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

Eight 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)

Uhm...

"We choose truth over facts." What were thinking? 😂 Atsme 💬 📧 19:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)