clear that the talk page discussion was not an active discussion questioning the validity of ArbCom's decision – nor do I question that decision. I fully get what Risker refers to, about the repeated oversight blocks and failed repeat chances. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

My comment was in response to two comments one dated nov 27 2020, the other Nov 28 2020, so that would seem to be an "active discussion". The first comment seemed to me to amount to saying that the user in question's actions were "not that bad". I disagreed. Still don't see how that is "grave dancing". Paul August ☎ 21:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

If I understand, those two comments were the ones by SMcCandlish and by Risker, which as I said were the first comments since April. As I also said earlier, I do not in any way think that your own comment (which, for the record, was simply "Yup") was in bad faith or in a mean spirit. I'll add this: I apologize to you, as well as to Risker, for having used the phrase "grave dancing" in specific reference to your comments. I was thinking of the context of what had come before when I used it, but I apologize for repeating it in reference to the two of you. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I have to concur with Tryptofish on this. And my comment is not in the same vein as the reverted posts at all. I would like to see Jytdog eventually return, as long as it's clear that he realized what he did was a screwup and that nothing like it may happen again. My point was not to say "good riddance", it was to say "that was one a massive mistake, but if you can learn from it we could use you back, since you're among the editors who have most upheld MEDRS in our content."

PS: Yes, I was referring to DocJames, but also to CFCF, QuackGuru, and several others. A lot of them kind of imploded in the e-cigs warring, which was a case of its own, but all of them have actually been major assets in keeping FRINGE garbage out of our med articles. Their mutual conflagration in the e-cigs stuff was largely due to a major split within the medical community itself, of those opposed to e-cigs and related stuff on the basis that it's still harmful and may even be bringing youths into nicotine addition who would otherwise have escaped it, versus the camp who observe that it is less harmful that cigarette smoking and is often a successful means of escaping the latter. There have been similar debates about snus, especially in the EU.

Lots of these editorial peeps just really blew their cool in that multi-article, multi-year editorial debate, but all of them have probably learned from it and should not be treated as if permanently banned from that topic or the whole site. "Indefinite" does not mean forever on Wikipedia. All it takes is a showing that they know exactly how they screwed up, and a commitment to not doing it again, with a plausible explanation of what they intend to do differently so that it will not happen again. None of these editors, including Jytdog, are vandals, trolls, "plants" from an off-site group attempting to manipulate WP content for its own ends, etc. And Jydog's error doesn't appear to have been malicious; it was just an "very wrong venue" application of something more normal in an academic context (if you know who wrote a paper, you might write or call them at their institution to have a discussion about it among colleagues).

PPS: I do not disagree with the validity of ArbCom's decision in his case at all. It's simply not a wiki-death sentence.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for clarifying that. I see now that I had, indeed, understood your comment as you intended it. I'll just add that I, personally, do find very serious fault with Jytdog for what he did. And as someone who spent a lot of effort over a long period of time trying to advise him to do better, I'll admit to some frustration over how he failed to really take on my advice. I'd say that his error was somewhere on the borderline between malicious and just-terribly-tone-deaf. Human beings are like that: they can be both good and bad at the same time. So I'm not disputing the substance of what Risker and Paul August said. (I've just wasted a lot of time looking for earlier discussions to link back to, and I decided to just leave it at this.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Please note: I did this: [19] (un-archiving). I hope that it will help with the concerns about having a clear record. I think this is better than editorializing about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

You removed a statement I made as gravedancing too. Here's my concern. The talk page looks a lot to me like a gathering spot to encourage him to come back and have many people talk about why the ban should be lifted. I have no issue with this, but do not understand why this should be one sided. I was also aggressively harassed and attacked by Jytdog. I had no involvement in the arb proceeding, but very much would have if I had known about it. I think I am far from the only one like this. Is there some way we can be notified if he makes yet another attempt for a ban lift? As I said, he semi-permanently drove me away from active editing with nasty behavior that closely followed his behavior toward others. Given the Arb pages clearly say they are closed, I don't see how I can do this other than on the talk page. Or to put all of this another way, the talk page, as it stands now, is heavily a central advocacy page for the return of someone who was exceptionally nasty to me and many others, and who wants to come back. I don't have a desire to just say negative things about him, but I do think it is unfair that only one side of a recurring issue (should Jytdog be unbanned?) get a spot to make their case that is linked to the username.Declanscottp (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I had hoped that this issue was behind me. I won't repeat myself, but you can see my thinking above, in what I already said. Let me suggest that you put his talk page on your watchlist, and set your user preferences so that you get an email when any page you watch gets edited (or alternatively log in and check your watchlist more frequently than at multi-month intervals). You may also want to watch WP:RfAR, where public requests for changes to ArbCom decisions get posted. Beyond that, there's not really a personal notification system.

It's not true that his talk page functions as a locus for advocacy on his behalf, because nothing posted there has any effect on any sort of decision-making process. No matter what people post there, those posts do nothing to get his ban lifted. It's just people commenting as well-wishers. Therefore, there is no need of any sort for you or anyone else to come there and provide advocacy for another point of view. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

IBAN expertise

Hello Tryptofish, I hope you are doing well. You gave me advice about IBANs in the past, is that something you would be willing to discuss by email? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I'd be happy to help, but I do not normally use email in relation to Wikipedia (as an extra precaution for privacy). So I'm sorry that I will not be able to help you via email. However, if you can describe your question(s) in a sufficiently general way that you do not run afoul of anything and do not reveal any sort of personal information, I would be happy to try and answer you here. In case this helps, asking questions about what is or is not permitted under the terms of an IBAN, and asking advice about how to appeal an IBAN, is permitted on-wiki, so long as you do not identify, make it easy to identify, or comment upon the other account.

As some purely general comments, made without knowing whether or not any of this might be relevant to what you might ask me about, here is some advice about what makes for a successful, or unsuccessful, appeal. Never use the argument that something wasn't actually your fault – even if you sincerely believe that it wasn't your fault. Accept the premise of the IBAN as fair, and make the case that what was previously a problem will no longer be a problem going forward. In my experience, a lot of editors chafe at what I just said, but it's my sincere advice to anyone who might find themselves in such a situation. Back it up with evidence of good, trouble-free editing over a period of time, and a promise to avoid any problematic topic areas.

I have no idea whether or not any of that was relevant to what you were going to ask me, but if someone were to ask me about that kind of thing I would say the same over email as what I just said here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. That's similar to what I've been told,[20][21] but I haven't found my question to be precisely answered. I understand that the community just doesn't want to hear about this anymore, but I feel this must be relitigated if that's possible. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I read the two links you gave me. If (emphasis: if) you believe that the other editor is following you around and making it difficult for you to obey your restriction, in spite of your own effort to avoid any crossing of paths, and you can convincingly back it up with diffs, you have every right to ask that the IBAN be made 2-way instead of 1-way. But that will not get the 1-way lifted. Beyond that, I'm not seeing a way for you to successfully appeal, and an unsuccessful appeal attempt would be likely to backfire against you.

I know that must be a disappointing answer. And I can understand how you feel that the community is failing to really hear what you are saying. Maybe I'm failing to see what's really going on, too. But I've been around this project long enough to know that, once numerous admins have reached a conclusion, this has become an argument that you cannot win. Wikipedia is frequently unfair.

But here's what I consider to be the good news (such as it is). It's only a bleeping website. It's not worth caring about clearing your "good name". Heck, you can tell yourself that it's Wikipedia's loss, not yours. Assuming there's still stuff you would enjoy editing about, within the confines of the IBAN, go for it, and don't look back. If you look over my own user page and talk page, you can see that I've been letting some stuff go, in my own ways (which may not be your ways, of course). But don't try to win fights that you cannot win. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

FYI. [22] Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Note to self

The Wikipedia Pissoff Award

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although every Wikipedia user is permitted to do as they wish for up to 24 hours, it appears that you have gone more than 24 hours without pissing anyone off. This violates our policy requiring that everyone piss off everyone else at intervals of not more than 24 hours. Please use User talk:Jimbo Wales to test any ideas that you have for pissing off Jimbo Wales.

Each month, one editor is awarded the Wikipedia Pissoff Award (shown at right) for having pissed off the largest number of other editors. Please nominate qualified editors here.

--Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts, anyone?

On a more serious note, and in the context of what I say currently at User:Tryptofish, I've been noticing a pattern on my watchlist, and I'm curious if anyone else is observing it too. Even though I'm not really editing mainspace articles lately, I've still got lots of them on my watchlist. And lately, the entries on my watchlist are increasing edits to articles made by bots, doing gnomish corrections. Fewer major content edits made by editors, more series of automated fixes by bots.

Anyone else thinking this, too? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I've noticed this a bit, though I'm definitely one that mostly just checks my watchlist now and doesn't go out of my way for doing major edits right now. n=1, but in my case, I'm computered out by the end of the day now that if I'm going to spend any more time on it, it won't be anything involving text at least. I'm more likely to shut it down earlier in the day than I used to though. I wonder if it's similar fatigue across the board. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, I'm glad to see you back and I hope you continue to feel better in re Covid. But yes, there could certainly be any number of reasons for editing fatigue on the part of multiple editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Actual builders of non-trivial content have largely been driven from Wikipedia. There is a still a bit of non-trivial content building, but for the most part it needs to be done by stealth. Posturing in the gathering darkness is the main approved activity. — Epipelagic (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

There are 676 stubs, 1845 start and 986 C-B-possible Good class articles for a total of 3507 articles in the AfC queue at this moment with 1935 sitting in the NPP queue. We have several highly proficient editors working AfC/NPP. According to Special:Statistics we currently have 125,639 active users, and 40,645,602 registered users. I don't know how that compares to other time periods. Atsme 💬 📧 11:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

You need more information before statistics like that clarify anything. For example, the average time spent in queue, as well as objective measures of triviality. I don't know how you measure triviality, or even what I mean by it apart from things I personally find tedious. Maybe non-trivial topics tend to be picked over first. Then again, maybe non-trivial topics are too inflammatory to be mentioned at all. — Epipelagic (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree - when a redirect is removed the article ends up in the queue. Recently, there was a one-sentence stub being discussed relative to delete or not delete (can't remember where I saw the discussion, possibly AN) but it was kept hoping others would expand it into an article. The problem is that we don't have enough "others" who are chomping at the bit to expand stubs created by other people, especially if they're not interested in the topic. Articles on WP get created because (a) the author has an interest in the topic, (b) it's a school assignment, or (c) the author is getting paid to do it. Feel free to add whatever else you believe motivates the creation of new articles. Atsme 💬 📧 18:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the further observations, both of you. One issue that occurs to me is that I think that en-Wiki is moving from having previously needed lots of new pages, to where that need (while never gone) is less than the need for building existing content of low quality or preliminary development into high quality and fully developed content. That's something that new pages won't capture (by design).

I have around 1K pages on my watchlist, and I long ago stopped looking at every new watchlist entry, instead going and paying close attention whenever it looked interesting to me. But for most of the, let's say, past decade, that has always meant deciding daily that someone's extensive work on a given page today is probably not in need of my attention, while there would be just the occasional occurrence of a bot doing something bot-ish. But over the past few months, I'm pretty sure that I'm just not seeing that much in the way of people adding new sections to existing pages, outside of what look like student edits or paid edits. (The perennial dramas over user conduct and policy revisions in WP-space are unabated.) But I'm seeing very large quantities of edits by bots, doing stuff like changing "accessdate" to "access-date" in citation templates (something readers will never really benefit from, unless there's some long-term benefit to page-loading time, which I doubt will be all that significant). Maybe there are some new ways that editors can tell a bot to make a particular kind of check on a selected category of pages, and that's driving the increase. But I don't think it's just an increase in the number of bot edits, superimposed on roughly the same number of serious content edits as before. I think it's an actual trend that is shifting away from substantial content editing. If I'm right about that, and if the trend continues, it's a bad sign. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The obvious "yes", but more importantly, it appears that there was a trigger to make us simultaneously notice this recently. I think that there has been a recent jump in robots making unneeded and sometimes bad-idea format changes. It looks like monkbot may be a big culprit there.North8000 (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think JS Wiki Browser is considered a bot, is it? It allows for a form of automated editing (or maybe it's more like mass editing) and it's mostly wikignoming type edits which can also cause an inadvertent f-up or two from time to time, or worse if one is not careful. It could also be that the newness of WP has worn-off, not to mention the lack of proper damage control within which leaves us without. It's anybody's guess, I guess. Atsme 💬 📧 16:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again for the observations. I actually don't mind if there are more bot edits and bot-like edits, per se, but the issue is that they are accompanied by fewer significant content edits.

Out of curiosity, I just went through my own watchlist for the past 7 days, omitting userspace edits. Of all the other edits there, here is the breakdown:

OAbot: 38 edits

Monkbot: 26

Sporkbot: 4

Various bots that archive stuff: 6

Other bots (excluding reverts by bots): 8

Reverts (whether by editors or by bots): 22

WP: (and WT:) space edits: 19

Edits by IP editors to articles or article talk pages: 10

Edits (excluding reverts) by registered editors to articles or article talk pages: 31

Of the above 31 edits by editors, those that were marked "minor" or were indicated by the edit summary as routine and not really about significant content improvement (ie, spelling correction): 19 (that leaves 12).

I expected to see a lot by OAbot and Monkbot, and to see a pretty large number of edits by registered editors in WP: space. But the large number of reverts surprised me. And it's really striking, from my perspective, how low the proportion is for editors doing non-routine edits to articles or substantive comments on article talk pages. Putting that another way, it sure looks like the major activities (by numbers of recent edits, in one fish's idiosyncratic watchlist) are minor gnomish work, minor gnomish work by bots, reverting stuff, and discussions in WP: space. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

IMO there are probably many reasons for that (besides your selections for your watch list.) Some are naturally due to Wikipedia maturing, other are due to Wikipedia problems. The political articles have gotten so hopelessly biased, written off by the general public and dangerous for people with the "wrong" viewpoints to edit that that area which does need ongoing and new work is somewhat abandoned by good editors. Next there are many barriers to entry, making it too much trouble for the most-needed folks (experts in the fields) to bother with. First, policies and guidelines are a weird alternate universe that needs to be learned, including the hundreds of obscure ones that somebody is going to jump them with. Next, Wikipedia is a nasty and vicious place. To give an idea, things like wp:civility are the tools for clever warfare, not ways to avoid it. Finally it's getting more and more complex to edit. WWF answer was to dumb-down the already-easy part, while the other 98% gets ever more complex. The good news is that I think that 3-5 smart active editors working together could fix nearly anything in Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you are spot-on with that, especially (alas) the fact of it becoming "a nasty and vicious place". Although 3–5 smart editors can indeed fix any one problem – at least until they run up against some others who try their patience – there is no way they can fix every problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

What I had most in mind is fixing policies and guidelines, which would reduce a whole lot of other problems. And I course, I didn't mean that they could find the time to fix 100 problems, just any 1 or 2 at a time. North8000 (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake, as I was assuming it was about page edits. But the problem with fixing policies and guidelines in any significant way is that ≤5 editors will not be a functional consensus. And what policy says and what happens when there is a dispute are two different things. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tryptofish:, I know all of the but still stand by my assertion. 3-5 smart editors working together (which never really happens in Wikipedia) can get any policy or guideline fixed. Of course, it also has to be a good idea. They work out the details (and settle their differences then) and all agree to actively support exactly whatever they arrived at. North8000 (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Would these problems be easier to deal with if like Levivich said, administrators were merely an "implement of consensus"?[23] We have to do something before this place be becomes like the Dead Sea. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I think not. If anything, I'd like to see admins do more in terms of using discretion. (For example, we have too many "bright line" blocks.) As I just replied to North, getting consensus about policy is often the place where toxicity reigns. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This year passed slower than Christmas!

🔔🎁⛄️🎅🏻 Atsme 💬 📧 04:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Atsme! This year passed slower than molasses, and was far stickier (and ickier) too. Here's to a much happier new year! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Donner60 (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks, Donner! (By the way, you got a Christmas-y plug on the NPR Sunday Puzzle: See the answer to "Last week's challenge".) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I reluctantly admit that many years ago, perhaps as far back as my youth, I thought "Donder" was "Donner." I think that some people still use "Donner." In retrospect, I wonder whether a version of "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" (Gene Autry?) had something to do with that. Best wishes. Donner60 (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Why?

Seriously - I don’t understand it. Please stop bringing them up. They can’t respond, they definitely see it, and it certainly doesn’t help anything. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you don't understand it. And you clearly don't understand. At all.

What we are talking about here is about my posting this: [24].

So, let's have a little poll!

How many people here think that what I wrote was:

(a) an attack on SashiRolls, or

(b) an extended comment at WP:ARCA, in which I expressed sympathy for O3000 and gave advice to El C, and called for less "bright-line" administrative action, and more attention to BLP in mainspace content, and for editors to just generally treat one another with more kindness?

Mr Ernie then replied to me with this: [25]. How many people think that:

(c) Mr Ernie was right that my comment "had no obvious reason or point", or

(d) Mr Ernie made a personal attack on me, and contributed nothing in that comment to the ARCA discussion that was ongoing?

--Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think what you wrote was an attack, but I agree it's not terribly obvious why you're bringing up another situation without providing greater context on how it applies to the current one. Without this, it just feels like a "trust me, I think you should do something else for this situation, just like another time where the initial response got modified later". Personally, I wouldn't have written this reply as a comment in the clarification and amendment request, because I don't think the arbitrators need my view on this matter. Either they'll infer some additional context and gain more insight, or they won't. (Essentially it's not very important whether or not it seems obvious to me.) isaacl (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, isaacl, for looking at this from both sides. I'll certainly admit to being as prone as anyone else to sometimes failing to realize that what may be self-evident to me might not be self-evident to others, and it's helpful that you have drawn my attention to that here. The context in which I wrote the comment was that some of the Arbs were saying that they probably would not take formal action, in part because of what El C had been posting about what he was prepared to do. Therefore, my comment was in part to say that I think that El C should do those things he was considering, to give him more reasons to do so, and to encourage the Arbs to let it go at that. (I've pinged El C because I'm mentioning him, although he need not necessarily reply, but I just feel that he should be aware.) In terms of giving him those "more reasons", I think that his reply to me, [26], indicates that he understood what I was getting at, and agreed in some parts and disagreed in others, which is fine with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

And I think this is worth noting in that regard: [27]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thinking it over more, the grave-dancing comment wasn't necessary and I'll strike that. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Mr Ernie, I appreciate that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Mikhail Lebedev

We urgently need a Wikipedia article on the famous neuorscientist, Mikhail Lebedev. Can you please finish the article on Mikhail Lebedev this weekend? It needs to be nominated as a good or featured article within 30 days. I Already started. Please see Draft:Mikhail Lebedev (neuorscientist). — Preceding unsigned comment added by LotteryGeek (talk • contribs) 01:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: It looks like this is a new and troubled editor who has been indeffed since posting this message to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Come on now, Trypto, surely you could manage a teeny-weeny new article, it's not brain surgery, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Ha! I just saw the corresponding section on your talk page, which is undeniably prettier than what I have here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, it looks like Rushin' hacking to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, just like in the good old days. **sob**. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

And now I need some brain surgery, so I can un-see that link! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if you've seen the latest or watch True Facts at all

Wish I had thought of this approach back in the day!! Atsme 💬 📧 00:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Beautiful to look at, indeed. Are there Untrue Facts? (Don't answer that!) I don't know what you mean by "this approach". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Ha! By "this approach", I was referring to raw humor vs the stuffy PBS academic-style I was forced to use, not to mention various other broadcast restrictions. A few editors/producers toyed a bit with humor in the studio (off-the-clock) and we did some crazy stuff, not unlike the F-word piece with its NPR style, but we dared not go astray, at least not to the extent of True Facts. Commercial network programming was different, but back then, I had my own studio and called the shots. For fun, we'd put together shorts with nothing but out-takes or "bloopers" of Bill Dance (my fav), Jimmy Houston, Robin Williams(the genius), and even some of my own Water Sports Weekly shows - boy, did we have bloopers! I was also writing a humorous short story series for Bass'n Gal magazine & In Fisherman but it was a time when women were just beginning to break the stereotypical mold of the Stepford wife who dared not venture into a man's sports world. With the advent of digital broadcasting/recording, plus the www, everything changed. Doors flew open to unlimited possibilities, but of late, some of those doors have been slammed shut, particularly in light of recent censorship activities by the Big Tech 3 (Twitter, FB & YouTube/Google) - not saying that some wasn't necessary. Speech (text) is now being patrolled by thought police - it's happening here on WP - and it can be daunting at times; the liberal arts aren't quite as liberal as they used to be...at least, not in certain areas. I'm predicting here now so, mark my words, if you'd like, but I foresee the move toward decentralization as the way of the future, and it will bring big change from the way we're accustomed to doing things now. Are you familiar with Urbit? Atsme 💬 📧 14:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

That bloopers reel is hilarious (lucky for fish like me)! And Bass'n Gal may be the best name I've ever heard for a magazine. As for me, I have made it a life-long rule for myself to stay off – completely – all social media sites. I may not have much sanity left, but I want to preserve what little I still have. (Also in that vein, I'm not commenting about what you said about thought police etc., OK?) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

No pressure about responding to all of my comments - be happy. I have some extra pills if you need some - Ibdonewithol (500mg) and Amnotanazitol (50-500mg). Sorry, but I ran out of the Trimyazagain Uprick (30mg) and have to get a refill, maybe a stronger dose, but I don't think they would be a good option for you right now, anyway. Atsme 💬 📧 12:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

New essay

I've started User:Tryptofish/Two wrongs don't make a right, still in the draft stage. Revisions, advice, suggestions, all welcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Damn SpellChecker didn't catch it!! I can't believe I did that...OMG! I was up at 3:00 am, which goes to prove that by the time I started tweaking, it was actually time for me to take a nap. Atsme 💬 📧 18:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, this is about "principal" and "principle". In any case, no worries, and thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Moved now to WP: space. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Seeking Wikimarkup wisdom

Hi there Tryptofish, once upon a time I saw you pull off what seemed to me a feat of wikimarkup wizardry that I'm still not sure I understand. Now I've got a similar wikimarkup problem that I'm wondering if you can easily solve (or just as valuable, let me know if it's unsolvable): I've been writing a newsletter for WikiProject Medicine that includes side-by-side boxes listing FA/GAs that have been promoted and are being reviewed (example). My dream is for those boxes to appear the same height and vertically aligned, even when they contain different amounts of text. The sad way I do that now is by adding as many <br> as it takes to get the two to be the same height on my screen. But of course on narrower and wider screens they get out of alignment. Do you know of a superior way to set this up? Any thoughts/guidance would be much appreciated. More importantly I hope you're keeping well. All the best. Ajpolino (talk) 05:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm keeping well, and I hope you are too. Here's how I do it:

Example1 line1line1line1line1line1line1line1line1line1line1line 1line1line1line1line1line1line1

Example2 line2line2line2line2line2line2line2line2line2 line2line2line2line2line2line2line2line2

Obviously, you should go to the edit window to see the markup, which you can just copy, and substitute the real text for the placeholder terms. The idea is basically to use the "quote frame" template within a table. I've used it in multiple places (because I often find it useful to discuss stuff side-by-side), and it seems to work pretty consistently for me. As for vertically aligning texts of different amounts, you can see that this uses the "vertical-align: top" style, so it should do that, but I'm not confident that this will really happen if the two sides are very different. (I don't know if there's a way to apply that style across the entire table. Any talk page watchers with advice on that?) I hope that helps! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• I typically consult RexxS who has a huge bag of tricks, and he's a luau expert, or maybe it's lua - I can't remember. I also recently found the user page of Timeshifter who has all the appearances of a table magician; not that he does tricks on a table...but you know what I mean. Atsme 💬 📧 23:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ajpolino and Atsme: The problem with tables is that they eventually produce horizontal scroll-bars when the window gets narrow (e.g. on mobile devices). If you want to maximise accessibility for screen readers as well as allow the two boxes to sit side-by-side on wide screens while moving one-under-the-other on narrow screens, you need something like this:

Newly recognized content

• Late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia nom. Maxim Masiutin, reviewed by Vaticidalprophet
• UPMC Presbyterian nom. Andrew nyr, reviewed by HickoryOughtShirt?4

Nominated for review

• Louise Boursier nom. Doug Coldwell
  
• Friedreich's ataxia nom. Akrasia25
  
• Kivu Ebola epidemic nom. Ozzie10aaaa
  
• Biotin nom. David notMD, under review by HaEr48
  
• Lurie Children's Hospital nom. Andrew nyr, under review by HickoryOughtShirt?4
  
• Urinothorax nom. Steve M.
  
• Imprinted brain hypothesis nom. Vaticidalprophet
  
• Management of multiple sclerosis Currently a FA removal candidate.
  
• Alzheimer's disease Notice of impending featured article review at talk.
  
• Major depressive disorder Notice of impending FAR at talk.
  
• Influenza Notice of impending FAR at talk.
  
• Menstrual cycle Notice of impending FAR at talk.

I could create a template to hide all the css styling if you would like, but the <div>...</div> tags don't actually cause problems and they help interested editors to learn about the markup. See what you think. --RexxS (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The way that looks on my display is that the two boxes are one above the other, not side-by-side. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

That's how it should look on a display that's not wide enough to display the two boxes at their default width. It happens around a window width of 1300px. If you want to keep them side-by-side at the expense of having lines wrap inside the boxes, you can set a width for each box:

Newly recognized content

• Late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia nom. Maxim Masiutin, reviewed by Vaticidalprophet
• UPMC Presbyterian nom. Andrew nyr, reviewed by HickoryOughtShirt?4

Nominated for review

• Louise Boursier nom. Doug Coldwell
  
• Friedreich's ataxia nom. Akrasia25
  
• Kivu Ebola epidemic nom. Ozzie10aaaa
  
• Biotin nom. David notMD, under review by HaEr48
  
• Lurie Children's Hospital nom. Andrew nyr, under review by HickoryOughtShirt?4
  
• Urinothorax nom. Steve M.
  
• Imprinted brain hypothesis nom. Vaticidalprophet
  
• Management of multiple sclerosis Currently a FA removal candidate.
  
• Alzheimer's disease Notice of impending featured article review at talk.
  
• Major depressive disorder Notice of impending FAR at talk.
  
• Influenza Notice of impending FAR at talk.
  
• Menstrual cycle Notice of impending FAR at talk.

You might have to jigger with that depending on the content, though. A width of 29em allows side-by-side down to about 1000px window width. --RexxS (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks RexxS. Ajpolino, I hope there's something within these options that works for you. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you both very much. Lord knows how long it would've taken me to sort this out on my own. Cheers. Ajpolino (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Change is on the horizon

I'll leave this little WMF tidbit in case you haven't seen it. There are also changes proposed for the number of community board members and how they are elected. Oh, and here's the new Code of Conduct policy. Here's a little brain teaser - does our usage of the term virtual reality affect how we use virtually everything? 🤔

Hi Atsme. I actually had seen all of those things already, and decided that I probably don't care much about any of them. And I'll settle for some virtuous reality, of which I see all too little.

On a more serious note, I've been seeing a lot of news about horrid weather conditions in Texas. I hope that all is well at your ranch. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

What a mess they had to deal with in Texas!! Frozen water buckets...sub-zero temps...snow...not what we're accustomed to in the big state. I do feel a little guilty being here and not there to help, but I'd probably just be pushed out of the way, so it makes no difference. This is the time of year babies are born - two new foals have already hit the ground. My granddaughter is doing well at OSU as a member of their Equestrian Team (she's there on a scholarship) - very proud of her. She's in the early studies working toward a medical career. What a surprise. I thought she'd be going into chemistry, but I guess she'll have her share of that, too. Anyway, relative to me going back to Texas, I prefer to not increase my risks. Here on Bonaire we had fewer than 5 cases until they allowed more European visitors in, and now that number has increased. Add to that, the corruption throughout the Caribbean, and well...it's sad. Sunshine does wonders for one's health and state of mind. I've got a boat load of new pictures to upload and that's keeping me busy along with my work at OTRS, NPP training, NPP/AfC reviewing, etc. I'm just happy to know they weathered the storm in Texas, and that the ranch is still in one piece. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 15:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad for you that it isn't any worse than that, and I'm glad that the ranch is still in one piece. Three cheers for sunshine! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Today, we have a DYK about Wilhelm Knabe, who stood up for future with the striking school children when he was in his 90s, - a model, - see here. - Thank you for your position in the arb case request, - I feel I have to stay away, but there are conversations further down on the page, in case of interest, - in a nutshell: "... will not improve kindness, nor any article". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Admin Abuse cases

I have a general point I'd like to float by you. You wrote at ARC There's a danger here, that ArbCom is becoming somewhere where an editor who has a gripe with an admin and who can come up with some bad-temper diffs can come to RfAr and the Committee will take the attitude that there is "a low bar" for admin abuse cases, and once the case is accepted, the outcome is predetermined. I think you identify the right tension but come to the opposite conclusion as me. If ArbCom accepts cases where there might be no evidence of anything wrong then some of the time it should come up with a final decision of "nothing to see here folks". If, on the other hand, it requires a fair amount of evidence that something is wrong, it would be amazing if cases didn't end with some sort of sanction (if only a reprimand or the like). So if the committee actually acts on the premise that there is a low bar for admin abuse cases that should be, in my view, the opposite of the idea that once a case is accepted the outcome is predetermined. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for raising that with me here, that's nice of you to reach out that way. If we come to opposite conclusions, then so be it. But I actually think that a good outcome of my comment would be that if ArbCom – not just you individually, but the whole Committee – would be persuaded that if you do take the case you will do something along the lines of what some other editors have commented on, on the case request page: to mediate/arbitrate between the two aggrieved parties, as opposed to issuing a desysop.

It's such a complicated issue with admin abuse cases: I actually found myself thinking that the community process that TonyB initiated could end up being a "nicer" alternative to ArbCom, which led quickly to my having cognitive dissonance. En-wiki has swung very far from where it was, when I worked on a failed proposal for community desysops eleven years ago. Back then, I felt like ArbCom was ineffectual in dealing with admins who had passed RfA when RfA was comparatively trivial. Now, the community treats RfA much differently, and ArbCom has become much more effective.

In any case, I still hope you all decline, but if you accept, I hope you do it with a light hand. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

For me, if I vote to accept the case, it will be for what Thrydulf said: I think it's clear that the specific dispute between RexxS and ProcrastinatingReader (PR) is at best premature and, on it's own, does not require ArbCom's involvement. That is not what ArbCom is being asked to investigate though, it is being asked to investigate a long-standing pattern of behaviour of which the dispute involving PR is simply the latest (and not most egregious) example. I think you (and Ritchie) are right that this GS template situation just needs some mediation and my suggestion that Ritchie be the one to do it was sincere. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, you were the filing party in the Medicine case, and if this is going to become Medicine2, I might just ask you to recuse. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Why do you say it will be Medicine 2? I don't see a sprawl across the topic area. If it's accepted it will be about looking at a single administrator's conduct. That editor happens to edit in Medicine, but even at the height of my medicine admin work I was not doing any work outside of MEDPRICES. But I'm intrigued by your thoughts that I shouldn't arbitrate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

If this goes back beyond the template, and it's focused only on RexxS's conduct as an admin (so as, officially, not to be Medicine2), then it's going to become a matter of his interactions with other editors who were parties in the Medicine case, a lot of it recently having been about WT:MEDMOS, which is the same venue as the price dispute was about, and which rehashes the same grievances that underlay the pricing dispute. (I've been quietly watching that, without getting involved, so I've been seeing what has been going on there, and it looks to me like PR's diffs come from there.) Based upon how you interacted with me in that area, and based upon how you interacted with other parties during the case, I do not believe that you can approach RexxS's conduct in an uninvolved way. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Well this shows that I have not been following that at all because I had no idea that there was any acrimony going on. So far the diffs entered (Joe Roe brought the most) have touched on medical topics but not MEDPRICES. Med topics are to be expected when there is question about INOVLVED with Rexx. Anyhow I will keep this in mind as things progress. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anything ongoing about prices. What I meant was that the same interpersonal grievances are at play. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

And I meant to write MEDMOS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQL^{Query me!} 04:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

pattern of behaviour

The issue isn't how many discussions can be used to establish a pattern of evidence, but that the proposed procedure for initiating a review of the administrator's behaviour requires a discussion that was closed indicating the administrator behaved inappropriately. That can be challenging for certain types of behaviour that have strong supporters, or if many people support the same point of view held by the person in question. If we had a better way to deal with content disputes, the incentive to behave aggressively would be considerably reduced. But we don't, and so here we are. isaacl (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. I think that this is a very useful discussion nonetheless, and I'm working (just in my own head, for the moment, not ready for prime time) on another direction that we could take it in. I feel like it may be something quite good (how's that for a tease?). Maybe I'll bring it up there (for those playing along at home, we're talking about the desysop policy RfC that's on everyone's watchlist notices, specifically a comment near the end of the oppose section), and/or maybe as part of the ArbCom case about a specific admin, that is going on right now. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I started to toy with the idea of trying to track patterns of behaviour on pages visible only to admins, mirroring what would happen in a real-world organization, but I think it would face strong opposition. I'm more interested in fostering collaborative behaviour aspect, in any case. But I suspect something will have to happen to first break the stalemate imposed by consensus-based decision making. isaacl (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Somewhat entertaining

Well, at least I found it to be so, primarily because that fish can grow to be 6+ ft. Atsme 💬 📧 23:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I bet that's what it tells all the female fish!

But seriously, that's some atrociously irresponsible fishkeeping. Did that thing actually eat the arowana? And adding redtail catfishes? Anyone who keeps animals as pets has responsibilities. And putting a fish that will grow to six feet in a tank two feet long, along with other fish that will fit in its mouth, is nothing to be proud of. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. What got my interest was a recent comment at the Alligator gar: Predator or Prey page on YouTube. I remember when I produced that program, the curator of the Dallas Aquarium mentioned how expensive they are to keep because they primarily eat other fish but they'll eat other prey, too, like water fowl, turtles, small stuff. So now we have the public raising them in personal aquariums - and when they get too big, guess where they go? Typically, they're dumped into the closest lake. Kids who get pet baby alligators do the same thing - it's insane. I think the person in that video uses the goldfish as food or as a snack to go with the pelleted food. Atsme 💬 📧 00:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

And introducing them into the wild as invasive species... Facepalm. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Extenuating circumstances

Not sure what you mean by extenuating circumstances (though I suspect as Levivich alluded to, COVID-19 probably made administrators more forgiving in simply closing the incidents noticeboard thread). The two disagreed in the categories for discussion thread, which likely spilled over into the dispute on talk page formatting.

I hope your change of heart does not centre on my evidence; I just wanted to give more context to the noticeboard thread as I was concerned no one would examine the actual technical impact of the edits (as many in the thread did not). isaacl (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Then let me make this very clear. Yes, it centers entirely on your evidence, which I find devastating. Talk about burying the lead – all the evidence prior to yours seemed to me to point the other way. But the issue here is the extreme edit warring. If I were "in charge", that would be, all by itself, immediate grounds for desysopping. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Logging out now. I need to sleep on this. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Conventions for discussion thread formatting

Regarding this edit: as unsolicited advice, please feel free to ignore the following, particularly if you're already aware of it. You responded to a comment that started with * with a comment that started with ::, immediately following a comment that started with *::::::. The first comment started a first-level bulleted list. Your reply changed the first-level list to an unbulleted one, and nested a second-level unbulleted list item below it. This causes screen readers to announce the closing of seven list levels (from the comment before your reply) and the opening of two list levels.

To avoid unnecessary additional overhead for those using screen readers, and under some circumstances (depending on how the list nesting gets altered midstream) to prevent a more verbose output for those using the visual diff option, you can follow the conventions described at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility § Lists. RexxS has a essay, Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks, and I have my own, User:Isaacl/On wikitext list markup, that also cover this. In a nutshell: use the same prefix as the comment to which you're replying, and then add the character of your choice to it. In this case, this means using a prefix of *:. This would have limited the announcements to the closing of five list levels, with no added opening list announcements. isaacl (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem. I learned something from this. I'm going to blue-link to screen reader because, although it's something that I was vaguely aware of, I wasn't really actively aware of it. And I want to be very friendly to readers who depend upon assistive technology, because it's the right thing to do. (Actually, I've long wondered about it, when I see someone making those kinds of corrections, and I'll admit to thinking, ignorantly, that this must be people with too much time on their hands. Stuff like "list announcements" means nothing to those of us who don't think in html: does that have something to do with mailing lists? wink wink. And in this specific example, I actually was just following the edit that was immediately above my own.) When I think of it, I'll try to remember the right way to do it, although I'm quick to add that I'll probably forget a lot of the time. In which case, gnomish editors, thank you, and I'll try not to think snarky things about you in the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I imagine many editors think of colons as indent levels/tab stops (in old typewriter terms). A common thing I've seen is editors replying to a comment prefixed with something like *** with a comment prefixed with something like :::*. Presumably they are thinking "I want to match the indent level of the previous comment, and then add a bulleted item". I started also mentioning the problem with visual diffs now, as I'm guessing that might resonate with a (very?) slightly larger audience. (For the edit I linked to, the edit immediately above yours had a prefix of *::::::; there are other cases however where you were indeed following a comment that had been the first to change the first character in the prefix.)

I was more reluctant to make these kind of changes in the past, but after convincing myself that for the cases where the comments were placed at the correct nesting level but just needlessly changed the list types, it made no discernable visual difference (other than changing weird-looking hanging bullets into ones with the usual spacing), I do them more often. I'm still cautious about cases where list levels are skipped, because changing it will affect the horizontal layout, and sometimes editors do it when interjecting before an earlier response, ignoring the conventional approach of replying at the end and not jumping ahead of earlier responders.

As I understand it, browsing with a screen reader is a dramatically different experience. The users speed up the playback and key off small cues to figure out where to jump to next. I had a discussion with one editor where I talked about the best practice of having meaningful link text instead of "click here", as some users depend on going through links quickly based on the announced link text, and the response was that they should learn not to do that. Having an accessible site, particularly when the vast majority of editors (including me) have very little knowledge of the browsing experience for those with accessibility needs, is hard. isaacl (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm actually a lot less sympathetic to issues with the Visual Editor, because no one has to use it, and the developers should be responsible for fixing stuff like that instead of expecting editors to compensate for its shortcomings. But making the site accessible for those with disabilities is something I'm happy to support. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't use the Visual Editor to edit, but I regularly use both text and visual diffs. I find the visual diff output easier to read (when it isn't highlighting pseudo-changes caused by unnecessary changes in list styles) and often provides better surrounding context. The problem with unnecessary changes in list styles can't really be fixed by developers, because just like screen readers, it can't tell if you actually meant to change list styles for some reason, or if you're just treating all of the prefix characters as indents. isaacl (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I forgot I mentioned the case of interjected comments in this thread. You mentioned not understanding the issue on a technical level; do you have some additional questions that I might help clarify? isaacl (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your reply here, and for your reply at EEng's talk page. No, I really don't have any further questions. It's more like: (a) I don't really care that much about technical stuff, (b) I already understand the basic reasons, and (c) I wanted to sound interested but neutral in the debate, and ignorance is always a convenient excuse. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Input, please

I'm of the mind that you are more attuned to collegiate/scholarly matters on a much broader scale than I (the beach vs a sand castle),^[stretch] and would very much appreciate your input about this program. My namesake (granddaughter) is graduating early with great reviews from her teachers, and is now contemplating that program. I am much too close to the subject to judge fairly. Atsme 💬 📧 16:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to try to help with this, and I'd like to offer a few initial impressions, and then I want you to follow up with more questions to me. I'm asking for that further discussion largely because I can see a lot of different possible directions this discussion could take, and I want your guidance towards the parts that are actually relevant to what you want to find out about.

One part is whether to use this program, or to use other programs for gap years. I see from their website that they say that students can get college credits for what they do in the program. That actually depends on the college, as it's up to them. So your granddaughter should think about some of the colleges/universities she might want to apply to, and look into their policies for giving course credit for stuff like that. But don't just take the company's word for it.

I otherwise didn't see any obvious red flags about this particular company, and a superficial look seems to indicate a lot of positive online reviews.

Another part, and it's an important one, is whether or not to do a gap year (regardless of how to do it). There's no right or wrong answer there. It depends on the young person, and their interests, and their possible benefit from a year spent figuring out those interests. What is she interested in, academically and perhaps professionally? What does she want to get out of the experience of a year of traveling? Gap years and traveling are becoming (have become?) very popular with young people, and they are often very successful and worthwhile. But everyone is an individual, and it's obviously not one-size-fits-all.

Does she have any colleges in mind she wants to apply to? Does she have any major(s) in mind? Does she have any specific interests in another part of the world? Does she have specific questions about her future that she wants to figure out?

And what would be the pluses and minuses of doing a gap year where the travel and the rest is set up by the family, instead of buying a package commercially?

--Tryptofish (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Tryp. I'm going to send her the link to this page so she can follow along, and ask me questions to ask you. Atsme 💬 📧 00:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

All good! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Your ears must be burning because I just now finished discussing what you said and here is her response in a nutshell:

She is currently thinking about a career as an x-ray technician but she also wants to take business management thinking it may lead to other opportunities. (She's neither pro nor con gap years and realizes the tendency to not complete one's schooling when study is not contiguous.) She has no particular college or university in mind at this point, primarily because she has not had an opportunity to discuss that topic with her HS counselor, and is unaware of her options. The benefits she sees in the proposed program is that it affords her exposure to new experiences, and an opportunity to explore different cultures in a country much different from her own. She also believes it will help make her more aware of business opportunities, available internships, etc.

They say dolphins communicate that way. 😂 Atsme 💬 📧 18:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Dolphins? I must have done that on porpoise. (Sorry, that was awful!) Two thoughts: One is for her to not get too worried about failing to complete schooling. Gap years and the like are very common, and each individual controls their own ability to follow-through. If she wants to continue, she will continue.

The other is that I think this is an excellent topic for her to discuss with her guidance counselor. Unless there are any questions for me that cannot wait til then, my suggestion is to wait until that meeting has happened, and then follow-up here after that. I expect that it will be helpful in focusing what to evaluate next. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Clever - I spewed my drink as I was reading your first 2 sentences - luckily no damage to the keyboard. I do agree that she needs to consult with her counselors first, and go from there. My primary interest was how the gap programs work, but I feel a little better now after your input. The adventure she's talking about (Thailand with an adult leader overseeing a small group) will provide some college credits, and give her some experience in another part of the world. To be continued. Atsme 💬 📧 19:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I want to repeat what I said earlier, that whether a given college actually accepts it as credits depends on the college, and not on what the (for-profit) company says. I have two Harvard classmates (thus equally as ancient as I am) who went to Thailand between high school and college and found it very worthwhile (one is an attorney, the other a physician). I could get in touch with them if that were to be useful. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Oops!

Sorry... JBW (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

No worries! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

PS: As much as it would be entertaining to block multiple Arbs, please don't. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

For those playing along at home: [28], [29]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Can I be the race car? .. lol. Seriously though - I saw where you restored a post and was thrown for a second thinking you posted using another users sig. My mind was jumped into overdrive on that one. — Ched (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

LOL! I dunno, being a car might give you gas. That's actually the second time in less than 24 hours that I made that kind of edit, the first being the one that JBW posted to me about just above, although this time I restored someone else's comment instead of my own. It might not be gas, but there sure is something that is becoming absolutely rampant around here: too many otherwise reasonable people getting so, so very upset about stuff that it feels like everyone is about to bust an axle. Everyone needs to calm the F down, and when they don't, it becomes contagious. I've been informally keeping track of whether or not, each day when I log in here, I see something (without going out of my way to look for it) where someone is either getting very upset, or getting into trouble, or creating a situation where it makes me feel upset, and I can say that there have been ZERO days for over a month when I've logged in and everything is peaceful. It's like Wikipedia is the bottomless well that just keeps on giving. I'm truly not seeing a way out of this. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

And now, [30], but I won't dare touch that one, because I don't want to be a rotten Tryptofish! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Noting: Today, I haven't seen anything that is negative in the way that I just described above. Literally, the first time in recent memory. Maybe it's an early omen of April Fools Day tomorrow. (Which I'm sure will summon forth the annual indignation of the humor-challenged.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Modest flowers

Thank you for what you said on Yoninah's talk, - see also Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-03-28/Obituary! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

... and also for RexxS --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

This?

Even fish practice hygiene. — Ched (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I got you some extra. That really made me laugh .. literally out loud — Ched (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! (In re this: [31].) That's what I'm here for: stinking up Wikipedia! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is that Old Spice container a little too phallic-looking? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

LOLOLOLOL ... only you would find that. — Ched (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC) well ... now that I look again ... — Ched (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Help! Help! Ched is sexually harassing me! My new personal pronoun is now... oh, nevermind! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hahaha

... of course piscine odors distinct from tryptic ones were meant :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 22:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I may need something stronger, after all the anger around this place today. You had linked to fish sauce, and I guess I'm a saucy fish. Or I need a reliable sauce. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Slàinte mhath, Tryptomerman, and I know little about whisky, but my Dad fancied himself a connoisseur and always had a bottle of this available, bless his heart. Slàinte! ---Sluzzelin talk 23:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! And it's the giant economy size, which is even better! A nice, shapely bottle... no, I'm not gonna go there. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

tv

Just got my Disney+ too .. guessing you have Comcast/Xfinity? Watched first episode of Wanda Vision and The Mandilorian. Still not sure on the ESPN+ .. it seems it didn't automatically import with the others. Looking forward to the 'Zilla movie (been watching since the early 70's .. some great stuff on Sat. morning. - and agree "so bad it's good). Think I've seen most of the Zilla and Kong stuff in the past 20 years or so - but could have missed one. Liked the Sam Jackson one, but the Mathew Brodrick and Jack Black ones I could go either way. Did you see the Snyder cut of Justice League yet? — Ched (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not as into that category of movies as it sounds like you are, but I can certainly use some escape. Funny that you asked me about the Snyder cut, because I haven't seen it, and I too was thinking of asking if anyone had seen it. I'm curious, but reluctant to give it four hours. And, yes, it's effing Comcast. (I just posted a joke about the Zilla stuff at Arb-talk, and I got the red notification from you so soon after doing so that I had a moment of paranoia, thinking I had been blocked for posting it.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

LOL .. seriously doubt any admin would block on that. Pic was funny. I only got through about half of Snyder cut ... will finish this weekend maybe. I probably favor Star Trek over Wars, but enjoy both. These days I have more time for TV and movies. (reasons are personal info I'd only share in email though). Picked up the new Hanks movie too News of the World (DVD). DVR kinda backed up too .. sigh - so much "entertainment" and so little time. lol. Getting dragged back into wiki has hurt my time too ... need to go back to my own little "short description" world. — Ched (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just being momentarily paranoid, but kinda shows where the on-wiki mentality is these days. Talk page watchers should definitely check out the aforementioned pic. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

In response to Mahsa Shoaran's Wiki page

Thank you so much for your message. We really appreciate the support you provide for the Wikipedia platform.

First of all let us clearly define a neuroscientist: A neuroscientist (or neurobiologist) is a scientist who has specialised knowledge in the field of neuroscience, the branch of biology. This person studied electrical engineering and she cannot be considered as a neuroscientist. Please do not add unreal titles to the people. We added full reference for any new sentences. We beleive in the clarification of the current situation about the recrutments of new professors in Switzerland and we are trying to clearly and honestly provide all information to the readers. Please do not remove the critical information that are clearly cited. Number of citation in our field is very important and we are trying to make a transparent scientific enviroment. Everyone should be able to receive the information about the number of citations of a professor at the time of his/her recrument and how much self-citated references they have. The sentence about the self-citation was cited clearly. 20 out of 26 references were self-citation and unfortunately this is becoming a trend to increase the number of citation and we cannot understand why it was removed. If you believe in transparent information you should not eliminate such critical information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.54.236.190 (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Answered at the IP's talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

And the page is now deleted. Thanks to Chris troutman for the PROD. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

If you're still interested

I added a bit of info to Talk:World Patent Marketing because few editors have used that page. Much of the commenting has been confined to edit summaries on the article page. Based on my first-hand experiences, I can assure you that this particular article has created a high stress, complex working environment; not a fun ride for the happily retired, so please don't misconstrue this post as an invitation to edit. I would not do that to anyone I consider a Wikifriend. Common sense tells us that the deeper one digs, the more information comes to light, and the better the result...but better, yet, is when the findings are reviewed through the lens of a pragmatist. 🎶 Ta-da! 🎶 Atsme 💬 📧 15:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I have no intention of editing it. I'd rather lick a cactus! But having seen the unhappiness at your talk page, I felt like it was the right thing for me to comment in the discussion at BLPN ([32]). Having done that, I'm outta there. In general, I find that the most useful, and relatively less stressful, way to deal with that kind of content dispute is to start an RfC, and to construct the RfC as a choice between two (or more) choices that reflect the opposing views of how to write it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Atsme: Just letting you know that I saw your reply to me at WP:BLPN, so I'm aware of it. But as I said just above, I'm washing my hands of this, so I'm not going to look into it any further, and don't much want to discuss it any more. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and about licking a cactus...I have a much better option. Atsme 💬 📧 21:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Now, that's a good solution to a thorny problem! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Uhm..."a good solution to a thorny problem"...do you have a lisp? 🤣 Atsme 💬 📧 00:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

You mean: "a good tholuthion to a horny problem"? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Update

Mpants. Atsme 💬 📧 20:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! Hooray!! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Damn, you guys move fast. I saw Tony's response to my emailed unblock request while I was on the toilet. I logged in as soon as I got back to my desk, and Tryp's welcome was on my talk already. I was legit hoping to announce my renewed presence with snide comments.

You know. For the lulz. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

You must do one for the lulz and the highs. Atsme 💬 📧 00:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

There's something oddly appropriate about finding out about it there. Flush with success, and all that! Anyway, I've really missed you. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I thought about quite a few of you guys a lot during the past 2 years. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Dipping my toe back in

Perhaps as a sign of my improving wiki-mood, and definitely because this strikes me as a subject that WP needs to cover, I've tentatively dipped my toe (fin?) back into content editing, and started a page on Ora Nichols. If ever there were a woman who has been too-long overlooked by WP, it's her. I'll be taking it to DYK in a few days. If any of my talk page participants would be so kind as to give it a look and make any improvements or suggestions, that would be great! Something that bugs me is that I haven't found any dates of birth or death, or information about life outside of work, so if anyone finds that, I'd appreciate it very much. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Turn on your email

Photo of me naked. But we already knew that. --Tryptofish

Or email me. I want to tell you something without putting it in a public place.

It's nothing bad, I promise. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, and it's nothing personal, for sure, but I'd rather not. I'm super-sensitive about privacy. Sorry. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I get that. Would you like me to say it here? You might find it a little embarrassing, but I assure you it's no big deal. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Entirely up to you. I wouldn't want you to get into trouble over it. As long as it isn't a photo of me naked, I don't think I'll be embarrassed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

As long as it isn't a photo of me naked, I don't think I'll be embarrassed. No, no. I'm keeping those all to myself.

It's regarding this edit. I wanted to say that... Well... Tryp, I'm on the spectrum. Asperger syndrome. Was diagnosed at 14. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, is that all? I already knew that, because you already told me that. I wouldn't have said that, otherwise. See User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 36#For connoisseurs of eye-popping DYK hook possibilities. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, okay then! I know some people get mortified if they think they might have offended someone with something like that. It's never bothered me a bit (because I've met people further along the spectrum than I and... Yeah. There's a reason "autist" became the go-to insult on the internet.)

I had honestly forgotten that I'd ever mentioned it on WP. Makes sense though. I'm an over-sharer. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

All good! (I recently told a joke that I had forgotten I told before, on EEng's talk page, where it's no laughing matter!) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Tot

Hey!, please, tolerate talk page messages. You're welcome. --Pedro158 (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. For those watching: [33], [34]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Wut. --Pedro158 (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, I guess you not do nothing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Chung

環遊世界 123.194.96.40 (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Test edit? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Everybody's having fun, tonight. Fun fact! That video give me nightmares. Literally. I used to like it, too... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Taking care with tags

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In Template:Did you know nominations/Ora Nichols, you used <small>...</small> tags. But the way you did it created Missing end tag for <small>...</small>. Whenever a <small> tag is on a line beginning with an asterisk (*), number (#) or colon (:), the closing </small> tag also has to be within the scope of the the asterisk, number, or colon. In other words, each bullet point needs its own <small>...</small> markup. I fixed the error. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: Thanks for catching and correcting my mistake. I actually do know about that, and normally do it correctly, but for whatever reason this time, I made a mistake. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

WP functions and external sites

After reading a thread at the arbcom noticeboard I realized that it should be policy that discussion by "functionaries" (i.e. admin or arb member and possibly everyone involved in a case) related to ongoing processes should strictly use the expected open on-WP processes for discussion (except obviously for things that should be more private as part of those processes, or restricted to designated mailing lists and wikis). If it's not already the case (I admit I didn't research it yet) maybe it's something to look at and propose. Although we're all volunteers, in the real world we're often expected professional confidentiality, for instance; this would be a similar type of integrity expectation. WP:CANVASS is somewhat related... —PaleoNeonate – 16:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I need to clarify: WP:Functionaries are defined as Arbs, Checkusers, and Oversighters. They include neither admins nor regular editors. That said, I'm familiar with the discussion you refer to (obviously, to anyone who reads it), but I'm not seeing anything that I would formally propose. ArbCom makes its own rules, and the community can only advise about that. And we are talking about things that are in the category of "if you gotta ask, you'll never know". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

How incredibly, amazingly, impressively, ultimately, ludicrously, poignantly, wonderfully, wetly, scratchily, loosely, adjectively unhelpful of you

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Don't worry, the title is just me making fun of my own comment. I'm not upset or annoyed.

I get where you're coming from at Bish's talk, the problem wasn't what you said, but the fact that someone (anyone, really) weighed in with something for Stonk to reply to. Now, instead of a simple request from me and an excuse from Stonk, there's an argument for Bish to wade through. Ultimately, it's not your fault (it's Stonk's fault both for making the situation to begin with, and for latching onto your comment like that), it was just a mistake. I hope I didn't sound like I was being an ass.

I had to erase three comments I wanted to type there, and let me tell you, choosing not to say something (especially to say that I never asked for a block, but Stonk had gotten three warnings already, so since we're all on the same page of blocks following warnings...) for someone as deeply in love with his own voice/writings as me is an act of willpower. For someone like Stonk, I doubt it's even an option. (Note how I managed to work it in here, just to get it out of my system.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you are too close to it right now, to be seeing it clearly. And I don't want to argue with you about it any further. But I really want you to take to heart what I said about edit summaries. You just got back after the last time that some troublemaker who isn't worth anyone's time made a wikilawyer ploy about you being "incivil" in an edit summary, and the last thing that you need is for it to happen again. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from at Bish's talk Why you making me repeat myself? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Because I'm really not being helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DYK for Ora Nichols

On 16 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ora Nichols, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ora Nichols was the first woman to run a radio sound effects unit? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ora Nichols. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ora Nichols), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

2,598 views. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

YAAAAY!!

Sort of.

As I said above, I decided to tentatively stick my toe/fin back into the water of content editing and see what happens. I had heard a radio piece about Ora Nichols (cited at the page), and decided that it interested me enough to create the page. So I did. It was the first meaningful content work I have done since I semi-demi-retired.

Writing the page, and researching it, was fun. And I'm happy with the way it came out. And the DYK review went just fine.

Then, at the same time as the DYK review, a rather pointless, and needlessly Wiki-policing, idea was floated at WT:DYK#"First person to do X" hooks. As a result of the early parts of the discussion, the DYK reviewer and I decided to change the proposed hook. Still OK with me.

Then an admin changed the hook and put it into the full-protected queue. It was an entirely good-faith change, and it had some reason to it, but I found it objectionable because it went against what I understand the thrust of the source material to be. (I should make the caveat that my objection was a rather nitpicking one, not earthshaking. EEng pointed that out at the time, and so did some reasonable people.) But it mattered to me. And it led to some discussions that I found somewhat disappointing here, here, and here. And that part just seems to me to be (albeit in a rather minor way) the same old same old that increasingly annoys me about the Wikipedia community.

That said, I was successful over the course of those discussion to get the hook that ended up as the final one appearing on the Main Page, to be the hook that I originally proposed (ALT0), so it worked out in the end. Good new article, good hook. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Well done, congrats. — Ched (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

DS 2021 Review Update

Dear Tryptofish,

Thank you for participating in the recent discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name here.
--Barkeep49 & KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Time to pick your brain

Just curious...a friend who has a master's in nutrition refuses to take an antigen test based on this article and from what I gathered, her concerns over the presence of Darpa hydrogel being in these tests. I haven't a clue about any of it, so I scanned Google scholar (as if I could understand any of it) and came across this list of articles. Do you think my friend has a valid reason to be concerned or is nutritruth.org off the charts unreliable? Atsme 💬 📧 17:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Off-the-charts. You may, perhaps, have heard conspiracy theories that Bill Gates created microchips to go into COVID vaccines in order to track people (as if phones can't do that already), and take over the world or something. This is tin-foil hat stuff, truly loony tunes. DARPA is a perfectly legitimate research wing of the Defense Dept. They have sponsored research about hydrogels, in case they can be used to treat wounds, maybe by stopping bleeding. So could hydrogels, if they were present in an antigen kit, result in genocide? Facepalm. The way an antigen test for COVID works is someone takes a blood sample, just like when a doctor has you get blood tests for routine checkups, or maybe a swab from the nose. That's taking a sample, not putting anything into someone. Then a lab does a test, to see if the sample reacts with antibodies that recognize a coronavirus. It's a way to evaluate whether or not someone has been exposed to COVID (or a similar virus). Now, maybe, there are some hydrogels in the test kit that is used in the lab to test the sample. Maybe, I don't know. But there is no bleeping way that anything in the test kit is going to get back into the person the sample came from. No bleeping way. So it's not like the person could possibly get the hydrogel into them, or even near them. (Unless one is a wacko conspiracy theorist who believes that a microchip the size of a dime can go through a syringe needle or believes that the lab tech who takes someone's sample for an antigen test is sooper-sekretly injecting the person with a hydrogel that would leave a bulge under the skin where the needle went in, or would get sneezed out of the nose after a nose swab.) And could all of that great big nothing-burger result in genocide? Duh, no. (What, me, getting all worked up?) Anyway, the genocide stuff really takes the whole thing into wacko land. Your friend's health doesn't depend on getting the test. It's just for information about past exposure. (Although an employer or health department might ask her to get one.) But if she also refuses a vaccine, that would be sad. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Thx, Tryp - I figured as much but my explanation would have sounded very layperson to someone with an M.S. in clinical nutrition. The only thing I'm a master at is baiting...as in my Bass 'N Gal days. 🎣 But speaking of microchips, that's another topic. Atsme 💬 📧 22:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Happy to help. As for Fish and chips, when I repeated that thing that I heard, about the size of a dime, I had a feeling that I was passing along something inaccurate. I guess I know more about corn chips than about microchips. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I just read, pretty much in its entirety, your Bass 'N Gal link (better than Fish 'N Chips). I didn't know until now that you had done work with birds: piping plover and least tern. I've been a life-long birder, so I really like that! (But "One Good Tern Deserves Another": now I know where you got your taste for puns!) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

In case you're interested

there's a current discussion at User_talk:Kratu_the_rescue_dog#Yep,_WP_probably_should_have_an_article_about_this_dog. Have a nice weekend! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! By the way, I noticed that you said that you recently got your first COVID vaccine shot. I'm glad, and I hope that it's a good thing for you and yours. (I got my shots about three months ago, and I was very, very happy to get them.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

New message from Chess

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Converting Wikipedia:Student assignments into an actual guideline. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Bishonen test categories has been nominated for deletion

Category:Bishonen test categories has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:MALVOLIO. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a truly momentous occasion. The first time that WP:MALVOLIO has been used for its intended purpose. Centuries from now, children will look to their parents at bedtime and ask with eager voices and dreams in their eyes, "Will you tell me the story of the fun police again?" ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

(Rolls eyes at the circumstances.) Thanks. I should live so long! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

That's all you, buddy. I'm grumpy enough in my 40's, could you imagine what I'd be like in my 400's? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

And me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

That's one dryyyy fish. I wouldn't blame you for being grumpy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, drinks all around! Cheers! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

And after all that, the CfD was withdrawn by the nominator. No hard feelings on my part. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't notice this comment until after I'd left a beer at the nom's talk page and explained that I harbor no hard feelings, either. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

indenting

No worries, btw. I know it looks weird sticking out there, but for me for that post it's a feature not a bug. :) —valereee (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I do all kinds of weird stuff. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

off of EEngs lawn

Apparently, local women who had a pretty decent grasp of English would spread around crude English phrases as a joke, saying it was the properly formal way for a young woman to greet a young, foreign man in American culture.

My favorite instance was when we were posted up inside a smallish shed near the back of some friendly farmer's property watching a small compound and waiting for orders. Middle of the day, the farmer's mischievous wife sent their daughter out to us with tea and a "proper greeting". By that point we'd heard it all before, so when she came in with the tea and greeted us with "You have a pretty cock," my buddy Jay didn't bat an eyelash, just smiled and said "Ashkuruk," ("Thank you") as he took the tea. I still like to remind him of that, usually in an as out-of-the-blue way as possible.

It's an extremely common joke, and I've even heard it here in the US (and may have given a few friends some foreign language "pickup lines" or "customary greetings" myself...) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

That's very interesting! I, like a lot of Americans, have a stereotyped image of Middle Easterners as religiously conservative and repressed, but I keep seeing how people are people the world around. So it's really quite reassuring that young Iraqi women can act like young American women, so long as the wrong people aren't watching them. By the way, I would figure that Iraqis would speak Persian, rather than Arabic. (I should also say that I've had Iranian grad students working in my lab, and they were quite sophisticated about Western culture.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Arabic and Kurdish are the official languages, and there's a lot of Arab influences in the Iraqi identity. Half the country is on the Arabian peninsula, after all. They don't even recognize Farsi as regional language, though lots of more rural folks near the border with Iran speak at least a few words of it, and there's tiny pockets of fluency here and there.

Yes, most of the people I met over there were quite conservative, but there's a lot of universalism in humanity. Rednecks are quite conservative in the States, yet no-one would be surprised to hear one make a dick joke, and my unit spent our first deployment out of the cities, in the sticks, where all the Iraqi rednecks are. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Request (Atsme)

Please read the Conclusion of this research paper, which in retrospect, I question calling it a "staple food", which is a rather exceptional claim. When trying to find other sources to support such a claim (2008), I was not very successful. The other issue is that the reference to "staple food" is not just about the alligator gar so it could be misconstrued. The reference speaks to various species of gar. While researching for more sources to support "staple", I found material that is far more worthy of inclusion as an update, so I replaced what I consider to be "meh" material with updated material. I certainly don't want to get into an edit war with an IP over the inclusion of "staple food" vs "popular food choice", so hopefully the update will suffice - maybe it won't, so I'm simply seeking your opinion as a former collaborator, a scientist and someone who is knowledgeable about fish & aquariums. Atsme 💬 📧 21:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The source seems to me to be a detailed examination of how gar fry develop (developmental biology) and how that applies to aquaculture of them. Aside from that one phrase within one sentence in the Conclusion section, it's not really about how big or small a role in people's diets gar have. So it seems to me that, as an editorial matter, it can be "safe" to say "staple" and attribute that to this source, because that's literally the word they use – but it's not a source that I would want to use for how many days a week people eat it, or whether they eat it because they like it, or because they depend upon it for nutrition. Consequently, I think the IP was making a mountain over a molehill to argue with you about it. And I also think the best editorial strategy is to do exactly what you did in your most recent edit to the page: just drop the sentence entirely, and replace it with a more directly-relevant source, from which you quote verbatim. I think you handled it the right way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Request (TOA)

Regarding "Then, out of the blue, TOA posted a trollish comment that served only to complain that if BHG had been blocked, then MPants should have been, too."

That is not what I said. I respectfully request that you strike, and/or apologize for, the remaining part of that comment. Implying that I am a troll is a violation of NPA. And it is posted in a BHG section and not a MPants section, so per AGF you should interpret it as my opinion as to what should happen to BHG (rather than a complaint about how the MPants thread went). Thank you. 23:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

No, I'm not going to do that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Why not? 00:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

I stand by what I said, and I don't buy your reasoning in your request here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Thought of you when I saw this

A short jog down the road from me is a live underwater camera. The viz is poor right now, at least for anything beyond 5 to 10 feet in front of the camera. Looking out my window now, I can see some surface chop so the wind must have kicked-up a bit of sand in the shallow water (we have 50 to 100 ft. viz a little further out where the reef begins, but close to shore, it's not so good.) Anyway, there's an interesting diversity of reef fish that come and go, so it can be quite relaxing with the right kind of music in the background. About to be heading for the US in a few hours. Atsme 💬 📧 13:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a lovely thing to watch, and I've bookmarked it to watch often. Have a good and safe trip! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy Wiki-birthday, Trippyfish. Our interactions have been such a joy. I'm honestly glad I "found" you on Atsme's talk page. I spend a fair amount of time in user space because, in my opinion, building community relationships is a crucial element to improving the encyclopedia and the atmosphere surrounding it. --ARoseWolf 12:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, and once again congrats on your good news, at your talk page! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Your wiki-friend

Tryptofish,

I appreciate your efforts to give a thoughtful response] to my post at ANI. I will say that I was not surprised at the results. I predicted them myself -- people thinking that "pilgrim" is not a problem and not caring about the targeting, folks just piling in with the jokes, and nothing getting done. The end result is that I now have a powerful editor (and I'm ranking power not in admin-bits but in support and "wiki-friends") who has been effectively told that there is nothing against the rules about taking deliberate efforts with the sole apparent reason of making me uncomfortable, and that nothing will be done about it. No one even suggested that they should say that they wouldn't do this again in order to make this go away.

And yes, I am teetering on the edge of resigning Wikipedia. I am an editor with a long and substantial history of contributing to this project, and so of course I've dealt with a lot of problems -- determined vandals, aggressive and abusive COI editors, newbies whose vision for how Wikipedia should work overrides. Because I edit under my own name (a choice so that it's clear when I do and do not have a COI, as many of my personal interests are linked to my professional ones), the article about me has been subject to various retaliatory attacks, and I have been subject to off-wiki targeting. I've faced not just legal threats, I've actually had a purported billionaire file a lawsuit against me. Some of this just rolls off, some of this has caused a lot of unhealthy stress. I've gotten through it with a perfectly clean block log and, up until now, to the best of my recollection, never requesting nor receiving an interaction ban.

But now the problems are coming from "inside the house". Now I have a powerful, experienced editor who has decided to make me their target. They did, of course, have ample chance in the discussion to say that they wouldn't target me, but of course they only used their involvement in the thread to make jokes, give the old-back-and-forth with their wiki-chums, because the matter of deliberately abusing a fellow editor was not something they were at all concerned about. (And yes, I'm perfectly aware that they are likely to see this message. I fully expect they are glorying in the idea that they may have gotten under my skin enough to make me quit.) A group of admins just decided that it's a-okay for them to be deliberating making the editing environment here acidic. If I continue to edit, I am volunteering to be their ongoing target -- and I see their name often enough to know that our editing realms overlap.

So it's all very nice for you to write a message to me that you hope this doesn't drive me off... but what have you actually done to make that happen? What have you actually said to your "wiki-friend"? --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

NatGertler, you brought up an instance where EEng referred to you by a term you didn't like. EEng was told not to continue. If they do then it is grounds for harassing and hounding. Drag them back to AN/I and provide the diffs where they do it and the community can see this is not just a one off between two editors that happened to disagree on something. There is no official interaction ban. We specifically shot down any BOOMERANG against you as trivial and unnecessary. If you decide not to interact then that is your decision. Personally, I would just go on editing as I normally would. If you cross paths again then edit as you normally would. There is no reason to let this stop you from editing. Does it benefit the encyclopedia to have you stop editing? I don't think so. Don't be antagonistic if you come across them but state your position plainly and back it up with reliable sources. You'll be fine. Your feelings are valid because you are valid. Just keep going. --ARoseWolf 17:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

EEng was told not to continue. No, they were told that it was "probably best" if they didn't. No commands given. Dragging them back to ANI (not that they actually were "dragged" to ANI, they themselves saw no need to say anything of substance, and were only there for the larfs) would seem likely to have the same effect as taking the matter there in the first time -- he was, after all, warned by me that this could go to ANI, so being warned that it could go to ANI again would seem to have little impact. There is no reason to let this stop you from editing. I'm sorry you missed the part where the deliberate targeting of me and the group decision that my concerns are not just to be meaningful addressed but are to be derided are the source of stress, stress which can and does have genuine physical consequences. (In my field, at least one death has been attributed to a stroke that likely arose from stress over online arguments.) Yes, there are reasons for both happiness and health to discontinue my editing. My choosing to "just keep going" may well be the best thing for the Wikipedia, but given its current state, probably not the best thing for me. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Nat, since you love to quote what was said in the summary by the closer, I will make a few quotes myself, @EEng: please stop calling Nat Gerler "pilgrim"., It obviously bothers Nat and it should be stopped", EEng should stop calling Nat a pilgrim. That is three examples of EEng being directly requested or told they should stop or have stopped. Tryp came in and further chastised EEng by stating they shouldn't have said it and only made it worse by repeating it. In this case, it didn't rise to the level that the community felt was block worthy or even interaction ban worthy. That is not to say that, should it continue, it won't get there. If you decide to stop editing because someone goaded you into retirement then that's your choice. You are free to come or go as you choose. My suggestion to you was not just for the sake of the encyclopedia but also because your voice does matter. My position hasn't changed and wont change. I might be quirky, I definitely love to laugh and smile, but I am absolutely genuine and nothing I said to you was done haphazardly or dismissive of your feelings.--ARoseWolf 19:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nat, and first of all, thank you for taking the time to come here and discuss it with me.

You ask what I have done to tell EEng to show more courtesy to other editors, and that's a very fair question. And the truth is, that I have done so. Please let me direct your attention here. You need to scroll down to my comment beginning with "EEng, I have a bunch of things to say." The first paragraph of my comment is joking about the dispute of that time, but I hope you will see what I said in part of the second paragraph: In my experience, you are very frequently correct in your evaluations of editorial judgements here. But the fact that you are right and someone else is wrong does not entitle you to show off what a smarty-pants you are by making fun of them. It's really ugly. I mean it. Stop doing it. Bish wasn't wrong in terms of enacting consensus, but she was wrong in making it psychologically easier for you to figure that you were vindicated. She did you, personally, no favor. And you really, really need to get the message that you have every right to explain why you are correct about something, but no right to ridicule other editors who are wrong. So, yes, I've done that. And it wasn't the only time. I won't track down every time, but there is here, where, if you go down to my comment starting "FWIW", you will see me agreeing with advice from an admin, that EEng should stop mocking other editors. And, once I finish writing my reply to you here, I'm going to do it yet another time, and I'll post a diff here.

If you look up near the top of my talk page here, and at the current version of my user page, you will see that I am very serious about my concerns over declining civility here, and that it has led me to quit for a significant amount of time before coming back to a lesser amount of editing activity. And I sympathize with your real-life difficulties. I wouldn't want anyone to have to go through that. At the same time, EEng is a, well, complicated person. He is unquestionably smart and makes a lot of positive contributions here, but he also has a lot of pride, an annoying tendency to be a smarty-pants, and a flawed sense of whether other people will or will not think what he writes is funny. (Yes, I expect him to see that I said that.) People can tell him to change, but he also is who he is. And "pilgrim" isn't even close to being the worst thing he has ever said, nor is it, objectively, a particularly nasty thing to say. The fact that it pressed your buttons does, however, make it something that he should have immediately stopped repeating (and I expect him to see me say that, too). I can respect whatever choice you make about editing here or not, but I hope that you will know, in any case, that I sincerely wish you well. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

As promised, the diff of what I said I would do: [35]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Well said, Trypto. I find EEng very funny. Equally, as you've pointed out before, he's often a real pain in the admins. I meant no malice and I'm very sorry if Nat's feelings have been hurt. I know there's nothing worse than feeling belittled by gangs and cliques. Vast swathes of Wikipedia are so humourless that it's easy to get carried away with the slightest excuse for light-hearted ridicule. The entire scenario seemed to me (and still seems, I must admit) quite ridiculous. Perhaps Nat will forgive me for likening his predicament to a strong and punchy extra mature cheddar. [36] Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing me that older posted, Tryptofish. I recognize and respect your earnestness.

Nonetheless, I am about to go post an "extended Wikibreak" notice on my talk page, holding off claiming absolute retirement for now. And then I will do something I've not done in many years, if ever: log out. We'll see if I choose to stay off (or even if I can. I mean, I have some strong will, but sometimes the commas are in the wrong damn place!)

May you do well by Wikipedia, and may it do well by you. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

--Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Failed pings

Regarding this, I saw that thread and was going to notify you here about those totally unjustified comments, but it slipped my mind. Sorry about that. Anyway, I noticed that the OP oddly linked to your talk page instead of your user page, and wondered if that was the reason why the ping didn't go through. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this message, and no worries! Yes, linking to my talk is the reason for the failed ping. At this point, water under the bridge. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

And if anyone looks at that diff, please note that I subsequently corrected "SPI" to "SPA". lol. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Edits to others' user pages

Due to your history of failing to AGF regarding my edits, I have reverted your edits to my userspace.

I don't object to your idea per se, but rather I would prefer for there to be wider community input on it.

Thank you, 20:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

Duly noted. As for wider community input, be careful what you wish for. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 21:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

We edit conflicted, and I started a similar thread just below yours. WP:ANI#Gravedancing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Fishy

I know you probably get it a lot but just in case you don't, you are so amazing, my friend. --ARoseWolf 16:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Always nice to get the opportunity to say: +1  : ) - jc37 20:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

That's lovely! Thanks, both of you! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

You have been nominated

 You are invited to join the discussion at meta:Movement Charter/Affiliates by Region/North America. You have been nominated by User:RightCowLeftCoast, with meta:San Diego Wikimedians User Group, to be a region selector for North America (Canada, and the United States) for the Movement Charter selector committee. If you accept your nomination, please indicate it on the page. If you do not accept your nomination, please remove yourself from the list of potential selectors. Thanks in advance for your time regarding this nomination, and thanks for everything you have done so far on a Wikimedia project. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 21:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! (2)

	The Civility Barnstar
	For your level-headed and diligent comments at Wikipedia talk:Give 'em enough rope#Proposal: Remove text that refers to or implies death. I specifically appreciate you recognizing that my proposal was done in good faith. ––FormalDude talk 00:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that is truly nice of you! I think that, even when editors disagree, we should recognize that we are acting with good intentions. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Awwww, it's true and this was a very nice and well deserved gesture by FormalDude. I never lose faith in the positives of humanity despite all the negatives we sometimes encounter. You both are fine examples of the former. --ARoseWolf 19:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Group hug! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I do smell like fish for real, I've been hanging them in the smoke house today. --ARoseWolf 19:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

That's OK! You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot smoke a fish, nor tune one. Actually, that's not true, and I love lox! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian members of the Society for Neuroscience Wikipedia Initiative has been nominated for discussion

Category:Wikipedian members of the Society for Neuroscience Wikipedia Initiative has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Unsigned

Hi, Le Poisson de Trypto. (Poisson sans boisson est poison!) Thank you. That's Attic Salt. I thought of responding to them, but what I wanted to say would have been needlessly unkind for a retired user. Bishonen | tålk 05:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC).

No problem! Generally, I'm the polar opposite of the compulsively gnomish type, but there's something about unsigned comments that makes me want to clarify who it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tryptofish (talk • contribs) 17:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

“Why Are Our Brains Shrinking?”

A collection of "experts" after only three weeks of editing Wikipedia...

-- ME123

This student essay by USF student Savannah Robison from 2017 was featured on Hacker News today, and I immediately thought back to our discussion about Gerald Crabtree and the Idiocracy hypothesis. Do you have any comments about Robison’s essay? In yet another data point along this line of reasoning, have you read the studies about the reduction of cognitive function due to climate change (heat and air pollution)? Viriditas (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Synaptic pruning

Synaptic plum-ing. --Tryptofish

Interesting. First, my obligatory comedy routine, even though my friend Martin beat me to it, re: shrunken heads. But I certainly agree with him that my own brain has shrunk as a result of editing here. Or as a result of my being me, or something. Is Idiocracy a Wikipedia criticism website? Oh, and Republicans are definitely evolving dumber, probably from the microchips in their vaccines.

OK, now that I got that out of my system, down to the serious-ish answer. (See also: Brain size, Brain-to-body mass ratio, Encephalization quotient, List of animals by number of neurons, and Neuroscience and intelligence, keeping in mind that there have been long-time POV disputes with some of them.) I agree with some of the people she cites in her well-written essay, that smaller doesn't equate to dumber. (Size doesn't matter; it's what you do with it. Wink, wink.) As she notes, synaptic pruning among many other mechanisms can lead to brains that are smaller in terms of grey matter volume, but more efficient functionally. (Just as newer computers become more powerful and smaller with each new iteration. Just squishier.) Whether there's anything to the idea that changing evolutionary pressures are selecting less strongly for intellect, I dunno. One could make a case that smarter people tend to have fewer children, but that's subjective. As for pollution, I'd want to know if the brain size trends differ between built-up and rural parts of the world. Lead in drinking water, for example, can certainly cause neuron loss, sadly. As for recent climate change, there hasn't been enough time for it to have affected human evolution at the level of brain structure. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Synaptic pruning? I've had my fair share, thank you. But few more thankless tasks than skinning prunes. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I think rum and prune juice is the old person's cocktail. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Pretty much. Sorry for bringing this whole neurological thread down to my level. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I just became aware of the 2021 in science page, which lists this nugget for October:

Researchers describe and substantiate the hypothesis that the recent decrease in brain size in the last 3,000 years has resulted from externalization of knowledge and group decision-making, partly via social systems of distributed cognition and sharing of information.[37][38]

Am I correct in interpreting your above comments that you support the idea that "brain shrinkage parallels the expansion of collective intelligence in human societies"? Extrapolating further out in the future, does this also imply that we are losing our individuality and moving towards a hive mind-like form of consciousness? Indulge me, please. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

No indulgence needed; I enjoy discussing these kinds of things. First of all, whoever thought that those two sources were WP:DUE for a summary of the year in science was... wrong.

But about brain shrinkage, I'd be willing to go just far enough to say that it might parallel an increase in the efficiency of brain organization in individuals. In other words, as evolution and natural selection proceed over time, brains will tend to have fewer extraneous structural elements, and therefore might perhaps get smaller while also getting more efficient. But that's not the same as paralleling something happening to collective intelligence. If you gather some additional useful knowledge, that doesn't mean that I'm going to pass on a genetic change to make my descendants' brains more efficient.

Let's imagine that, with the development of human society, some people learn to become really good at farming, and some others learn to become really good at editing Wikipedia. If, hypothetically, those roles were made strictly and comprehensively inherited in families, I could imagine that, over generations, the farmers would develop really specialized farmer brains that don't need to do anything else, and the Wikipedians would develop really specialized editor brains that would just sit on the couch in their mother's basement and not need to do anything else. (OK, bad example, problem with Wikipedians never having offspring, but you get the idea.) In theory, that could lead to smaller and smaller brains that are more and more specialized. But that's not reality, because humans don't do the same tasks as their ancestors, or even their parents. The child of a farmer could become an editor, and the child of an editor could become a farmer. Consequently, there will be little or no evolutionary pressure over generations for the brains to specialize in such particular ways. Collectively, we've probably got less use for brain circuitry that watches for mastodons, but more use for brain circuitry that can type on a phone using thumbs.

As for hive-mind consciousness, I suppose a case can be made that crowdsourcing the writing of an encyclopedia is depending on a sort of collective summation of intelligence. But that's actually not a bunch of brains working together in some kind of coordination. It's a bunch of brains, each acting individually. There's this process of natural selection of which edits stick and which don't. But that process doesn't really result in all those brains coordinating their electrical activities. The dumbass POV-pusher who gets reverted is unlikely to get a more efficient brain as a result of the revert. I don't really know what I think about brains becoming more "hive"-like. I know that I find the thought distasteful and dystopian, at least in the science fiction form of a city full of brains that fire action potentials or theta waves in unison. But, with Facebook algorithms, who knows what will happen? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Can I have some fun for a moment? Bernard Crespi, professor of evolutionary biology at Simon Fraser University, takes E. O. Wilson’s controversial idea of loosely characterizing humans as eusocial in his speculative article "The Insectan Apes" (2013). I was wondering if you had seen it, or if you think any of his ideas should be taken seriously. In an altogether different domain, you’re probably well aware of the psychological research both Nicholas G. Carr and Sherry Turkle cite in their popular books about how the Internet is changing our brains. Bottom line: what if we are evolving to become less human-like we were in the past and more insect-like in our behavioral future? And would this be truly all that surprising given that insects are the most evolutionary successful organisms on the planet? Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Since we're speaking of insects, and since KoA is an expert on them and I think he is watching here, I'll invite him (or anyone else watching, for that matter) to weigh in as well.

Well, as I see it, it certainly is speculative. And Crespi does note that humans/primates have the evolutionary pressures of large brains, unlike insects. As for insects being the most evolutionary successful organisms, one can also make a case for bacteria and fungii as being even more successful, which would present problems in terms of making such a brain-oriented argument. And evolutionary success could look very different after a catastrophic climate disruption. I actually have not been following any of those authors, but it occurs to me to point to parallel evolution in this regard. It's one thing to point to a fairly specific phenotypic trait for such evolutionary similarities: an organism that looks very similar to another, venomous, species, to dissuade predators. But for humans and insects, the similarities are not so morphologically definable. Certainly, there are ways in which populations of people assign roles to individuals, and there are insect species that have workers, soldiers, and reproducers. But, similarly to what I said in my previous answer, insects will tend to be locked into their genetic roles for life (barring, for example, the death of the queen bee, and a new queen emerging), whereas humans can move fluidly from one work role to another. So where Crespi notes "extensive divisions of labor", the mechanisms of how those divisions arise are quite different. There are certainly ways in which humans share food and make decisions cooperatively. But it feels to me like the comparisons are as much metaphorical as scientifically literal: there are interesting ways in which insect behaviors look like things humans do, but it doesn't mean that the neurological mechanisms are comparable.

Is internet culture changing our brains? Are internet algorithms doing so? In terms of how humans act, it sure looks that way, and not in a good way. Will that be selected for in evolution? It's way too soon to know (barely one generation of gene selection). I could say, half-facetiously, that some people are turning into [insert name of animal that would be most pejorative]. Are people becoming more conformist? Maybe. Does that make the conformists more like ants in an ant hill? As a metaphor, OK (maybe like lemmings, too). Does it mean that our brains are evolving towards having less cerebral cortex and more brainstem? I don't know, I kind of doubt it, and I hope not. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

E. O. Wilson is one of my favorites in terms of his sheer fondness for ants. I haven't read that particular one yet, but he has definitely been getting a little far "out there" in recent years that I attribute to a well-known elder scientist taking some (well-deserved) artistic license. I wouldn't say going off the deep end or anything like that, just more in the vein of colorful language, but I can't say his recent ideas are really taken extremely seriously. I'd say they are best treated as thought provoking for the more philosophical rather than hard science realm. KoA (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Now you tell me! I just invested all my cash in formicarium futures, since as we become more insect-like, people will naturally gravitate to living on ant farms. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, yes! Such are the perils of formication. And do look at that page – the hatnote is priceless! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I feel like that face is judging me. KoA (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The insects' revenge! Just imagine being judged by these faces. And for a different kind of judging, I followed some see also's and found Jay Traver, quite a buggy story! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

And, of course, Neopalpa donaldtrumpi. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

That reminds me some interesting drama back then. Talk:Neopalpa_donaldtrumpi#RFC_on_penis_size & Talk:Neopalpa_donaldtrumpi#Size_doesn't_matter based on the last line of Neopalpa_donaldtrumpi#Description. KoA (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I remember that, too. Good times. Also, I thought of Roach Motel as an alternative to a formicarium. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

E. O. Wilson, one of the true giants. RIP. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Boo!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Tryptofish:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 21:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, boo! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Your sub-section, your choice

I read it. It's a proposal for sure. But, since it's a sub-section that you started? I won't be getting into a needless edit-war with you, over it. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate that you did it in good faith, but it was the third or fourth or something time that it happened in a matter of minutes, and I felt like enough is enough. In my opinion, although there are proposal aspects to it, it's not like the other proposals, and yes, I started that subsection. For those watching, it's about this. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

May I suggest that you elaborate on the sub-heading? Just having the said-editor's name, creates a grey area feel to it. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll think about it, but I'm feeling kind of pooped over the whole thing at this moment. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

"Never ignore a poo poo" ;) GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll try to remember that! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Short memory

It helps to have a short memory when working on this project. The problem is diffs never let anyone forget. At ANI I had to refresh my memory about why you would be ruffled, and then I made myself re-read the dustup over the ARS template from 2 years ago. And reading that I also saw Dlthewave's edit warring over some random list I posted there, and etc. and on and on. I prefer not to remember these things - ever. Later I participated in many GEO AfDs with Dlthewave and even proposed Geo items for deletion that he ivoted on. However points contention arose when I had a different opinion about some GEO related subjects - we all know what happened next - no need for re-litigation. In ANI - editors like yourself and many others remember these points of friction and hurriedly dredge up the fractious diffs. FYI:I may petition so that I am allowed to only ivote delete in the future. Because nobody ever had a problem with my many delete ivotes even though they are decidedly less reasoned. just kidding

I am sure you are a good guy, and I was about to post an apology on ANI about the friction over the ARS template after my memory was refreshed, but then I saw you mixing it up with DF - and going after him. I decided not to say anything because it seemed any post from me drew negativity or suspicion. Chum in the water. Next I saw your support for my ouster with a rationale that made my jaw drop. It was quite literally a feeding frenzy in that place. One Arbcom member said he watched with baited breath. I am probably not ever going to post any article on ARS again. I have only been involved for about two years, and yet I bear the brunt for 12 years of bad feelings. If I had a long memory I would be unable to continue after the terrible things which have been said.

I am enjoying my time away from AfD. I spent way to many hours deletion sorting every day and night. And I spent many hours working on deletion related articles, or tied up in questions about rationales. Have a look at the discussion for Big John dinosaur: I saw an argument in that AfD over the size of the specimen, so I spent 4 hours gathering newspaper articles about the size of the specimen going back to 1892. Turns out nobody cared. So I now have that time for other encyclopedic endeavors. And I wish everyone luck in getting along - my own opinion is that ANI is not a community - it is a horror show with almost no rules, and a terrible way to treat volunteers. With time I will erase these hateful things from my memory. My best. Lightburst (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Lightburst. Thank you for coming here to discuss it with me, and for writing this thoughtful explanation of your views. For those watching, the prompt for this message was that I saw Lightburst post some comments at ARS, and gave him some (hopefully) friendly advice that he might be (unintentionally) violating his topic ban.

About me supposedly "going after" that other editor, here is the (recent memory) diff of what I first posted at ANI, expecting it to be my only comment about it: [39]. My talk page watchers can decide for themselves whether or not I was "going after" anyone. Then, in response, the other editor to whom Lightburst refers replied to that comment of mine, personalizing it about me, dredging up diffs from the past, misrepresenting them, and making personal attacks on me. And yes, I replied to that ([40]).

Anyway, Lightburst, that's good that you are finding ways to enjoy your editing away from deletion discussions. That's always a good thing to be able to do, after all. I disagree with a lot of what you say in your comment here, but I don't want to dwell on that unless you want me to explain further. I do think that you need to be careful that you really understand what you are restricted from, and that you need to avoid seeing ARS, and those with concerns about it, as us-versus-them. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Gosh, I'd strongly advise against ever putting your Chum in the water... Wikipeida can be a cruel place. But glad to see I'm not the only one with a short memory. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

right? I always try to work with people even after they have been unkind. Some kind of character flaw I have. Some people I hang onto the hate and bear grudges. I give it three tries, like I did in that diff I sent. And Tryptofish, I am not some kind of AfD nut. I found that I enjoyed the pressure of improving the article with a time limit. I already wrote an article yesterday: Circle the wagons (idiom), and in the past month about 30 articles. See you guys around on the project. Lightburst (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I should know better than to post on your page or respond to you in any way. It will not happen again. You can stay off my talk page from now on and I will do the same. Happy editing. Lightburst (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

This was about: [41]. So it goes. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing that on my talk page. I'm on very sporadically now so I don't catch things but that would have annoyed me as well. You are very free to make MOS alterations to my talk page. I respect you and you have earned my trust. I will probably rethink the layout when I fully return or if I get in that mood to do so before. I have to get my mind in the right frame for the long winter though so I will be on less and less over the next few days and weeks. --ARoseWolf 15:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

You are, of course, very welcome, and I was happy to do it. Have a great winter! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Would you be willing to launch the RfC?

Hi Tryptofish,

I appreciate you being a voice of reason and neutrality over at the ArbCom talk page. Reading your latest comment about the possibility of a new RfC, it occurred to me that perhaps the best option would be for you to launch it yourself. Given that recent attempts by Ferahgo [42] and Gardenofaleph [43] to do just that haven't met with success, and since you seem to have a much more comprehensive understanding of what makes a consensus solid than any of us who are parties to the dispute, it seems that this is likely the best (and perhaps only) way for your suggestion to really proceed as you've outlined it. Thoughts? Generalrelative (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. (For talk page watchers, it's about this; scroll down to where you see me in the discussion.) I'm more than happy to give advice, and I was motivated to give advice here, partly because my wiki-friend MPants was dedicated to the subject but has stepped back from editing en-wiki, plus I have a lot of respect for DGG. But, myself, I'm trying to stay away from too much involvement in contentious stuff (see my user page). So I really don't want to play a primary role in constructing or launching the RfC, sorry. I'll certainly give an opinion in it after it launches. Beyond that, I'm willing to respond to questions and give advice during the construction phase, so it's fine to ask me what to do on a particular issue that comes up. But I'd rather not put myself out there as the person in front. If you want to see what a super-sized version of such an RfC looks like – way more than what you need here! – I'll toot my own horn by pointing to WP:GMORFC (the consensus from that has lasted years!). Perhaps it will give you some ideas. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Understood! Thanks for the thoughtful response. To be clear, I don't think NightHeron or I or any of the other consensus defenders can launch it either. As you can probably tell from the tone of the conversation over at ArbCom, it's unlikely that any RfC we launch will be accepted as legitimate by opponents of the consensus no matter how many best practices we follow. This will be up to either those opponents or else an uninvolved editor who's willing to step up to do –– and I imagine that the process would be much healthier for the project if it were the latter. In any case, I appreciate where you're coming from here and I thank you again for your suggestions. Generalrelative (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe ask DGG? (You can point him to here.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems that DGG is against the idea of a new RfC too [44]. In any case I really would prefer to see this done by someone without a stated allegiance to either side. Regarding bickering, it's a difficult situation to see allegations being flung around so casually, without evidence, on such a high profile forum without responding. With the recent descent into outright conspiracy theory by at least one opponent of the consensus [45], I'd suggest that NightHeron should be forgiven for responding at length. But I am, of course, involved in the content dispute myself, so perhaps I'm not seeing things as an outside observer might. Any further advice you might have to give about how best to handle things would be most welcome. Generalrelative (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, thanks for asking. I was actually thinking of saying the following a few days ago, but now I definitely think it applies even more. There's no rush for an RfC. I proposed it on the basis that it's (obviously) preferable to the (insert facepalm) that is going on now. But if a lot of the most interested parties don't want to do it now, then there's no urgent need. After all, without a change in consensus, the status quo remains in effect. If others want instead to carefully research sources, that's fine. If anyone wants to continue sniping, just stay out of it. I've come to think that, although the ideal RfC would be drafted collaboratively by both "sides" together, it's better to let the people who disapprove of what they see as the current consensus draft it when they are ready, and therefore to "own" the RfC that results. The more they procrastinate, the more one can say "let's settle this with an RfC". For you and I, as a hypothetical example, to go forward with an RfC now, would be wasted effort. If others want things to change, then let them do the initial work. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. I very much appreciate hearing your perspective. Generalrelative (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Rigged election! Rigged election!

Well, no.

But User:Tryptofish/ACE2021. Vote early and often. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

November songs

The memory of SlimVirgin is pictured again today, in the context of my dangerous thoughts about arbcom. I mentioned you here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Bits

"I'm selling some of those bits on ebay."

I may entertain the idea if those bits come with chips. --ARoseWolf 19:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

For those wondering, we're talking about [46] and [47]. I figure it's time for me to cash in on Wikipedia. As for whether I was also making a double entendre... --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Wait, did you say you want to eat fish and chips? No eat fish! No eat fish! Help! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

There is this place called the Bamboo Room in Haines that makes the best fish & chips. We are way past "no eat fish". lol Just wanted to have a little fun with you, Tryp. Thanks for indulging me.--ARoseWolf 19:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

--Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Whether we're talking food, or double entendre, got me looking for this. Alas, Anthony Bourdain is much missed. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Good, I got you thinking and reminiscing over something cherished. That's the real gem from all of this and the joy I get out of it. Thank you for sharing! --ARoseWolf 20:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Get back in the attic, Miss Wikihavisham! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all around. It looks as though I was successful at monetizing my bits, even if it got a bit nasty. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

That's spinnerbait not spinster, Martinevans123. Should have known you would go after something shiny, even if it digital, Tryp. :) --ARoseWolf 18:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank You for your Arbitration Committee Elections 2021 Voter Guide

Hello Tryptofish, I would like to thank you for publishing and providing your voter guide for Arbitration Committee Elections 2021 at User:Tryptofish/ACE2021. It has been very helpful and useful to me in learning about the pros & cons of all the different candidates with respect to their suitability for Arbitration Committee. It had proper detailed analysis and rationale on every candidate and helped me in voting informatively. Thanks. TheGeneralUser (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@TheGeneralUser: And thank you very much for the kind words. Although I nearly didn't bother to write a guide this year, I decided at the last minute to do so and am glad that I did. It means a lot to me when other editors find my guide helpful, so I'm very glad to hear that. I attempt to be reasonably polite in what I say about each candidate, and to write it in a manner that I hope provides useful information about suitability, rather than to simply harp on a pet peeve or responses to a single question. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tryptofish. I liked your guide and it's my guess it will fairly accurately reflect the results. 52% of the votes were cast on day 1 of the ballot. You might find this full analysis of the campaign to be of interest. You are welcome to leave your thoughts on its talk page. Take care, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Thank you very much as well. Given that there were 11 running for 8 seats, I suspect that this will be a year where it will be pretty easy to have some matching between guide supports and the actual results. But, as I say every year in my guides, it's not my purpose to predict the outcome, and I don't much care whether I do or not. I'm really focused on the suitability (or lack thereof) of the candidates. As a matter of fact, I had already been looking at your analysis, and was interested in the concentration of voting on the first day. I haven't yet looked much at my guide's page views, but if I read your graph correctly, even though my views over time were not very high, I seem to have had a very large peak on that first day of voting, when perhaps it mattered most (or not). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

There's not a lot to predict. It's more a question of who will be the three who don't get in, thus the result is going to be fairly obvious. Not a healthy sign for this kind of election or the future performance of Arbcom where there are barely enough candidates to fill the seats. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I think there's a real possibility of people getting onto the Committee who probably should not be there. (I'll bring the popcorn.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

That's the main risk and it does happen (in my opinion) each year there is a low ratio of candidates to vacant seats. Perhaps the election should be restructured to get more candidates. For example, have the community nominate candidates, those who don't want to run could remove themselves from the list, and then hold run off elections. Just an idea... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Nadolig llawen a blwyddyn newydd dda

		Nadolig llawen a blwyddyn newydd dda
		So here's some Jingle Wings and some Jingle Navidad Cubana and some Bryn and some Crickmore:Crewe just for you!! Very best wishes for Christmas and the New Year. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Diolch, Martin, a'r un peth i chi! (I think!) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm well impressed, Trypto."You put the suck in Abersychan"! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, I suck at a lot of things. Sialciwch hi i fyny i Google translate. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

"Peidiwch byth â methu, gwers bob amser." (... my life at Wikipedia). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC) "tidy darts"

Do give my best wishes to Bob (Bob Amser). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

In fact, I think he and I are related. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and a half-sister for Hanner Amser, allegedly. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm allegedly half-fish. (I'm actually half American, and half human.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

You put the fish in Fishguard... and the cod in Betws-y-Cod... and the ray in Rayader! --Dan Fish 123 (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Coddy McCodface was a, um, member of Greenpeace, but formed the splinter group Codpeace to protect the Atlantic cod.^{[cetacean needed]} --Tryptocod
Piece, bro! Atsme 💬 📧

And I may or may not put the cod in cod-peace. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be spelled "piece"? Atsme 💬 📧 19:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Nope. But that's what I blue-linked it to. (And many of the images in the Commonscat for that topic are quite amusing.) And, a whole lot of Nadolig llawen or whatever that is, to you, too! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

My naieveté is showing. . I'll recipricate with words most familiar to our en.wikipedia - Be merry and safely enjoy the holiday spirits! 🍻 Atsme 💬 📧 19:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

And may the next year be a lot better than the one that's ending. And I hope your house-move is reaching or has reached a satisfactory completion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Tryp - it already promises to be! As for the house-move, it probably would have been easier had I actually been able to move the house to the new ranch. I still have two more rooms to go with a deadline of Jan 12th on my extended lease. I'm thinking 1 day to pack/move it, and a month to unpack/place it. Once that's done, I can get started on decorating the bar/stage/entertainment area in the barn. Atsme 💬 📧 20:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

--Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

If your nativity is showing, you're probably best off getting a stable. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Nothing to be embarrassed about, it happens to everyone. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy new era

Your friend Bishzilla and all her socks wish you a happy and healthy new Jurassic era! Bishonen | tålk 08:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

Thanks, and a great big ROARRR back to all of you! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year|

I hope the new year is treating you well. I noticed that Yoga nidra is up as a GA nomination, and since you are one of my favorite scientific skeptics that I respect and I admire, I thought I should consult you in advance of even taking this nomination. On first glance, it appears somewhat problematic in terms of its health and medical claims in the context of science. I’m not asking you to devote any kind of time to this, but rather a cursory look of about a minute. My spidey sense tells me this could be a problem, and maybe shouldn’t be up for a nomination. Viriditas (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the kind words, and of course, best wishes for the New Year to you too!

I've looked at the article, and I'll try to identify the issues as they apply to GA criteria, without actually making a conclusion about whether or not it should pass GA. First, I think there is some WP:PEACOCK language that could easily be toned down: "among the deepest possible states of relaxation" in the State of consciousness section needs to be preceded to "said by its practitioners to be". And "single-observation study of a famous yogi" in the Scientific evidence section needs to lose "famous".

I think the central issue is that all of the claims about health effects need to have sourcing that complies with WP:MEDRS. Some of it is simply cited to non-independent sources from the yoga community, and needs to be presented as assertions made by practitioners, rather than as fact. Of the content that is cited to scientific journals, most of it is to very small primary source studies (very small in terms of numbers of people), and MEDRS requires secondary sources, reviews of the literature. I think there is only one fully MEDRS-compliant review, which is source 16, Parker (2019). MEDRS can still permit cautiously-worded content cited to primary sources, but it needs to make clear that the evidence is preliminary. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I invited the user to this discussion in the hopes that they could fix the issues before anyone starts the review. Although I consider myself a people person in public, for some reason, my skills don’t translate well into text on Wikipedia, and I think you could communicate the issue with the editor far better than I can. Thanks for taking a look. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it from the point of view of scientific caution. The article is not at all salesy but I can certainly make it clear what is yoga-talk and what is tentative evidence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Only Half

"I'm allegedly half-fish. (I'm actually half American, and half human.)"

Well, if that isn't a tabloid scandal I don't know what is. There must be some reason to take this to the drama boards.

Touching my Talk Page again too. Trypyfish really knows how to make the girls blush.

Hope you have an amazing year ahead of you, my friend. --ARoseWolf 18:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, and Happy New Year to you, too! (And if anyone really wants to blush...) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For moving the convos on User talk:ARoseWolf to be within the styling. Honestly I would be doing it myself however lately I haven't been feeling the best and haven't had much time to do minor things like that. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words – and get well soon! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I've been doing my best. The thing I'm mostly worried about is that I may somehow have CoVID, despite me having gotten the vaccine, mainly because some of my other classmates who went on the band trip to the Alamo Bowl have gotten CoVID since returning home. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's quite understandable. For what it's worth, because you are vaccinated, it's unlikely that COVID would make you seriously ill. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Skepticism and coordinated editing arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence. Please note: per Arbitration Policy, ArbCom is accepting private evidence by email. If in doubt, please email and ArbCom can advise you whether evidence should be public or private. Please add your evidence by January 31, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. You may unsubscribe from further updates by removing your name from the case notification list.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Very sage and sound advice offered. You know all to well how these things typically go whether you respond to the case or not. Maybe with new arbitrators it will be different. You are correct that if you do not participate it will most likely end poorly for the accused. In most cases I would say to fight but if the results are equal then fighting may have delayed the end result but ultimately you suffer from more wounds along the way. --ARoseWolf 18:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, you saw what I wrote, and the less that I say further about it, at least here, the better. I feel rather sad about the whole thing, but, what can one do. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you. And it's okay not to talk about it. You don't have to. I know. I share in the sadness you feel. One is quite limited in what they can do about things outside their control (circle of influence) but no one can limit our own compassion and kindness directed at others. --ARoseWolf 18:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy

Whatever the result of the ArbCom case, your neutrality, open-mindedness, and concern for the principles related to this case is sure to have a positive effect on its resolution. I look forward to coming across your signature in the future, hopefully in less heated environments. I see on your user page that you have dabbled in retirement, but I'm glad you stayed long enough to help out this time. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, especially considering that my evidence has been somewhat critical of you. Let me put it this way: like most ArbCom cases, this one is far too full of editors simply trying to say that everyone on the other side is bad. And that's not good. Anyway, I hope that you will find the feedback you have been getting as a result of the case to be a learning experience. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

While it has been critical of me, it does paint a better, more complete picture of what's been going on. Additionally, I see the criticisms as professional ones and not personal ones so they don't bother me, especially seeing how they're (in my opinion) deserved. I'm certain that I will learn much more from the case as it progresses, although the whole way here has been filled with lessons. Hopefully my future endeavors here will involve less dispute resolution, and I think my involvement with the WikiCup and increased work at FAR is a good forecast for that. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

A lot of us aren't saying everyone on the other side is bad. I'm saying the whole topic area is a toxic battleground, and nothing good can happen until that's addressed. We can't get community action against an editor using a (intentionally vague here) source they have a COI with to coat rack negative information into BLPs, and going so far as inserting that negative information into other BLP articles. As soon as any of that is brought up at a noticeboard a group of editors starts calling it a witch-hunt, hurling insults and attacks, and assuming the "other side" are a bunch of pro fringe editors, likely because there are a lot of pro fringe editors they've had to deal with. That's why it's at arbcom. Even just some decent principals and DS would help immensely. Being able to go to AE and post some diffs of poor behavior and get some sort of structured discussion would be huge. And, for the most part, incivility and attacks are tolerated far less at AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

SFR, I've really just gotten to know you recently, and it's unfortunate that it's been via the inevitable unpleasantness of an ArbCom case. From what I can tell, you are very smart and have a good sense of humor, two things that I like a lot, and I hope that in better times ahead, we will end up as wiki-friends. That said, I'm going to do something I'm known to do with my wiki-friends, which is to tell you the unvarnished truth as I see it. Whether you meant to or not, yes, you have been saying (in effect) that everyone on the other side is bad. All of your evidence is of what you think is bad behavior, and there is precious little about extenuating circumstances or context. And you've been reacting to every rebuttal (including mine) with a give-no-ground tit-for-tat. The impression that gives is of a partisan who wants ArbCom to resolve a content dispute in your favor. You complain about "stonewalling", but what I see in that evidence is a dispute that you lost because consensus was against you and you failed to convince other editors. They were not stonewalling, but just telling you what they think, and you didn't like what you heard. If things go the way they're supposed to, ArbCom is going to decline to overturn the consensus to your liking. But I know from long experience that things often go off the rails in ArbCom cases, with sad results. I have a bad feeling, as I just told Celestina in the talk section below, that they are going to site-ban Roxy.

You said that you'd like to have DS, so things could be brought to AE. There are already DS for pseudoscience, so that's already available within that topic area. But if you want DS for "skepticism", I'd suggest that you propose on the Workshop page how to define that topic area. That would be a very good idea, one that I could support. But I, for one, don't have a clue as to how to define that topic area. I suppose it could be BLPs about skeptics and their detractors, but we already have DS for all BLPs. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

What I was writing below while you wrote that almost works as a response. Know that I have no ill will towards any participants, even Roxy, whose been nothing but mean in every interaction with me. Look at my discussion with Alexbrn on my talk page. I'd consider us on good terms, despite my posting some of their diffs as evidence. As far as it being a content dispute, I really don't edit much in the skeptic area, and I've stayed fairly clear of whatever the article I used for stonewalling evidence. There's no article I'm seeking to change here, just editor behavior that's contrary to policy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

So Roxy has been nothing but mean to you, and yet you have no ill will. Pardon me if I roll my eyes. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I've been on the internet far too long to give a shit about mean words in text. Someone that traveled 2000 miles to come to my wedding was originally someone I had "strongly worded" arguments on irc with. I don't care that Roxy is a dick, or acts like a dick. If he hadn't blocked me from his talk page I would give him the same expression of concern and hope you did over the chemotherapy disclosure, and it would be heartfelt. I'm old enough to realize that you don't always get along with everyone, and a handful of interactions is not the measure of a person. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Just to date myself a bit, back in the early 90s, on a MajorBBS, there was a guy who was my absolute enemy. We were constantly antagonistic to each other, griefed each other in Swords of Chaos and Tradewars, and generally didn't get along. Until we did. He ended up being one of my closest friends for over a decade. Mean words in text are no reason to hold actual, real world, bad will. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Either you aren't bothered by it, or you are making a big deal about it at ArbCom. But you can't have it both ways. And no, you don't need to WP:LASTWORD me here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't going to reply, cause you went and hit me with the ol' last word, but alas, I'm going to be that guy. I am more than capable of, on one hand, of bearing no ill will to someone and not being personally bothered by their words, and on the other hand, recognizing that their behavior is bad. The two are not exclusive.

Sorry for being that guy and replying after WP:LASTWORD was invoked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

[48] and here's this so you can see what I've been aiming for since I first got involved. I think with the arbcom case things are likely to end up with stronger consequences for those involved. If the area weren't such a battleground this whole hullabaloo could have been resolved with some voluntary restrictions and a handshake. Or the person with the COI had said "I won't do that anymore," instead of attacking other editors with legitimate, good faith concerns, they wouldn't be in front of arbcom with dozens of diffs of bad behavior on the evidence page. The skeptic POV is, for the most part, the default POV of the encyclopedia, so there's plenty of sympathy and forbearance for skeptic editors. If any path other than "there will be no compromise" were taken, we wouldn't be here. And if this type of editing were done by almost any other POV, or group, or however you want to classify it, they would be blocked already. They were in a unique position to give a little ground and be fine with it, instead everyone's time is being wasted, and there's a fair chance we'll lose one or more editors in the topic area, if not more. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll assume that you didn't see my reply until after you posted that additional part. I've deliberately not posted anything on the case pages that would "defend" the GSoW editors who were the original named parties, for much the same reasons you point out here. What I have done on the case pages is differentiate between policies and guidelines. COI and canvassing are guidelines; civility is a policy, but one that has never had agreement about what it means. On the other hand, socking/meatpuppetry, edit warring, and BLP violations are policy. I hope the focus will be on violations of those things. But if it gets into COI that was declared but not enough, notices on boards that might or might not have been canvassing, and huffy comments in talk, there is the likelihood of bad outcomes. I've thought hard about whether things would be different if the POV were something the opposite of skepticism. Yes, it would be different, but I think that's appropriate. The NPOV policy makes skepticism the house POV, but that's consensus, not some kind of cabal thing. Now if some users are making BLP violations and using skepticism as a fig-leaf, that's what ArbCom should be looking at. And when the discussion devolved to where some pro-skeptic editors thought there was a "witch hunt", they were reacting too bluntly to criticisms that were also too blunt. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Communicating with established knowledgeable editor

Coming from Bishonen TP, this comment scared me, I’m a little too preoccupied to do read through every entry at the Case page, but please what exactly do you mean by “lose us some good editors” I note both ScottishFinnishRadish & Roxy the dog are listed as involved parties, and these are editors I have respect for, are they likely to get into any trouble? Please could you explain this to me? Celestina007 (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Part of the context that I'm sure Bish understood implicitly is the way that the ArbCom Medicine case caused us to lose RexxS. In this case, the person I am especially worried about is Roxy; if you look at his talk page, you can see what I've been saying to him. And yes, I am very worried. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

May I worry with you, Tryp? I only know RexxS through you and Gerda exposing me to his contributions but the very first real ArbCom case I read through was his and then I kept hearing of others so I dug into the archives (I like to read and absorb information) and, sure enough, found others. I may not necessarily agree with the actions of those brought before ArbCom but I rarely felt that those actions warranted the response given to them. I don't blame the arbitrators, per se. These issues are more to do with the mechanisms and results of the process. How many cases, like the one going on now, resulted in no casualties, no loss and no harm? I can't help but feel the foreboding doom from the dark clouds building on the horizon. Can there be a rainbow at the end? I just don't know. --ARoseWolf 15:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf: one of the Arbs said at acceptance of the case To all parties: this case is one where it is possible I won't vote for any sanctions; I can see us acting to clarify the bounds of what is acceptable and what is not (possibly with the benefit of private evidence) without stern remedies. [49] This may still come true. I think they made a mistake in apparently broadening the scope and all of a sudden declaring Roxy the dog a named party, but perhaps they will pull back a bit from that now. In any case, I retracted my evidence because I realize now that it doesn't belong there and that I made a mistake in bringing it there. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom - the incivility issue

Hi Tryptofish! I see that you quoted me on the ArbCom workshop page, conveying my position that I am not seeking sanctions, and I sincerely hope that no sanctions apart from a warning or two will come from this case. While that remains very much true, I feel that it should not be ignored that I followed that up with What I do want, however, is an acknowledgment of the fact that there indeed is a civility problem, and that it needs to be addressed. If there is no such acknowledgment, if indeed the problem will just continue, I do think that sanctions would become appropriate at some point.

Since I posted my evidence, two editors have already made unsubstantiated comments about my competency, one editor calling my evidence flawed "reasoning" without even attempting to explain why this should be so, and another telling me if you want to debate, learn how to do it first. In itself this is really nothing, and perhaps even to be expected in the context, but what I'm trying to show with it is how the broader pattern just continues. The common thread here is a habit of repeatedly and aggressively asserting that other editors are unable to reason correctly, without substantiating these assertions and without a real willingness to investigate or defend their accuracy. The irony, of course, is that this is itself a fallacy (proof by assertion), and indeed one of the ad hominem variety. Ever since Jimmy Wales used the words "lunatic charlatans" to fend off an actual and dangerous fringe organization, some editors have felt it their right to frame anyone they disagree with as pro-fringe, and to simply assert that they are pushing crazy ideas and unable to make a logically valid argument.

Look, I'm really not one to complain of such things if they happen once or twice. But it's so habitual, so ingrained, that it creates a toxic editing environment. And this does hurt the encyclopedia. Competent, productive editors like Bilorv [50], like myself [51], are being chased away from the topic area. I know not how many others, especially newbies, will not even try to edit an article again after being so unduly derided and ridiculed the first time around. It also skews article content: contrary to a widespread rumor, Wikipedia is not supposed to be biased. The scientific skeptic or activist atheist POV of individual editors is not always identical to the POV of mainstream academic sources. I've seen it happen more than once that experienced editors presuppose they know what the sources are saying, and are simply not willing to have an honest look at them. The result is that they'll push inaccurate and/or undue article content, while at the same time ridiculing a perceived pro-fringe editor for pointing to accurate and/or due content in the sources.

I fully understand your concern about losing valuable editors over a heap of drama. I don't want that. But I think that you're failing to consider that we equally risk losing valuable editors by allowing this rampant toxicity and POV-pushing to continue. In the long term, trying to prevent the former without trying to prevent the latter will not work. We need to stop closing our eyes to uncivil behavior until it becomes so bad that editors get banned, or retire because they come to perceive the slightest push-back against their behavior as an intolerable impugnment (this is what I believe happened to MjolnirPants). Even if we manage to keep the uncivil ones on board, it won't do to ignore all the good ones they tossed in the water. But really, if we could stop the tossing itself, all problems would be solved at once, and this is what we should really aim for. We should do everything we can to avoid sanctions, but never at the expense of allowing the problem to continue.

I believe that you yourself are not editing in the skepticism/fringe area, nor on religious topics, another subject area which shares a large part of the same editor base. What I'm doing above is trying to give you a perspective from within these subject areas. Maybe one has to see the incivility happen, the editors being chased away, the content being skewed (I should hasten to add that this aspect is perhaps rather minor), the enormous amounts of time needed at the talk page to set that content straight, etc., to get a sense that there really is a problem. If you've got 750 words on the ArbCom evidence page, there's only so much you can bring forward, so you select some of the worst you've seen. But really, it's only the tip of the iceberg. It's certainly not 'throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks'. I believe that the problem is not well perceived by many because they do not share the quixotic interest to heavily edit in these areas without having the pro- or anti-fringe goals that usually come with it, and so I'm kind of a lonely voice in this. I accept that, but I thought I'd share my perspective with you. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

If you don't want your flawed "reasoning" called-out, stop doing it. You are producing rubbish arguments: and that is explained why on the page you link to. If you're going to adopt the role of offensive prosecutor (which you have chosen to do), and be effective, you need to be truthful and plain, not wrong and manipulative. Alexbrn (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I have explained myself at length at Pyrrho the Skipper's talk page, twice. One more time: if you're not willing to engage with that, that's fine. Really! But if instead you're going to continue calling it rubbish, all you're doing is reinforcing my point. You've done that enough now, so please do not follow me around with it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Before I get to the main part of my reply, I want to suggest to Alexbrn (who, by the way, is welcome here): I think it would be helpful if you could contribute on the case pages, particularly with evidence, if you can. (I'm not canvassing you to do that, but commenting in response to your comment on my talk.)

Now, to Apaugasma, I actually have been in the thick of controversial religious topic editing, just not recently. (Take a gander at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Christian terrorism.) I was the filing party in the ArbCom case about GMOs. And I know my way around a lot of other fraught topics, such as animal rights, and I'm plenty familiar with what happens with incivility. (In fact, a long time ago, ArbCom had a case called Incivility, and I gave evidence in that.) And you just have to look at the top of my talk page now to see that I've had some experience of my own with feeling like being driven off WP by unpleasant editors. And what my friend MPants had to deal with was far from slight.

I also didn't say "shit": I said "throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks". [52]. I know you had limited word and diff counts, but you could have presented less, not more. A lot of the criticism that has been directed at you by me and by others is valid, and I stand by what I said in my own comments. Now as for your desire that there be an acknowledgment of the problem in the final decision, that's something that I fully support (as long as ArbCom doesn't get heavy-handed about it, which they have an unfortunate tendency to do). As for the editors who are members of GSoW, there is private evidence, and I'm deliberately not commenting on what I don't know. But as for the on-wiki toxic discussion environment, I'm increasingly thinking that the central failure here has been that DS, enforceable at AE, were available before coming to ArbCom, but there was something in the way of getting that utilized. ANI and COIN are simply not places where anyone has ever gotten civility concerns about experienced editors resolved. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Adding something more: About skepticism and whether or not it aligns with policy here, it really is the case that WP:PSCI (which is part of WP:NPOV) is a core policy, and is basically what skepticism is usually about. Where they diverge in terms of our policies is primarily with WP:BLP, so skepticism does not justify BLP violations about people criticized by skeptics. A focus on that, along with, possibly, WP:EW, WP:SOCK, and WP:MEAT, would have been far more useful. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe there was some hesitancy to use pseudoscience DS for the COI. Also, I don't think that psychics fall under pseudoscience DS, as they fall on the Santa Claus and his flying reindeer side of the spectrum. I'm would hope that if anyone thought the existing DS would cover this they would have mentioned it, as going to arbcom was mentioned. Even the arbs could have said "take it to AE, decline until existing dispute resolution is exhausted." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Clearly there was some hesitancy, and that's why (as I assume you saw) I just added something about it not being used, to the Evidence page. It's true that they might be of limited use for COI, but they are tailor-made for incivility. And that would have been the place where there could have been: "you need to be more civil, and this is your final warning". Now, we're at the place for "this is the last resort for intractable problems, so we don't do warnings or admonishments, just bans and boiling in oil". ArbCom didn't say "take it to AE" because there was private evidence, that I assume was unrelated to incivility. Why no one at ANI didn't point there, I don't know, but ArbCom ought to take a look at why not. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

In that case there was no reason to expand the scope. Pass a motion clarifying that the DS applies to skeptics and psychics or what have you, then open a case specifically on the COI editing to handle the private evidence. That would have been easy peasy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. At long last, I agree with you 100%.

(But they did it, given that they added you as a named party in addition to Roxy, because of the evidence in your case request statement, I'm sorry to say. Maybe it's also my fault, because I drew attention to it, because of the notifications. Facepalm Let's blame it on the reindeer, ok? I never trusted that Rudolph character.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't really understand why I was added as a party, other than as a preemptive word and diff limit extension. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Unless they have some deep dark secret why they're going to stick it to you (not really), it's because someone decided that you had a lot of evidence that they wanted to see, so they gave you that extension. And it follows that they added Roxy because they were interested in your evidence about him. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Scientific skepticism is both a specific philosophical position (closely related to positivism: roughly, the idea that only empirically verifiable things and logic, not coincidentally the two things needed to do science, 'really' exist) and a type of activism. WP:PSCI is an editorial policy within an encyclopedia that is designed to make sure that pseudoscience and fringe topics are represented from the mainstream point of view (perhaps we should rename NPOV to MPOV? 'mainstream' is in its own way ambiguous, but perhaps less so than 'neutral'). To conflate these two, or even to suggest that they always share the exact same goals, would be seriously mistaken. While BLPs may be the most visible place for issues to arise, anything where philosophical questions come into play (like whether it is possible to positively affirm the nonexistence of empirically unverifiable concepts like qi, a philosophically debatable assumption that most scholars who deal with qi do not make), and especially anything where the activist goal of debunking and disparaging fringe stuff comes into play, will lead to friction between what scientific skeptic editors are doing and the proper application of PSCI/NPOV. In particular, PSCI does not trump DUE, nor IMPARTIAL, both of which scientific skeptic editors often have much incentive to ignore.

That the civility issues should have been, somehow, at AE is an excellent point. The problem is indeed that it's not immediately clear what DS it would fall under, but WP:ARBPS would probably do it. That was a mistake, and one I will be sure not to make again. While it's true that the Arbs could have done some things differently (passing a motion that DS apply to scientific skepticism and fringe, broadly construed, would be helpful), this is really my fault. I have retracted my evidence accordingly. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I just found this thread, and it illustrates wonderfully what I said in the contribution linked above another telling me "if you want to debate, learn how to do it first". This is how that happened, demonstrated with two of many examples of bad reasoning by Apaugasma:

• I talked about what mistakes different profringe people make [53]
• User:Apaugasma said [54], you've heard some bad people say that and Not everyone who affirms these almost self-evident truths is one of the bad people and Again, it's not because some of the bad people like to.
• I had not mentioned any "bad people", and I do not think of those people as "bad". "Bad people" are an invention of Apaugasma, words that have been put into my mouth. They are a classic strawman. Everybody who knows that fallacy can see that. So I wrote [55], That has nothing to do with bad people (a strawman, BTW. I don't see them as bad people, they just annoy me). That was an explanation or substantiation of the "strawman" assertion.
• The response shows that the explanation fell on deaf ears: [56]: it's you who takes offense at anyone disagreeing with you, and casually represents them as being dogmatic, promoting bullshit, using bad reasoning, putting up strawmen, etc. When I am accused of bad reasoning, the last thing that would come to my mind would be to complain about the accusation. Instead, I would either plead guilty or not guilty, and, in the second case, explain why the accusation is wrong. there's also so much ad hominem I cannot find any ad hominem by me in that discussion, only 1. disagreement and 2. criticism of reasoning. So, unless I overlooked something despite checking twice, the accusation of "ad hominem" is either a lie, or a careless oversight, or it demonstrates that Apaugasma does not understand what "ad hominem" means.
• Change of venue to my Talk page: [57] :When I tell someone that they have used a fallacy, such as a strawman, then the correct response is either, "you are right, that was bad reasoning" or "you are wrong, it was good reasoning because [..]" and not "Waaah! You accused me of bad reasoning! That is ad hominem!" Of course, pointing out the bad quality of someone's reasoning is the exact opposite of ad hominem. Go read the article, you don't know what the term means. That was an explanation or substantiation of what I asserted. From my previous exchanges with you, I have no expectation that you will learn anything from what I am saying here. I expect you will complain about it instead.
• This is exactly what happened! Uncanny! Instead of clearing up the question or of silently accepting the reprimand and trying to get better at discussions, Apaugasma came here and complained about me teaching her/him about how discussions work. The claim above two editors have already made unsubstantiated comments about my competency and without substantiating these assertions is either a lie, or a careless oversight, or it demonstrates that Apaugasma is not competent or willing to understand the arguments of opponents. I had substantiated my accusation of using a strawman as well as my accusation of not understanding what "ad hominem" means. If one cannot follow an explanation, one should ask for clarification.

That behavior is typical: When accused of bad reasoning, Apaugasma will deflect, evade, and counterattack (often by running to someone else and complaining) instead of either admitting to have been wrong in that one point, or asking for clarification, or explaining why the accusation is wrong. That behavior is unacceptable. It is not possible to have meaningful discussions with this user until that changes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, Apaugasma has retracted the evidence and will move the discussion elsewhere where it's more relevant. Adding this after the conversation is more or less done just to get a dunk on another editor is not constructive nor helpful to collaborative editing. It might boost your ego, but that's about it. Making the conversation longer just to get your last word in helps none of us, and in fact increases the uncivil atmosphere pointed out in the arbcom case in which you are currently participating. I just found this thread, and it illustrates wonderfully what I said in the contribution linked above feels just like finding a dead horse and taking out your stick. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

You are assuming that I knew the conversation is more or less done. I did not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Hob Gadling! I would take this to your talk, but since you've asked me not to comment there, let me reply here. If you go back to my comment [58] (which, incidentally, is the sharpest I made, lost my patience a bit there), and replace bad people with annoying people or pro-fringe people, would the meaning change in any way? (please try this before you read on) My point was that the mere fact that annoying/fringe-pushing/'bad' people claim something (i.e., that we should not be biased) does not, by itself, make that claim false. It's a bit like WP:CRYBLP: it's not because bad-faith editors commonly complain that we should not slander people and follow BLP, that we should say 'yes, we are slanderous, and this is the real meaning of BLP'. Likewise, it's not because bad-faith editors commonly complain that we should not be biased and follow NPOV, that we should say 'yes, we are biased, and this is the real meaning of NPOV' (that's my view anyway, and the point I was trying to make, in direct reply to yours about fringe people crying bias [59]). My use of the expression 'bad people' was perhaps unfortunate (we were talking about Holocaust deniers before, and I wanted to generalize away from that), but it is not in any way a strawman: 'bad people' do indeed claim in bad faith that we should not be biased, and I was in no way putting easily refutable words into your mouth only to go on refuting them (which is what a strawman would be: implying you think they're bad, which it would be easy to show they're not, and then indeed demonstrating that they're not bad). Rather, the expression 'bad people' may be understood as a bit contemptuous (it may imply that the fight against them is a petty affair, which it is not): I was being uncivil there.

I'm sorry that I didn't point that out the first time, but really just consider your own comment [60] here: apart from the unfounded claim that I was putting up a strawman, you were (and this is a list): calling what I said bullshit, making a red herring out of the fact that I had (again, unfortunately) used the expression "almost self-evident truths" (in reference to "scientists cannot afford to ignore the evidence" and "[scientists] should be unbiased"; the point did not depend on these things being true, but rather on their not being rendered false by bad-faith actors claiming it: replace "these almost self-evident truths" with "these things", and the point remains exactly the same –again, try this before you read on), calling me dogmatic, purporting to teach me about the right way to debate, comparing me to a creationist spouting bad reasoning, implying that I was preaching that everybody should be like me, and affirming that this wouldn't work on you. Then go back to my comment [61] to which you were replying, and see how you did not engage with the substance of anything I was trying to say (again, a list): my point about bad-faith actors claiming X not necessarily rendering X untrue, my point about NPOV itself unmistakably containing the clause that we should represent POVs without editorial bias no matter how much bad-faith actors try to subvert it, my point about the wiki-speak reappropriation of the word 'bias' not possibly being able to deplace the mainstream meaning of that word. What should I call not engaging with these substantial points and instead commenting on my personal abilities and proclivities? That's ad hominem right there. You replying that I don't know the meaning of ad hominem, don't know how discussions work, etc., is only continuing along the same line.

Listen, this I think is the crux of the matter: it's more than okay to conclude, after substantive arguments have been made on both sides, and after both sides have engaged in good faith with what the other side was trying to say, that the other side is committing themselves to some kind of logical fallacy or mistaken reasoning. What you cannot do, however, is to start with that assumption, to call it all bullshit, and at the same time not engage with anything they're trying to say. You don't show anyone anything in this way, and it would very much justified for them to conclude, as I did, that you're appealing to ridicule. It's not so difficult to avoid, especially when the other side is trying to substantiate what they're saying: just read it well, try to get to the core of their argument, think about it a bit, and directly reply to the argument itself. Concluding who's right and who's not can come later. Finally, even if your conclusion is that your opponent is mistaken, it's worth considering the exact reasons why you believe that to be the case. Most often you will find that they're starting from some different premise which you don't share. Only rarely will it be appropriate to call it bullshit. And even in that case, it doesn't need to be said that it's bullshit to show that it's bullshit. A large part of WP:CIVIL is simply to focus on the latter. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)