User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Tryptofish. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

June, 2011 – August, 2011

reply at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Hi, just to respond, thanks I saw your comment, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, I guess I can say the, uh, stuff, has really hit the fan. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, best regards to you Tryptofish - I have always found you NPOV and Clueful and if and when you feel ready and have the time, I will support your RFA without a worry. Off2riorob (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Tryptofish

Your assistance is greatly appreciated - I apologize for the delay in getting back to you but I have been overseas for a few months and have just plucked up enough courage to have another attempt at fixing this entry. I will certainly be in touch again if necessary 2BPKP (talk) 06:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You are very welcome, and of course just let me know if you run into any problems. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup

I know you warned me against taking on the atheism lead definition discussion. But I thought I might see how far I can push it. :) 21:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielkueh (talk • contribs) 21:57, 16 June 2011

You're welcome! It was only a headsup, not an attempt to discourage. Enjoy! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Judaism and violence

Please read my comment on Talk:Judaism and violence. It references last year's contentious discussion over Christianity and violence and presents the insight that I took away from that discussion. I concluded from last year's discussion that the issue was that any attempt to discuss only the examples of violence was going to cause some people to feel that there was a POV imbalance prejudging the question of whether Christianity is a violent religion. (I obviously didn't share this perspective but I came to see that other people such as you, Noleander and Tirronan might feel this way so I figured it was worth accomodating your POV rather than continuing the dispute.) You may not have reached the same conclusion that I did but I figured I'd share my view with you and perhaps open a dialogue. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I've commented there. And please don't ask Noleander to get involved in this. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Economic antisemitism

(NB: Much of the text below is copied from a discussion over at User talk:Jayjg.)

I wonder if you would take a look at a draft article that I'm working on. If this looks familiar, it is because I started by taking Noleander's Jews and money article and hacking at it, throwing out a lot of irrelevant and even dubious material but keeping stuff that was relevant to the topic. (see the edit summaries to get a sense for what I mean). The more I work with Noleander's Jews and money text, the more I stumble over problematic passages.

The thing is... the Antisemitism article doesn't really take on the issues head-on and give them adequate treatment. My proposed article will do that but I need some feedback as to whether my draft article is headed in the right direction and I would really appreciate input as to how to improve it.

I am particularly concerned about the section titled "Historical development" which I suspect may be too long and too detailed. Still, I didn't want to throw it all out without getting some input from other editors.

IMO, there was a lot of good information in Noleander's original Jews and money article but it was unfortunately mixed in with a lot of really dubious stuff. IMO, the decision to delete Jews and money was based on the conclusion that it was better to just start all over. I didn't agree completely but, after working with the text for several weeks, I can see the validity of that view. I think the first lesson I learned is that there is something encyclopedic to say about "Jews and money" and/or "Jews and banking" but it's really hard to do right and so I've put that effort on the backburner.

Instead, I've been peeling off little chunks of useful stuff, reading it several times and adding my own writing. Results of this effort have been the creation of History of investment banking in the United States, Jewish views of poverty, wealth and charity, Jewish stereotypes in literature and Port Jew. In addition, I have expanded Jewish stereotypes and Dearborn Independent.

Any help you can give me would be much appreciated.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me, Richard. For the next week or so, I will only be editing sporadically, because I am traveling. Just off the top of my head, the title sounds odd to me, because I don't really think it's about economics, but rather about antisemitism based upon money-related canards. I'll give it more attention later. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the terms "economic antisemitism" and "Economic Jew" (to a lesser extent) are used in the scholarly literature. Search for them using Google Books. Then take a look at the "Forms" section of Antisemitism and the lead to my draft article. It is definitely NOT a term that I made up. I was pleased to find this term and the significant literature around it because it helps to make a case that this is not OR but the subject of serious scholarly analysis (a point that Noleander tried to make but was unable to because of other factors in play at the time). After the Enlightenment and the emancipation of Jews, religious antisemitism diminished but economic antisemitism continued well into the 20th century. Read the article when you get in a chance. As you are fond of saying, "there is no deadline" so I can wait "a week or so" for your response. I'm just trying to avoid triggering knee-jerk reactions from other Wikipedia editors. Better to keep the article "under construction" longer than to provoke an AFD, RFC or worse. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Good! And I especially agree with that last sentence! --Tryptofish (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Despite my efforts to solicit comments, I have received none. Will you have time to look at this article anytime in the near future? I'm thinking that it's ready to be moved into article mainspace but I wanted to check in with you one last time before doing so. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm swamped in real life, and am unlikely to get to it at all for several more days. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

That's OK... I finally got some feedback over at Talk:Antisemitism and it's kind of mixed so I'm going to have to work on it some more. Please take a look at it when you get a chance. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

When you have time, I would appreciate it if you would take a look at my article which I have now moved into article mainspace under the title Economic antisemitism. Suggestions for improvement would be much appreciated at Talk:Economic antisemitism. Thank you. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK

Hi, I mentioned your post here. Tony (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It's a pity that people make so much drama over such things. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

RR

Hello, and thanks so much for your kind response and editing help in the description of the Crucifixion painting in Crucifixion in the arts. I enjoy going through various articles and hope to do more editing. --Rakiramo (talk Rakiramo (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

That's great! Welcome aboard. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikibombing MfD

Might I suggest that you change your "Keep on condition" ... to "Delete unless..."? Your !vote is really for deletion unless editors take a particular course of action (i.e. your default if that doesn't happen is to delete it); I think it would be helpful to make this clearer. Prioryman (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I take your point, and thank you for that insight, but my view is actually that there isn't a policy-based justification for deletion, so I cannot agree to changing my !vote in that way. I'll be happy to respond to questions there, in this regard, and I think the closing administrator will be able to understand. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Your name

Hi, due to your name I was wondering whether you had an interest in psychedelic chemicals. 62.255.129.19 (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really. I've been a professional neuroscientist studying some aspects of psychopharmacology, but I chose the username basically to be just a name that would be uninformative about me and help protect my privacy in real life. You can think of it as tryptophan plus "red herring". --Tryptofish (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

If you are interested in the subject, you might want to check out WP:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants (and to a lesser extent WP:WikiProject Pharmacology and WP:WikiProject Neuroscience). --Tryptofish (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Damn! I thought from your magnificent name you were the supreme and ultimate arbitrator on marine life matters. "Red herring" indeed. Must I now pull you off your pedestal? --Epipelagic (talk) 09:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Just as long as you don't flush me! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Bradspeak

Thanks, Tryp, very nicely put. Bishonen | talk 18:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC).

Aw, just in a day's work! Thank you for the kind words. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Cirt RfC/U

Hi Tryptofish, could you take a moment and enumerate the parts of the evidence you felt shouldn't have been mentioned in the first place? --J N 466 22:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm in the process of writing my own view now. Please stay tuned. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

So, you twice asserted, "heard you the first time" and straight after doing so, inserted a link to your proposed summary in the RfC/U summary and then editwarred to include it again. Waving around an WP:OWN claim when you couldn't get your way in an RfC/U you are a very active participant in isn't going to fly. Although there is indeed nothing wrong with trying to wrap up an RfC/U if it is being resolved (which can be desirable), as much as it may have escaped your attention, closure was considered several times during the course of the RfC/U with various proposed summations (yours was the last of those - not the only one). It would not make sense to link to one or all of them at the end of an RfC/U when it is likely to cause the same disputes that I twice referred to...you know...that thing you said you already heard the first time. If you revert again, consider yourself warned. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Calling me foolish in your edit summary [1] was not particularly the smartest move on your part. Nor was edit warring over it, nor was "warning" me. If you do not see your own WP:OWNership problems, that's your problem, not mine. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Given what I said above, your repeated assumption of bad faith, and your lack of willingness to accept that it is not your place to be attaching extra weight to a summary you drafted as an active participant in the RfC/U, I stand by my characterisation that what you did was foolish, that your behavior was even more so, and that it warranted this warning. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Noted. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Scientific consensus

You put back a para I chopped from this article - fairly reasonably, except that now I struggle to see the relevance of it and the following (unrelated) paragraph, at least to the particular section of the article. If there's a link I'm not seeing, perhaps it could be made explicit? For what it's worth, I'd suggest that the consensus-or-otherwise on climate science is probably too contentious an issue at present to make a suitable example for that article - there are plenty of century-old non-controversial examples to use instead. 94.170.107.247 (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Dave

Looking back, my thinking at the time was that you had removed it with an edit summary that seemed to me to be objecting only to the fact that the paragraph began with the words "For example,". I felt that that wasn't a good enough reason to remove an entire paragraph. I never realized that there were any other reasons going beyond that. I suspect the entire page could, in fact, do with a critical going over. Let me suggest that you raise these broader issues at Talk:Scientific consensus, where other editors can also respond. That way, it isn't just a discussion between you and me about the direction the page should take. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

	Thank you for your support
	Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Mirror box

After you told Neurorel that certain material did not belong on the Vilayanur S. Ramachandran page, he decided to go to related pages and add controversial edits there. Please see Mirror box, and Talk:Mirror box. Edhubbard (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've looked. I'm going to leave it to others to work out whether that quote was or was not taken out of context. However, you need to understand that my objection to adding the material to the BLP page was because it is a WP:BLP, and I see no evidence that the other editor has reverted me. A page about the science is a different matter. It is entirely appropriate to include both sides of the issue there, assuming that the inclusion is consistent with WP:NPOV (and WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, try for two things: compromise, and brevity. Don't try to get it exactly your way, but if you feel something has the wrong POV, see if you can get consensus for a brief summary instead of lengthy quotations. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

FishBase page

Dear Tryptofish, Thank you for your support, the page seems in good shape now and we leave it to the community.

Just:

The reference in the history part is still Froese and Pauly 2000, more precisely, its Making of FishBase section (http://fishbase.mnhn.fr/manual/english/fishbasethe_making_of_fishbase.htm).
There is one FishBase Consortium member missing in the list right of the picture: University of British Columbia, Fisheries Centre (http://www.fisheries.ubc.ca/)

Still the page presents a strange behavior: I went to this page, then before logging for editing, I search FishBase in the top right search box of the page, and it is an old version of the page with the big graph that opened. Then I reloaded just in case it would be a cache problem, but still the same oage (or did not I wait long enough?), then after a while, I went to the wikipedia home page and search for FishBase English, and then I had the current page ... It may be still a cache issue that I will empty, but it is quite strange.

Just in case a section on errors should be put in the discussion page to be fair on the assessment of the database, I had written this section on the 10th of July, that was removed the very same day.

Regards.

FishBaseProject (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. The page loads alright for me, with the current version. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It was a cache issue. There is a WP page about that problem that seems recurrent for all pages (the link is given each time you save a page after edit I think). --FishBaseProject (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Bubbler/Airstone

Hi, I see that you redirected Aquarium bubbler to Airstone. Could you please add a mention of this alternative name, bolded, to the Airstone article? I didn't do it myself because I'm not at all familiar with this area, I'd only come across the article while stub-sorting. Thanks. PamD (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, of course, I just forgot to do that! You are absolutely correct, so thanks for pointing it out to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you contend...

Why do you contend that New Atheism and Atheism 3.0 are unrelated? They are so intermingled that people have difficulty discerning which is which?Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the answer is obvious. These are two different movements, with different proponents. Not one of the major persons in New Atheism would support 3.0. New is about drawing sharp differences, whereas 3.0 is about blurring those differences with the goal of reconciliation. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Conservatism

Thanks for your message.

Just recently, many of my reassessments and some assements have been changed to reflect Americentrism. Ron Paul is now considered to be of higher imporantance than Hippolyte Taine. When can it be presented as a case for WP:NPOVN? LittleJerry (talk) 01:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome. My advice would be to take this slowly. Lionel made what I think is an entirely reasonable point: that there are multiple editors giving the ratings, and most readers don't see the ratings anyway. I see that there are pages where this matter is becoming a subject of discussion, and more editors are paying attention. Let the discussion go ahead, engage with it to help influence consensus (and don't edit war!), and wait for a deadlock before you consider escalating anything to a notice board. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Patience

	The more patience than Job award
	And you thought working out the lede for Atheism was tough. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I love it! Does this make me a WikiJob? Come to think about it, the lead at Atheism might not be verifia... oh, never mind. Now if I can just get them to calm down at Christian terrorism and Flying Spaghetti Monster (a perfect pair if ever there was one), I'll be able to take off my sackcloth. Anyway, that's very nice of you, thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome...

I appreciate it, and wanted to let you know that I have also done work on Opioid_comparison in addition to Equianalgesic. I will try to look for some better sources for both of these articles and contribute, since I have an unfortunate insider's view to pain management. Thanks again for the welcome, and I hope to be able to find better information out there and link to it or do some personal research into the topics and write an informative section for both articles as well as similar ones. AreThree (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC).

You are very welcome! And I'm sorry to hear about your pain. Happy editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Planned Parenthood

Would you mind taking a look at Talk:Planned_Parenthood#Emphasis_on_eugenics and elaborate on your opposal to the Eugenics/Planned Parenthood link? I'm afraid I'm done participating. Thanks Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 21:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me. I took a look there, but I decided not to comment. It looks like a mess, that's for sure. Here's my advice: if you feel like taking a break from that quagmire, that's fine. Nothing happening there will be permanent. There's really no harm in The Wrong Version TM being on the page for a day or two, trust me. It's becoming quite clear that the POV pushers are what they are, and in fact the primary POV pusher is already under administrative scrutiny, and the process will eventually work itself out. If you decide to get back in, you have plenty of options: post at WP:NPOVN, open a second RfC about the text (as opposed to the See also), or seek dispute resolution if need be. If you want to, I'm pretty sure that you and another editor could start an RfC/U about the main POV pusher, and I bet a site ban would follow. Just take your time, don't let anything get to you, and hang in there. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation...

... and politeness requires me to offer the same. The standard explanation is that "you have 2 sides; a team that's in and a team that's out. Two men in the team that's in go out and when one of the men who's in is out, the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out the side that's out comes in.... etc." For the complete story see your local cricket fan's tea towel or here. Howzat! Ben Mac Dui 19:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Good link! Personally, I prefer watching paint dry. Anyway, good to hear from you. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

And you - I am not really a fan, but if I'd mentioned shinty the point might have been lost. Ben Mac Dui 07:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

And as it turns out, I apparently got it wrong anyway. But I can honestly say that the explanation of cricket to which you linked is clearer than any other explanation that I have ever seen. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It's really not that difficult - just put Googly on your watch list and I am sure you will get up-to-speed :) Ben Mac Dui 17:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

And here I thought that it was a search engine! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI

I just want to make it clear that I do not think you are a bigot, nor do I think your words are some form of "bigotry against NRMs." As I stated on that page I know that I have reacted rather vehemently and for that I apologize. It is just disheartening to me to see arguments like this one for a variety of reasons. One that I didn't even bring up, in the midst of my over-reacting, is the notion you prefer of looking at minority vs. majority viewpoints instead. I think that would make a fine guiding principle if it was applied in the same context as climate science, that is the academic context (in the popular context even today views are split). I'm not an NRM expert by any means, but you can't study the sociology of religion and not be familiar with a few key facts regarding NRMs/cults. One of them is that majority viewpoints about NRMs/cults in mass culture (popular opinion, the media, popular nonfiction, etc.) are not usually shared in academia (a similar dynamic to global warming). Indeed there is a significant amount of scholarship about the mass cultural POV of cults itself. Now I understand from what you wrote that you would want the majority POV in the dynamic to be POV of mainstream scholarship, but what I don't gather from what you wrote is an understanding that in terms of scholarship both the POVs of NRM adherents and of anti-cultists like Cirt (even if his views are also shared to some degree by the public) will then become examples of minority POVs. Perhaps I'm jumping to the wrong conclusions, based on other things you wrote and if so I'm sorry. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to provide this further explanation here. I appreciate it, and I appreciate working with you as a fellow editor. We've done a lot of good work together, I think, and it's been unfortunate that we seem to find ourselves, to some extent, in disagreement in this case. Let's face it: it's only natural that people will tend to have strong feelings about this kind of subject matter, and will tend to be sensitive as a result. You feel strongly, and not unreasonably, about what you describe above. I, in turn, felt sensitive about several comments (actually more by Rick than by you) that seemed to imply, if not bigotry, at least insensitivity on my part, when all I was saying was that the Committee should look at another case (Climate Change) in thinking about principles. There are counter-arguments to that, as you have said here, but they didn't require putting odious words in my mouth when I was saying nothing of the sort. Bottom line for me: like many DR cases, this one gets easily caught up in emotion, and I was trying to get the discussion back on the track of objectivity. Anyway, thanks again, and happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't think too hard on it

When I see a group of numbers, even if they are ridiculous things like user ages, I can't resist the urge to analyze them. Kind of disturbing, really, but probably more a function of boredom than obsessive-compulsive disorder. Probably. SDY (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, whatever floats your boat, or something. All said in good humor. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Pastafarianism

Hi, what was the reason for removal of this section "GOD Speaks! The Flying Spaghetti Monster in His Own Words'" I can't see any problems with that paragraph in the Flying Spaghetti Monster article. Thanks Jenova20 11:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree.Gorton k (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, hello everyone! Quite a turnout! I'll answer you at the article talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Re Harry Harlow

Hi Tryptofish, just responding to your query re the theatrical play source--no problem, I agree with the concern you raised and have amended the source to a non-primary source. THanks for the heads up.Civeel (talk) 02:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

That looks much better. Thanks so much! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Suicide of Tyler Clementi

I have reverter your reversion as I believe you are restoring material which constitutes BLP violations. Please discuss this on the talk page before reverting per WP:BLP.LedRush (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll discuss this at the talk page. But it seems to me to be a little over the top to warn me on my talk about BLP. I'm quite familiar with BLP, and the edits you made seem to me to be quite odd. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to be over the top, but I clearly articulated my view that this was a BLP violation when I made the edit. It is clear that in these circumstances that you not revert until discussion has occurred. You didn't do this and I very politely and very succintly told you how the process is supposed to work in a very low key manner.LedRush (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I've replied in detail at the article talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Atheism, battlegrounds, edit warring and synthesis

Hi Tryptofish, now... what to do next? I'm sure you can see the issue I've got with the insertion; the reports show percentages in the high teens for religiously motivated crimes, while the editor in question uses that to come up with an entirely different POV via an interesting synthesis of the material. I've seen all sorts of interesting syntheses of such, including "gee, add racial and homophobic together and count those as religiously motivated" and on and on... so, besides it being against WP:SYNTH, I see it as something that needs to get nipped in the bud early on before the article becomes a battleground of opposing syntheses of such. Neither has it's place obviously... Ugh. Anyway, I dont know what to do next, but, these edits do seem very familiar... from such a new account no less. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I looked over the recent edits and the recent talk at both articles, and at Ramos' user talk page. It looks to me like things are working out just fine. He is just a new editor, after all. I don't think this is going to become part of a pattern. He seems to be taking on the advice from you, me, and others in a positive way, and numerous other editors are putting eyes on the edits. The most recent edits have been IP RVVs, so the edit warring is over. I think you should just express whatever you feel about the content on the article talk page, and let the normal consensus process move along as it will. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed... things are looking good. I think the gang at that page have things well in hand. It was mostly the misuse of stats that I objected to (for reasons noted above, which can create any POV). So, all's good - and glad we took the time to point things in the right direction. Maybe that's more of what Wikipedia needs. :-) ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Vivisection

Hi, Please check out the vivisection talk and article --Muhammad(talk) 00:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. And I stand corrected! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Pages I'd like you to take a look at;

Hello, There's a couple of pages I'd like you to take a look at; Brotherly love (biblical) and Great Commandment.

Both pages, in my opinion, need bringing up to a more encyclopedic level, and the Brotherly love page, in particular, seems to be something out of nothing (although I'm unsure if it's trivial enough to warrant complete removal). You seem especially well qualified to judge what would need doing to bring them up to standard and I'd really appreciate it if you could have a look at them. Rgds Obscurasky (talk) 10:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so very much for this vote of confidence! Much appreciated! Right now I'm traveling for a couple of days, so my attention to things Wiki will be rather light, but I'll definitely give each of them a look when I have a bit of time. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I've made some edits and comments at Brotherly love (biblical), and put in on my watchlist. I'm not sure that I really have anything to offer at Great Commandment. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's give 'em a break

I favor removing any moot or tangential content from the evidence and workshop pages to make it easier for the arbitrstors to focus on what is essential. Jehochman ^Talk 15:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You mean the part where I used the word "obnoxious"? What puzzles me is how the tone of your request to me here contrasts with the tone of your responses to me previously. Anyway, I really don't think you have anything to be worried about. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Accounts

User:Lunar Police is my cousin. When I told him about wikipedia, he wanted to have a name just like mine. Please don't mistake my account with his. -Solar Police(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC).

Good! No problem, then. I just wanted to make sure everything was safe, and it is. Happy editing, both of you! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability first sentence debate

Tryptofish, Having spent a lot of time reading but not understanding the impetus behind the fractured debate spread across at least four pages I know of, do you have a sufficient handle on the motivations to explain to me the anticipated benefits of -

Removing the words 'not truth'.
Changing the wording, but not removing mention of truth.
Opposing any change at all despite a clear impetus to see some change.

I guess I am just mystified how such an apparently trivial matter has become such a hotly debated topic. It makes me think I have missed some very fundamental and meaningful point about the words 'not truth'. Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 22:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a tough one! I don't claim to be an expert, but here's a stab at it:

Concern that "not truth" implies that Wikipedia doesn't care about truth, which seems contrary to our mission as a reliable encyclopedia.
Desire to find a compromise between #1 and #3, recognizing that there is no consensus to remove the "not truth" phrase, but having a desire to address the concern in #1.
Belief that "not truth" has long served well, by protecting Wikipedia from POV pushers who argue that their POV is "the truth"; forces those POV pushers to back up their claims with secondary sources. Also, previous RfC (a few months ago, with wide input from the community) showed a (narrow) majority support for keeping the wording as it is.

For what it's worth, I favor #2, by keeping the "not truth" phrase, but adding a sentence or two after it, making clear what it does and does not need. I've suggested a bunch of ways of doing it, and they were all shot down, principally by editors who want #1 and nothing less. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll add that on point #1, at least one person seems more concerned about what a sloppy journalist might say about the phrase, rather than how editors might misunderstand it or misapply it. It has been my experience that journalists, at least within print media, have a better than average grasp of basic English grammar (and a construction along the lines of "The threshold is X, not Y" or "Your job title is Copy boy, not Senior Editor" is basic), but perhaps others have a different experience.

Additionally, another editor has said that he hopes to remove "not truth" so that it will be easier for him to remove minority viewpoints.

It is not clear that these two motivations are generally held, however. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)