User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 26

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 20

←

Archive 24

→

June, 2015 – September, 2015

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water...

Background: User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 25#Sad news

...the fish has come back! Thanks everyone who has wished me well!

It was difficult for me for a while, but I also decided to extend my Wiki-break a lot longer, beyond the point where I was arguably settled enough to come back. Partly, for a while I felt rather irritable, and I figured that I would be doing no one any favors by coming back only to have a short temper with the first editor to disagree with me. So now, I feel comfortably past that point. Also, I simply decided that some time away from this place would be a good idea. And it was. I've always believed that this strange website and the strange community that drives it can keep sputtering on, even without any individual editor. And behold: it's still here!

But I'm also going to need some time to get caught up, so please bear with me. And I've decided to try to make a few changes in my editing efforts, now that I'm back. I've decided that I was, in the past, too involved in "drama" and not involved enough in content creation in the topics that interest me. That means that, for now, I'm going to try (and probably fail!) to cut back on my involvement in other editors' disputes, outside of the mediation that I already committed to. It also means that, for all the editors who come to my talk page looking for me to help editing the pages that interest them (yes, EEng, I'm looking at you!), I'm going to be a bit less responsive, favoring instead those pages that interest me. So I hope that you will understand.

Thanks again! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Looking forward to your bubbles. - The project is really unsafe, imagine me out of prison! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! (Bubble, bubble.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Cognitive enhancement on the natch

Saw this posted on Hacker News and thought it would make a nice article. Any interest or ideas? Do we already have an article on this topic? Viriditas (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

We actually do have Nootropic. I regard this as one of those topics where the cautions at WP:MEDRS become important: much of this pharmacology is either experimental, bogus, or subject to significant caveats when used clinically, and so Wikipedia should not oversell it. Smart just doesn't come in a bottle. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, my friend! Please take another look at the source. The phrase "on the natch" means "without drugs". The article is about non-nootropic cognitive enhancement. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Woops, I think this fish still hasn't quite gotten my editing sea-legs back again (mixed metaphor overload!). Sorry that I was kind of superficial and dismissive in my first reply. I'm just kind of tired today. I'll look again tomorrow, but working on a page on the subject probably won't be a high priority for me for some time. I'm hoping to focus for a while on some fish-related content, and I'll probably be going light on other topic areas for a while. But thanks for drawing it to my attention, and I truly will look at it more, um, intelligently tomorrow. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

No worries! I think that if I do write something, I'll just present you with a more organized thesis to critique. However, by all means, read it when you have time, as I would be very grateful to get some feedback on the review article, particularly from your own POV. Viriditas (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, now I've actually read it properly, and applied the appropriate facepalm to myself. I have to admit, I had never heard of "on the natch" before, but I certainly should have looked at the source enough to have seen that it is plainly about "non pharmacological" methods. Oh well. So here is what I think. I pretty much agree with the authors of the source, in what they say in their "Conclusion and future research" section. As they say, stuff like physical exercise, sleep (Tryptofish: take the hint!), meditation and yoga, spirituality, music, and cognitive work with a properly trained health care professional, are all techniques that "are based on widely accepted traditional habits". Speaking personally, I have no reason to doubt that they can be good things, insofar as they go. For that matter, I could make a case that editing Wikipedia, if done thoughtfully, can be better than being a couch potato. I follow the primary literature on brain stimulation, and it can only be considered to be very early-stage as a research topic. It's nowhere near to being reliably useful as a general way of cognitive enhancement. So, that's my opinion of where it's at. We have a page on Cognitive remediation therapy, which deals with one aspect of the subject. A look at its talk page shows that it can be a topic where one shouldn't just add content subjectively, and what I said above about MEDRS really does come into play here. Likewise, for some of the "traditional habits", we have pages like Research on meditation. I have a feeling that creating a new page combining all the topics that are in that source could open up issues like being a POV-fork, so a case could be made instead for adding content to existing pages, and in some cases having a talk page discussion before adding it. But if you decide to pursue this, please do it with open eyes as regards the MEDRS issues that other editors will, appropriately, insist upon. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking another look. "Natch", a shortened form of "naturally", likely originates from mid-1940s African American slang. I'm only familiar with "natch' and "on the natch" through the works of American novelist Thomas Pynchon. I'll take a look at CRT. Viriditas (talk) 09:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. As for "natch", I guess it just reconfirms that smart doesn't come in a bottle. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Christian terrorism page

Hello

Why is there a section on northern Ireland when the section itself makes it quite clear that the violence in northern Ireland was not 'Christian'?

You reverted the section being removed. I don't see why there is any need for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.111.168.151 (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for asking me about it on my talk page. The answer to your question is that it is not "quite clear". The content that you have now deleted for a second time contains reliable sourcing that three loyalist groups are indeed Christian terrorists. I also want to draw your attention to the notice that I am reproducing below, which you can click to make visible:

Please click to view.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this page:

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this page (except in limited circumstances)
Neutrality: All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Where it says my user name (because I put it here instead of at the Christian terrorism page), it actually applies to that section of the page that you have been deleting. What it means is that you did the wrong thing by "reverting" a second time, when you reverted my restoration of the section (a violation of what is called "1RR"). It's not enough to have contacted me here at my user talk page, although you are welcome to do that as well. You needed to get consensus from other editors before you made the edit that deleted the section that second time (and you won't get that consensus, although you may very well get consensus to write the material differently). My advice is to go to Talk:Christian terrorism, and continue your discussion with me there, not here. You need to understand that this is a very contentious editing topic, and that you will have to work with other editors instead of just deleting what you want to delete. OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Javert!

Thank you to all the editors who participated here. I think that now is the right time to close this discussion, and move on. I wish everyone the best. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

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.

had to look that up, actually. you literary neuroscientist you. Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I was too lazy to blue-link it. I wish you... peace! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

If you have any feedback on my COI work I would be happy to hear it, btw, here or via email - or not at all - as you prefer. Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Great, I'll do that right here, and please feel free to point other editors with whom you are discussing it to what I am saying here. First, I see that our Javert page provides a ton of plot summary, but gives short shrift to the character's cultural significance: Javert is a prototype for someone who want to "do the right thing", but who becomes so single-mindedly zealous in pursuing those who might be in the wrong, that he becomes a seemingly evil pursuer. Now don't worry, I'm not calling you "evil", and all I said was that you should try to be less Javert-like.

Think of it this way: you got involved in COIN in the first place after that discussion we were both in, where some other editors wrongly accused you of having a COI about GMOs. Now, you've gotten so involved in COIN that the role is reversed: you are the one making the accusations. So my advice is to put yourself in the other editors' shoes (which is actually always good advice for any on-Wiki dispute). You know what it feels like to be accused, so keep it in mind when you are doing the accusing. We have a serious problem with COI editing, and it's good to have volunteers who keep an eye on it. But I would suggest being sensitive about what you say about who people are in real life, and being sensitive about not seeming too vengeful.

There are enough recent drama board threads about you that you are at risk of being tarred by innuendo: if there are that many editors complaining about him, he must be doing something wrong. I've said to you before that it's a mistake to take stuff personally, so please don't make it a personal matter to nail the COI violators. You are doing a good thing by asking around for advice, so good for you about that! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time. I have written about five responses to you. I am really unhappy with your characterizations here and I really struggle with them coming from you. "Nail the COI violators".... really - is that how you see my work on COI? Coming from you (who I trust enough to take things personally), that is really hard to read. Jytdog (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

But I do appreciate you taking the time. I will think on these things. Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying to me here, and I'm happy to continue discussing it as much as you want. Keep this in perspective: I strongly defended you at RFAR, and I said there that your COIN work is excellent, and that Wikipedia is better for it. But this is a discussion in user talk, and you asked me for an honest critique, and I'm giving you honest advice. I certainly do not think that you would have wanted me just to praise you without any advice about how to address the issues that Risker and others are raising. Strictly speaking, I didn't say that you need to stop nailing people. I said that you should stop making it a personal matter. You should understand that it's not like I've been spending the last couple of months watching your COIN work. I'm actually taking into account what the editors who have been accusing you have been saying, and they sure perceive you that way. So I don't know everything about your COIN work, but I'm seeing what's going on now. And you really are in danger of getting tarred by innuendo, in ways that could lead to blocks or bans. And that's the last thing that I want to see happen, so I'm telling it to you like it is, so you can continue your excellent work without someone, well, nailing you!

From what you say, I'm glad that I didn't see the four replies to me that you decided not to leave here.

But that right there should tell you something. I keep harping on the issue of you taking things personally. I think you will do best if you really make a habit of taking a deep breath, or a whole bunch of deep breaths, before responding when another editor disagrees with you. For what it's worth, compare the thread immediately above this one on my talk. An IP editor (who geolocates to Dublin, no less!) keeps blanking the NI section at the CT page, unaware of the 1RR restriction. That person blanked the section, and I reverted them (once!), and I subsequently spent a considerable amount of time fixing up that section, going through sources, and thinking hard about where I might be able to compromise with other editors. And then the IP came back and deleted the whole thing, including my own work, acting as if nothing had changed, and then left the message above, after deleting it all. Between you, me, and everyone else on Teh Internets who reads here, I'm pissed off. But I've never reverted it back, and I don't intend to. It's just gone from the page, and will likely stay gone until post-mediation. And you can judge for yourself: I think that, under the circumstances, I was pretty reasonable in replying to the IP just above. Because it's not personal. Wikipedia is just a website. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thinking about it some more, let me get specific about one part of it. I have very strong negative feelings about what is referred to as "doxing". As a result, I think one has to be very careful about how one comments, on-Wiki, about who editors are in real life. And as Doc James just pointed out in your user talk, that makes COIN work difficult. As I looked at the RFAR, the filing editor seemed to show that you posted quite a bit about stuff you found outside Wikipedia (how another site had just changed what they said about somebody, etc. – something that, although it strengthens the case that there was COI, wasn't really necessary to meet the basic minimum of establishing probable COI). I'm not questioning that you did so in good faith, and please remember that my position there was that there was no case against you, and if anything, there was a boomerang. But per what I said above, about putting oneself in the other editor's shoes, I can see how they would have felt taken aback to see you posting that information on-Wiki. That would be the kind of thing that I would regard as potentially overzealous. So, you don't need to make the perfect case of COI, just enough of a case, and if the editor insists on arguing with you, maybe let other editors deal with it. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this even longer reply. I really appreciate it, Trytpo. I wasn't looking for ass-kissing from you :) but I was just surprised at the way you framed your criticism. I really don"t try to "nail" anybody - I try to teach people. (Paid editors and other editors with a COI can make great contributions and we can protect the integrity of WP, if they learn our policies and follow our process of making edit requests instead of directly editing. My goal is never to drive anyone away. That is what it made so difficult to hear. It would be like telling a teacher that they are out to nail students with failing grades. It is not the goal!)

I do understand about taking deep breaths, not reacting emotionally, and the importance of self-restraint - -that nothing here is personal. That is something you are a model of.

About doxing - I do acknowledge that what I posted about Atsme was in bad taste and not necessary. There were some reasons for it, but at the end of the day it was bad judgement. I screw up sometimes.

But please know that I am extremely careful about OUTING -- even as poor taste as my postings on the Atsme matter were in some places, they were not oversighted. I went further than I have ever gone toward "doxing" (and probably ever will go again) with Atsme and was aware I was going "out there."

Having lived through the many discussions about banning paid editing following the WIki-PR and Banc de Binary scandals, I am acutely aware of - and respect - the value the community places on anonymity and the fierce protection of that value, and I am aware of how this makes it very tricky to try to honor the strong concern in the community to protect WP's integrity from advocacy and COI. (I've laid out my thoughts on the tension between protecting privacy and protecting integrity in WP, and how to navigate through that tension, on my User page, if that is of interest to you) And I am also aware that a significant chunk of the community looks at dealing with COI at all, as deeply antithetical to the spirit of Wikipedia, which makes working on COI issues not only tricky, but dangerous. Hence my extreme care around OUTING. Anyway, I have heard everything you wrote, and again, I appreciate the time and thought you took to write it. I hope you can see where I am coming from a bit more now, too. Jytdog (talk) 02:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Am getting other feedback echoing the zealot/shrill thing. Which i have been at times. Having done that, am stuck with it. Jytdog (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I really am happy to help in whatever way that I can, and you can be certain that there are a lot of other editors for whom I would not have bothered to put this much thought into it. As I said before, I'm saying these things, not because I see you as a problem editor, but because I see you as one of the best editors I work with, and consequently I want to make sure that you don't get caught in any traps. I appreciate and respect the fact that you have sought out serious feedback, and that you are taking that feedback seriously. A lot of people wouldn't be capable of handling it, but you are amply capable. I've understood all along that it wasn't "the goal". It's a tricky thing about communicating online: one can have excellent intentions and yet have other people misread those intentions. And believe me, we all "screw up sometimes"! Just look at another thread on my talk where someone asked me about non-pharmacological ways of doing something and I replied in terms of pharmacological ways! It doesn't matter that one can make mistakes, because we all do because we're all human, but what matters is what one does to learn from the mistakes and improve. You aren't "stuck" with past mistakes unless you refuse to learn from them. What you are doing now, with thinking about feedback, is exactly the right thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I just read Risker's advice to you at ANI, where she talks about ways that COIN issues are not urgent, and about ways to deal with those issues in a gradual, incremental way, and I think that what she said to you about that is excellent advice. It's something that I hadn't thought of before, but it's a very good insight. Just because something isn't good for the project or isn't good for a particular page, doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be dealt with as an emergency. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes trying to take that go-slower approach on board and thinking through how to execute on that. Will mean lots more multitasking in practice. Thanks for that, and for your message above. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Flattered to get a mention on this page. Sometimes checkusers will stumble on a big nest of "socks" (I'm sure there's a better term, like "organized subversion group" or something like that since it usually involves more than one "master") and it's like creating a family tree, the branches can go in so many ways. But we normally do all of the checking first, because it helps us to identify the patterns, the nature and extent of activity, whether there are special issues that need to be considered or (in rare situations) whether or not the WMF need to be alerted/involved. This can take quite a while - sometimes even weeks. In the meantime, the community does what it normally does, and some of the articles will get deleted; we might catch a few newer socks on final checks; and we collect and document enough evidence for the wider range of eyes to determine what to do with the rest of the content. (There are usually articles on undoubtedly notable subjects in amongst the mess.) That wider vision really does make a difference; after looking at a hundred sock accounts, the natural tendency is to nuke every edit they made, whether or not COI, and whether or not the subject is notable. The broader group serves as the check. I hope this is helpful to Jytdog - or anyone else who is reading. And I hope that when next I make a call to the community to "check out" a bunch of articles/users/etc, there will be some who take up the call. Risker (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

While I hope this discussion proves useful to Jytdog, I remain cautiously optimistic. I think it's only fair to mention that in my case, it wasn't just about the unnecessary exposure or his overzealousness to start a case at COIN before he even tried to contact me. Digging into domain registrations should have been actionable. He also erroneously listed three articles, (1) Gabor B. Racz which was in no way related and caused a flurry of further disruption to the project, Ambush predators which I never edited, and Paddlefish, where I made one edit, added an EL, and there was a discussion on the TP. All three articles were tagged with the COI template. In fact, the discussion was just above his post on that TP.

Photos and footage of criminal arrests for the llegal poaching of paddlefish, and much more.

If the editors overseeing this article think it would be useful, I can provide a link to a video segment showing actual paddlefish caviar, criminal arrests, and interviews with FWS special agents and Missouri state agents who participated in the much talked about covert operation that took place in Missouri back in the 80s. The sting operation was an historic event because 23 people were arrested, charged & successfully prosecuted in state court in Missouri, while 6 were arrested on felony charges at the federal level for interstate trafficking of wildlife. They were convicted, heavily fined and sentenced to time in a federal peneteniary. I can also make photographs available and help expand upon the paddlefish article in general, but my participation would be considered a COI, so I'm posting this information for editors to consider. I also need to mention there is a comprehensive one-hour documentary about paddlefish available for viewing at YouTube. The documentary is a valid resource produced in cooperation with State and Federal resource agencies, and contains rare underwater footage of paddlefish in the wild, interviews with State and Federal fish biologists, several of whom participated in the writing of "the books and research papers" that were the initial references for some of the Wiki references, including L.K. Graham, D.L. Scarnecchia, and Clifton Stone. The documentary also shows artificial propagation of paddlefish, C-section surgery, hatchery conditions, snagging, a demonstration of how poachers made caviar from paddlefish roe, etc. I await your response. Atsme (talk) 5:44 pm, 14 October 2011, Friday (3 years, 9 months, 1 day ago) (UTC−4)

I don't think any video showing people caught into questionable activities would fly here, unless the article was exactly about these questionable activity and those people. There would be concerns related to WP:BLP and privacy. About the documentary, that is probably a decent external link. By the way, why you editing the paddlefish article(s) would imply COI? Are you a paddlefish? Face-smile.svg --cyclopiaspeak! 11:00 am, 9 June 2014, Monday (1 year, 1 month, 5 days ago) (UTC−4)
I'm a primitive species. Self-trout I made the COI comment back in 2011 before I fully understood what it meant. Oh, and I'm still working on uploading some bowfin video. I also have some footage of a paddlefish filter feeding, which should probably go with the American paddlefish article, and not the paddlefish article, or should it? And what about the taxobox on both the American paddlefish article and Paddlefish article? The image is an American paddlefish which doesn't look anything like a Chinese paddlefish. It was confusing enough trying to keep the information in the article itself separated especially considering there are only two extant species with more differences between them than similarities. Anyway, look over it when you get a chance. Atsme☯Consult 1:53 am, 11 June 2014, Wednesday (1 year, 1 month, 4 days ago) (UTC−4)
Well, trout myself as well, I didn't notice it was a 2011 comment! I now still want to go ahead with the bowfin, but I'll have a look at the paddlefish situation when I can. --cyclopiaspeak! 3:36 am, 11 June 2014, Wednesday (1 year, 1 month, 4 days ago) (UTC−4)

His actions at COIN were punitive and an abuse of the process. He got off unscathed this time. His incivility is not unusual and has become far more noticeable. It dates back from his earliest beginnings and continues to this day especially when it involves articles he disapproves or happen to be in his "suite of articles". Here are a few examples, [1], [2], [3]. I was reminded of the movie "Anger Management" starring Jack Nicholson and Adam Sandler. Atsme^📞📧 22:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, thank you for taking the time to explain these things at my talk page, and I will say that you make some very valid points. Right off the bat, I think that the 3 diffs you provide in the last paragraph of your message are a surprise to me, and I consider them unacceptable, so I agree with you about that. @Jytdog: I want you to know that I consider your tone and language in those three diffs really, really bad, and you need to get a hold on that. Also Mann jess is someone I've worked with lots of times, and is a very reasonable and helpful editor.

At the same time, Atsme, I see my role in this discussion as getting us all back to more peaceful editing. I really hope that you saw, above, where Jytdog said "I do acknowledge that what I posted about Atsme was in bad taste and not necessary." Please take some comfort from that. I've seen Jytdog do lots of good work, and I do think that he is starting to see that he has been making mistakes. Some of the things that you point out he listed carelessly were mistakes, and it would, in turn, be a mistake on your part to insist on punishment for it. Wikipedia isn't about punishment; it's about preventing further problems. (I've had various editors say some pretty awful things about me at various times, and my standard response has become: "Yes, and I smell bad, too.")

I want to explain to you that, when I said what I said about the ArbCom case request, I was speaking in that context – that this was not something that ArbCom should take as a case, and that instead, the problems should be dealt with by the community, as we are doing right here. You say that Jytdog took it on himself to follow you around; well, the diffs you've presented to me suggest that you are responding in kind. So please, let's all find ways to get back to peaceful editing.

I'm happy to continue this discussion if anyone has more that they want to discuss, but I'm going to request that Jytdog and Atsme direct any further comments to me, and not to one another, and also not to seek any tit-for-tat. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Appreciate the input, Tryptofish. I've read many good things about you and regret that our initial interaction is over this COINOSCOPY but I appreciate your attempts at ~~medication~~ mediation.

My providing diffs were to support my comments. The only thing I'm following are PAGs because without diffs my comments may be misconstrued as casting aspersions. While I understand the point you're trying to make, I don't think it was a good comparison considering Jytdog dug into my PL off-wiki, including personal domain registrations in his failed attempt to prove the conspiracy theories he developed for his 4th of July fireworks display. Also keep in mind that the evidence I recently uncovered, some of which is provided above, further demonstrates the case he initiated truly was unwarranted. I just want a review of the close so it will properly reflect that the case against me was mishandled and unwarranted based on the recent findings. If you can help me get that done, there's no need for me to open a case at ANI. Do you think that's possible? Jytdog also owes me an apology for what he did, which brings up another problem - he rarely if ever progresses beyond striking his ill-conceived, ill-intentioned comments but even then the strikes are viewed more as a CYA than regret because he keeps doing it. He indicated the following to me months ago, [4], and January 9, 2015, We have different goals with respect to our work here, and different views on PAG I don't care at all about "gold stars" like GA/FA or DYK (I just want to create good and maintain good content in WP, per PAG, as I see it) and those seem important to you.. As he sees it is where the problems lie. Perhaps it also explains why he used COIN to target the GAs and FA I edited in a GF collaborative effort - he saw them as "important" to me.

I guess the big question now is, can we believe his behavior will change? I think that each time he walks away unscathed he becomes a little more emboldened but I sincerely hope I'm wrong. Unfortunately, discussions like the following demonstrate otherwise: [5], [6]. For stark differences in the way he sees things, compare his actions over Gabor B. Racz, a GA that was criticized by certain team collaborators as "promotional", "puffery", poorly written, etc. vs his actions at David Gorski, and regarding the latter, notice the section on Skepticism which is clearly promotional of Gorski's advocacy (be it a good advocacy or not). Look at the TP discussions and you'll see which article is protected by "team collaborators" which looks a lot like an advocacy to me. It doesn't require a rocket scientist to figure it out. Also notice how Jytdog added an unwarranted recruiting label on Gorski [7], based on another of his conspiracy theories and unwarranted warning of canvassing against me because I mentioned Gorski in an unrelated discussion [8]. Wow. While I'd like to believe Jytdog's recent posts to various admins and editors are a sincere attempt to self-analyze, I think the following comment in response to Jytdog's excuses sums it up best, [9]. At this point in time, I'll stick with "cautiously optimistic" and hope that I'm pleasantly surprised. Atsme^📞📧 20:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, thank you very much for the kind words about me. I appreciate that very much. In my opinion, these two diffs are very bad: [10] and [11]. I know Jytdog watches here, and I trust that he hears me that I am very disturbed about them. My sincere advice to you, Atsme, is that most of the rest that you have presented to me here do not persuade me all that much, and I promise that I have looked carefully at everything, so I think that if you seek further dispute resolution, you will find it disappointing. Please, don't pursue this dispute any further, unless there are new events in the future. It's not worth it, and much of your evidence is not convincing. I hope that you can keep your optimism up! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Trypto. Yes, they are on the face of them bad. Second. if you look around them in time. you will see that I went and apologized to ManJess very shortly after i wrote that and he forgave me, and the interaction with Protein1EFN was a long and complex one that included me talking on the phone to and emailing with the head of social media for IMS (that is who they work for) and things are fine now. This is kind of cherry-picking ick that Atsme generates (she can be a good rhetorician) and I am disappointed with you for not asking me anything about them, much less looking at them yourself (doesn't seem you did), before you judged so flatly. (yes, they are bad on their face) Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Trypto, I had promised myself that I would just read these posts and not respond, but this is beyond the pale. Jytdog called and emailed an editor's employer? Why wasn't he blocked? He contacted an editor's employer a second time and no one thinks that this was inappropriate? Jesus! People have lost their jobs in the real world from this type of crap. I don't care if the guy was the worst WP:COI violator in Wiki-history, we don't take off-wiki actions to enforce on-wiki policies. If mere editors are contacting employers, they are creating all sorts of potential problems for Wikipedia if someone is damaged from that contact. Someone needs to explain to him very strongly that contacting editors or their employers off-wiki is not acceptable conduct under any circumstances. GregJackP Boomer! 06:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

GregJackP, the boss emailed me directly and opened a discussion with me, which included some back and forth emailing and phone calls and in which I included other WP:MED members. IMS wanted to establish a presence on Wikipedia as part of a larger internet strategy, and wanted to do it in compliance with our policies and guidelines. Discussions about this ensued at WT:MED and COIN and a few user Talk pages. Hasn't gone much of anywhere. The first dif you link to was an email to the editor; the second dif you link to where I said I emailed their boss happened after the boss had reached out to me, and in those discussions he asked me to let him know if there were any subsequent problems. Bigger picture - you are letting your resentment blind you - as in this case, you didn't even stop to consider what the facts of the matter might actually be, before jumping to very strong conclusions. This is only going to harm you here in WP, the longer you let that keep happening. You will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

GregJackP, I'm happy to hear from you here at my talk page, but I also want to remind you of my suggestion at ANI, that you and Jytdog voluntarily refrain from commenting on one another. OK? I haven't looked at the diffs or their contexts, because I am getting fatigued with this discussion, but I think that there is nothing wrong with responding to e-mails initiated by the editor's boss, if the boss initiated the interaction. Jytdog, it sure sounds like you understand quite well that it's an entirely different matter if you, as an editor here, initiate the first contact, and I'm a lot more interested in things working better going forward than in rehashing the past. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Trypto, sorry to be contributing to drama on your Talk page, but I am so incensed that Jytdog could write "Yes, they are on the face of them bad." What part of such edits could be considered as anything other than absolutely disgusting and totally unacceptable. To be writing such messages to other editors deserves, in my opinion, a life-time ban.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Dr. Chrissy. It's good to hear from you. Jytdog, I am glad that you apologized to Mann jess, as well you should have. You should not be "disappointed with [me] for not asking [you] anything about them", because I have expected that you are watching here, and you are free to respond. However, I want to be very clear about the following: they are not only bad on their face, they are bad, full stop. I thought very seriously about going to ANI myself about them, and you should count yourself lucky that I didn't. Apology afterward is absolutely the only appropriate posture for you about them. This has nothing to do with anyone being a good rhetorician or good anything else, because I am quite capable of evaluating these things myself. I respect you a lot, and I trust that this will not happen again. If it does, do not expect me to defend you. Really, you are too good an editor and too good an asset to Wikpedia, for you to be letting your anger get the better of you in these ways. Better to apologize than not, but better still not to make mistakes this big in the first place. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't deny even a little bit that I wrote those things. I did. They were bad. We are getting into the the problem of harm and its aftermath. I am indelibly marked by the bad things I have done in the community - those diffs will be there for all time, for people to dredge up and stab me with. And I will have to take it. I expect that from some quarters. Some people I have been rude to are also marked, and have been unable to heal. I know that too. In the actual living Wikipedia community, there are relationships, and these things happened in specific ones. The story does matter. In those two cases, the parties who were actually involved have moved on. They are over. But there are people I have been rude to or had clashes with, who won't or can't move on.

I don't know what you got out of feeding Atsme's desire for vengeance by also making sure you repeated to me (three times now) that they were bad. I know they were bad, Trypto. I knew they were bad ages ago.

It is clear that from your words, Atsme drew succor in her resentment against me - and to be straight with you, in my view, you are not helping her or the community by feeding her resentment. She of course has a right to hold onto her pain and to try to pursue that as far as she wants to. DrChrissy too. (I was rude to him, I apologized and was warned at ANI. I have moved on and am trying to do better; he has unfortunately not been able to move on and holds a grudge, and even tracks me in his sandbox. I am sad about that but there is nothing I can do about it. Again, the problem of harm and its aftermath; in the case of DrChrissy, complicated by watching the person I insulted being unable to heal and destroying himself.)

What can one do, when one does harm, other than apologize and move on and keep trying to do better (and actually try, not just say it)? That is not a rhetorical question. There are people who do too much harm and we ban them. Maybe I have been rude enough times for that to be the case. I don't think so. But maybe it is so. But to make things as absolute as you are doing with regard to those two diffs in particular, is somehow brittle and false.

And all of this reminds me that there is something I need to do... Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

"...and even tracks me in his sandbox." Jytdog, if you know that, you have been tracking me! That does not bother me in the slightest, but it makes me wonder how you, a single editor, finds the time to know that along with all the other edits and COI interactions.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I put your sandbox on my watchlist ages ago. Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Chrissy, I'm still not clear on what really went on during my prolonged absence from WP, but I want to repeat something that I also said earlier. I have very much enjoyed my editing of various pages, separately, with Dr. Chrissy and with Jytdog, and I value both of you as editors very much. I don't really understand how the conflict between you two began, but I really hope that both of you will become friendly collaborators in the future. After all, Viriditas and I have done two DYKs together.

I'm going to close this talk thread soon, because I think that it is getting close to going past its use-by date. But I want to leave things open a little longer, on the theory that it's better for editors to blow off steam on my talk page than somewhere else, so I'm still listening for just a bit longer. Jytdog, let me repeat something else. I said earlier, and I meant it, that I wouldn't expend this much time and thought on most editors. I'm doing it for you because I hold you in very high regard, as an editor, and as a Wiki-friend. I'm glad that you understand what I have been telling you, and I trust you to learn, going forward, which is the main thing I care about here. I have tried to treat Atsme with the respect and consideration that I do for any editor who comes to my talk in a civil way, but what I have told her has been honest, and you need to recognize that I cautioned her not to pursue any further dispute resolution with you. Before I replied here, I first looked nervously at ANI, and was relieved to see nothing new there.

About healing, now that is something that I hope to see all around! It's time for Javert to exit the stage, and Cossette to enter. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Happy healing :-) DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm closing this discussion now, with thanks to everyone who was here. It being my talk page, I get to give myself the last word, and to pontificate a bit.

I've observed that many Wikipedia editors are human beings. As such, all humans make mistakes. (I, of course, am instead a fish, and therefore perfect.) When an editor makes a mistake, it's best for the project if one recognizes that this is simply human, and not rush to assign blame. And when one makes a mistake, it's best to recognize it, do whatever one can to fix it, and learn from it. It's only when an editor chooses not to learn from and correct mistakes that dispute resolution becomes necessary.

And that in turn leads to a bit of advice. I catch myself making mistakes about this all the time, in fact, but it's something to aim for, at least. Whenever you find yourself in a dispute with another editor, think about what you say to that editor, not simply in terms of what you want to say to them, but also from the perspective that you want whatever you say to sound "right" to any uninvolved editor who might come along and read your comments with no preconceptions. By sounding "right", what I mean is that you want to sound level-headed, not angry, and doing your best to advance the writing of an encyclopedia even in the face of others who do not have such good intentions. You want to sound that way, relative to the other editor, rather than to have it sound the other way around. Often that means taking a bit of time to compose your thoughts before you hit the save button. At least that's something useful to aim for.

Please don't anyone think I'm directing that at any individual editor. I think it applies to everyone who has been a party to this discussion. And I wish everyone happy editing, moving on. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2015 (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.

Winding up

Not to press, but if you'll give your assent to the resolutions of issues #A4, A5, A6a, ~~and A7,~~ plus the discussion at Talk:Phineas_Gage#Disposition_of_behavior_citations (which should be easy) then the only things left will be Talk:Phineas_Gage#And_another_thing.2C_dagnabbit.21 and Talk:Phineas_Gage#Notes. For both of those the ball's in your court, and I'm not sure you still care about them. After that we're done! EEng (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe sometime in the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I said that last night after a tough day of editing disagreements, so I was more curt than I should have been. But please give me some time, a lot of time. (Obviously, what I said at what is now the top of my talk page, about intending to stay away from dramas for a while – I've been failing miserably at following my own advice!) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, you'll be happy to know that I think this should be drama-free. The items listed are action items you and I had worked out (mostly integrating notes into main text etc.), plus Mirokado's and my solution to the technical problem of citing sources from within notes. There's nothing left to do, but I want your imprimatur so no one can say due consideration wasn't given to you-know-who's nonsense, and I'd like to get this stuff off the discussion page.

The two threads that remain after that were your additional concerns about the quantity of notes. I'm hoping that with all the changes under the earlier threads, this won't be a concern any more. EEng (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. I'd still encourage you to work on what I said at Talk:Phineas_Gage#Notes. Otherwise, I find the page much improved! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Strange

I just came across some unusual material in the atropine article and I was wondering if you know anything about the mechanism:

Atropine eye drops have been shown to be effective in slowing the progression of myopia in children in several studies, but it is not available for this use, and side effects would limit its use.[12]

Do you think in the future we might be able to treat myopia with simple eye drops? Provided we can eliminate the dancing wallpaper and furry elves? :) Viriditas (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'm quite familiar with those concepts (even taught them). Atropine blocks a kind of receptor for acetylcholine. That has the effect of altering the curvature of the eye, by altering the tone of the smooth muscles that control that curvature (by blocking the effect of the nerve that controls the muscle). It also dilates the pupil of the eye. In fact, if you've ever had an eye exam where the doctor gave you eye drops to dilate the pupils, those drops were you-guess-what. And that means that, using it this way in children, it interferes with exposing the eyes to bright light. A further problem with atropine is that, if you use it for any length of time, it doesn't stay in place, but moves throughout the body, where it does all kinds of things like raising blood pressure and a lot of other stuff that would be considered side effects.

Now as for a future pharmacological treatment for myopia, I suppose there's no reason why not, although the biggest issue would be that you want something that can be overridden by voluntary focusing of the eye. If the drops just fixed your eyes in focus at the distance, then you wouldn't like it if it prevented you from reading something close up. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed response. I just saw this news item and thought you might have something to say about it. Viriditas (talk) 08:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I'm happy to do it. (And you are getting quite a deal: there was a time when someone would have to have paid a lot of tuition to get that lecture from me!

) As for the cataracts study, I looked at it and it looks very solid to me. (The principal weakness is that they don't really understand the mechanism, and thus don't really know cause-and-effect.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Section break

This discussion is closed, and I hope that editors will come to find that they can work together happily. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Viriditas: On a separate topic, I saw what you said at WP:ANI#Bigger picture. Please take it as a friendly request that you reconsider whether that was really as "open and shut" as that. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. However, whenever I read insulting, overly defensive, hypocritical backhanded attacks like this, that appear to show a basic misunderstanding of the article improvement process, which is one of the tenets of Wikipedia, I tend to stick to my original thesis. Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Viriditas, I'm sufficiently puzzled by the diff that you gave that I wonder if you linked to the wrong edit. What I'm seeing Jytdog do in that diff is very sensitively suggesting that an editor should try to see things from another editor's perspective. I'm not seeing what you describe. He does say, briefly, that he would be surprised if the editor that he is not addressing there would respond appropriately to that understanding of their point of view, so maybe that's what you are talking about. But I think you are focusing on something where you are missing the bigger picture. In any case, my request to you was to reconsider whether there really is any kind of deliberate coordination between Jytdog and the editor he tells to see the other point of view. You said that the evidence is "open and shut", and it's very clear from the subsequent discussion at ANI that it wasn't. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not have enormous amounts of free time to analyze Jytdog's comments, nor would I wish that kind of task on my worst enemy. Suffice it to say that everything that I previously observed in that diff (yes, it's correct) is all there and much more. Jytdog argues, quite speciously I must say, that GregJackP's desire to bring an article to Good Article standards is unimportant, showing that Jytdog fails to understand the article improvement process and why it is important. From this basis, I've made the observation that these words reveal a lot about Jytdog. He doesn't engage in the article improvement process, rather, he tends to destabilize a topic area, often preventing it from reaching stability, a criterion needed for both GA and FA. As if that wasn't enough, Jytdog goes further, arguing that only himself and Kingofaces43 "come from a science-based perspective", which infers that any objection to his edits must come from irrational, anti-science crazies. Then, he refers to "people with a battleground mentality" who "are going to draw (invalid) GANG conclusions if we are both involved," meaning that anyone who notices the pattern must themselves be engaging in bad behavior. So that's two backhanded attacks on his critics right off the bat. Frankly, the amount of narcissistic, psychological manipulation found in his comments is so far off the charts, his behavior, in my opinion, is bordering on abnormality. His little digression on "preference-based" editing is intended to show that he's the paragon of objectivity, neglecting the fact that the majority of his contributions consist of subjective, preference-based editing. I think I've said enough on this matter. Jytdog comes across as someone who has a pro-biotech bias, to the point where it interferes with the stability and neutrality of an article. I am neither the first editor nor the last to make this observation. Keep in mind, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with being "pro-biotech", it only becomes a problem when the bias overwhelms NPOV and destabilizes a topic area. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

This is part of what I meant about reading without love but rather with hate, bringing the most negative interpretation possible. What I wrote about good article status, was about good article status. For some people, getting the "gold star" - getting a DYK or GA or FA and listing that on their User page and keeping it there - is important. Status, based on accumulating "gold stars" can become its own thing, just like some people want to have wealth and flashy cars to show it. Incentive systems are what they are, and part of working in WP (or anywhere) means understanding what is important to the people you are working with. As for me, I care a lot about content and improving articles, and I respect the heart of what GA and FA are all about. I have never engaged with the incentive system myself. I may do one day, but haven't so far. In any case, you read my words in the most negative light possible. Jytdog (talk)

I'm about to close and hat this discussion, but first: Viriditas, I really did read that diff, and I'm telling you honestly what I saw in it, and it's not what you saw. My guess is that most uninvolved editors would have read it pretty much as I did. I think it's unfortunate that you feel the way that you said that you do, and I hope that you'll consider that you once felt somewhat like that way about me. And frankly, I once felt that way about you! But the point is that maybe, just as you and I have moved on to a better place, I hope that you and Jytdog will eventually do the same – and I firmly believe that it is possible. And none of what I said there should discourage you at all from coming back to my talk, where you remain very welcome. We just really, really disagree about this. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

"In this world, hatred has never been defeated by hatred. Only love can overcome hatred. This is an ancient and eternal law." You remain so full of bile. I am sorry for you. Jytdog (talk) 02:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

This kind of bizarre response is exactly why myself (and many others) try to avoid you. My commentary has nothing to do with "hatred" of any kind. Your denigration of the value of the article improvement process in the above diff tells me you have a fundamental misunderstanding about how Wikipedia works. Perhaps you should start writing articles and submitting them through the process so that others won't lodge the same criticism again. Of course, that would mean you would have to work within the NPOV policy rather than constantly trying to undermine it, which is why I suspect you have so little regard for the process. Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

First of all you are reacting to a comment that I removed, and holding anyone to something that like that, is just ick. Second, you are carrying a whole load of bad assumptions and bile about me into this, that most of the community here doesn't share. (I do recognize that I have a gang of haters, and that you are one of them) To be frank I don't think you have ever approached me in any kind of loving spirit. You pounded against me and then gave up. That is your bile. I am sorry for you, that you carry that around. More specifically, I really don't know what you are objecting to in anything I wrote there; although I removed it, I will be happy to discuss any part of it that you find objectionable. But only if it is a discussion in which you are listening to what I have to say. I have no desire to just listen to you vent. Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

You have an extremely annoying tendency to avoid responding directly to what people say and instead "talk" at them about things they didn't say. You appear to be engaging in the very "battleground" behavior you referred to in the diff by referring to me as part of your "gang of haters". The rest of your comment is more of the same. You haven't responded to any of the points I've raised, you've only deflected from them. My entire experience interacting with you involves nothing less than being reverted by you for no good reason, being "talked" to by you about things that have nothing to do with the topic under discussion, and being attacked by you, such as the example above. I am sure that I am not alone in this experience, and that the "gang of haters" you refer to is actually a gang of victims who have been wronged by you in many different ways. For my part, I try to avoid you as best as I can, much as I would avoid any other type of person who behaves like you do. Criticism of your behavior cannot be construed as "hate" by any reasonable person, and your continued misrepresentation of every discussion is proof that talking to you is a bad idea. Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

V, you haven't made any statements that I can respond to. That was a pretty long post and you just made general claims. I asked you what specifically you found objectionable. That is all I can do, since I don't know what you had issues with. Bigger picture, I always try to respond directly to what people say to me. I know you were frustrated by our interactions in the past; I didn't find them productive either. I am sorry you feel victimized - for what its worth I thought you treated me pretty badly, pretty consistently, and I was happier when you stopped interacting with me. It isn't nice to be treated in a dehumanizing way like this (and your interactions with me were full of stuff like that). I also do not seek you out; I have no desire to interact with you generally. But V, dehumanizing people and carrying around the anger with which you did that - that is what hate is. No love there - no recognition of someone else's humanity. It is bad to experience the outcome, but it really hurts the one who carries it around. I am sorry you are in that condition. Like I said, if you want to discuss (and I do mean discuss) anything I wrote in that diff - for example what specifically you find in it that reflects "a misunderstanding about how Wikipedia works" I will do that. Jytdog (talk) 04:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, the diff you refer to is in regards to Domingo & Bordonaba 2011 and Monbiot 2002. I don't see your name connected to that diff, so when you speak about "dehumanizing" you, I have to ask, what in the world are you talking about? Looking at the above comments you've made, you've distracted from every point I've raised. You seem excessively preoccupied with personal adequacy and unable to see the destructive damage you are causing to others with your behavior. I hope you think long and hard before you reply with another distracting, out of context diff and wild speculations about my personal mental state. Perhaps you aren't aware of it, but every time you respond like this it presents itself as a textbook case of dissembling. Your distractions aside, I'll happily return to main point: the reason you denigrate the article improvement process (and don't participate in it) is because it requires NPOV. Other editors have characterized your edits as "pro-biotech". Since the article improvement process would neutralize this bias on the spot, you avoid it. This nicely explains why you ridiculed GregJackP's involvement in the article improvement process, and your personal reasoning behind it. Instead of complimenting GregJackP for spending an enormous amount of his time going through this process, you insulted him. I point this out because your reaction was unusual. Editors who understand how Wikipedia works will often help others through the process, without regard to any POV because the process is supposed to balance everything out in the end. After all, the reason we are here is to improve articles, not skew them in favor of one side. Viriditas (talk) 06:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

what you wrote in that dif was: "There is no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs. This is a claim promoted by Monsanto and other biotech companies, with the help of their team of Internet shills who work for a known PR company and troll message boards and Wikipedia articles." You wrote that kind of stuff about me all the time. I asked you to point out what, in the dif you quoted above, you actually objected to, and you still have not done that. On the GMO stuff, my editing hews very strongly to NPOV. I understand that you and others actually see a world where GMOs are bad, bad things (on the level of Weltbild, not just Weltanshauung). That is the not the mainstream view per reliable sources nor the actual world, where GMO use is wide spread and becoming more so. I am sorry you are still upset about that. And I am sorry that your demons have awakened. I was hoping we could actually talk, but you are just piling on generalized nastiness. I am withdrawing the offer to talk, and am walking away from you now. Jytdog (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, the two of you, that was a very depressing exchange for me to have to read. I remember very well the context of that diff about editors who are shills at Wikipedia articles. I was pretty much accused of being such a shill at the time of that discussion, myself. But here is the bottom line for me: At that time, Viriditas and I were very much at one another's throats. But I've gotten over it – completely. And that's something that I value very much about editing here. Now, Viriditas and I have worked on pages together, gotten two DYKs together, and quite generally had a happy editing collaboration. And, separately, I've enjoyed editing with Jytdog, who is indisputably not a shill. What I'm trying to say to both of you is: drop it! It's just sad to see the two of you, both smart and talented editors, go at one another with so much assumption of bad faith. Get over it, both of you! Please! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick bit of input here, Jytdog misrepresents the facts above. Very serious questions are being raised about whether in fact the new version since Jytdog's 2012 takeover of the GMO article(s) is actually an improvement and NPOV. We just had an RfC where it turns out that the sources Jytdog has been using to support the consensus statement do not qualify as support. Viriditas correctly points out this "safety consensus" is a false narrative (given in WP's voice), as is detailed in this paper which specifically calls out the misrepresentation of science put forth by our GM article. Besides that, it turns out our GM articles don't even describe or mention GRAS, and I have twice been reverted for trying to insert a note about the percentage of Americans favoring GMO labeling (I know, this makes me a Monsanto hater!) in the labeling section of the 'Controversy' coverage, where instead all that is mentioned is the FDA's flawless work re regulation. But all of this opposition and criticism is painted as coming from conspiracy theorizing, fringe-hugging Jytdog-haters. In the case of reviews such as Domingo, who finds that half of the GMO/human health studies do find 'reason for concern', it is written off as "fringe" and not included in the article. One may describe oneself as NPOV, but that's really for others to decide - not 'others' as in members of the Jdog fan club, but others who work in these contentious articles and base comments on reality. This may be the reason it is emphasized that WP is not a social networking site. The buddy system ("please rethink your AN/I comment") has no place here, and really screws things up, especially at noticeboards. petrarchan47 คุ ก 14:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The header of this section is becoming more and more appropriate. I will not be responding to this either. Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I've got a variety of things I'm going to say here. The first one, I'm going to take Petrarchan47's side on. Jytdog, I saw the BLP template that you put on her talk page yesterday, and it made me wince when I saw it. I was quietly watching the discussion at Talk:Genetically modified food without getting involved in it, before any of these comments on my talk page. And it simply did not rise to the level of justifying a BLP template on her page. Please think of it in terms of the advice that I and others have been giving you. You came across as some kind of self-appointed police by doing that. It was a bad move. Even though you were right on many of the content issues (more on that below), the template came across as heavy-handed, and made you look less sympathetic, and Petrarchan47 look more sympathetic. It's not a BLP violation to advocate that the page address the fact that a government official charged with regulating an industry went through a revolving door with that industry. Although I will agree with Jytdog that the responisbletechnology.org source fails WP:RS very badly.

That said, I agree with Jytdog about there having been a lot of "conspiracy theorizing and soapboxing" based upon unreliable sources. I fear that if Petrarchan47 continues to treat Wikipedia as WP:RGW, no matter how well-intentioned the desire to "right" those "wrongs", she will end up with a ban.

As for the rest of that comment, I feel negatively about the claim that my request that Viriditas rethink an ANI comment makes me, or Viriditas or Jytdog, part of a "buddy system". I'm afraid that there really is a problem with "GMOs are evil" POV pushing on Wikipedia, whereas any push back against that gets mislabeled as shilling for Monsanto. There are dissenting scientific papers, but they need to be treated with due weight relative to the rest of the science. On the other hand, there are a ton of reasons, including the issues with lax government practices, that are part of the overall source material on GMOs, and demonstrate that the views of scientists do not equal the views of the general public. The science, and the broader political and social issues, are really two different things. There is no reason to reduce any of that, however, to two camps of Wikipedia editors, in the form of Jytdog-haters and a Jytdog fan club. Overall, I think that Jytdog is doing very good work in pushing back against the POV pushing, but this isn't a case of good-versus-evil. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Trypto, I hear you on the heavy-handedness of the BLP warning and how it made me look bad. Context: Taylor is a whipping boy for the anti-GMO crowd like no other living person is. I have warned other editors about BLP issues with regard to Taylor (here and here for example) and I had warned P here on June 10 about this same issue, on the same Talk page. After P went right back at it, as though I had never warned her, the user page warning was the next step. And my next step will probably be seeking admin or community action, especially now that this has been discussed yet a third time. I would prefer it doesn't go there, but P will do as she will. All this GMO stuff is hard enough without bringing BLP issues into it. It is also gratuitous in the context where P brought it up, since the content under discussion is not even about Taylor. So that is the context, and I would be happy to explain that at ANI or elsewhere - the warning was not out of the blue. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful explanation, and for seriously considering what I said. Often, a simple comment to another editor, without resort to a template, especially when the editor is far from being new here, is sufficient to establish a record. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome. I do hear you on me looking boorish with that on first glance (and maybe even with the context provided). I don't want to look that way but I also wanted P to know that I meant what I wrote earlier. Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

My RfA

Pavlov's RfA reward

Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Oppose so you get only one cookie, but a nice one. (Better luck next time.)
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

Thank you

Your comment meant a lot to me, thank you for your support. Kharkiv07 (T) 02:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You are, of course, very welcome! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Atheism

Hello dear User, please pay attention to this topic - Talk:Atheism#The last edition of Ramos 1990. Thanks. M.Karelin (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for asking me. However, it is not a high priority for me at the moment. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Community desysoping RfC

Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

What oft was thought, but ne'er so well expressed . . .

You're a good man, Tryptofish: [13]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Dirtlawyer1. It truly does seem to me to be an RfA gone awry. (But... are you sure that I'm a man?) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure. But only The Shadow knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, but I'm actually a fish. (And let's leave it at that, wink.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories and soapboxing

Please understand that I meant what I said at #Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water..., above, and that my closing this discussion is not intended to be disrespectful or to shut down discussion. But it's becoming about more than just improving Wikipedia. Attempts to add more comments will be reverted. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

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.

You mentioned something about conspiracy theories and soapboxing, and although I know what those concepts mean, I didn't understand what you were referring to in the context of the previous discussion. Could you take a moment to briefly explain? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to this diff: [14]. And I would prefer not to have an extended argument over it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. That was very helpful, as I really didn't know what you were talking about. After seeing that diff, I'm not all that interested in discussing soapboxing, but if you could, would you be so kind to point to the conspiracy theory in your own words? From what I can tell, I'm just seeing business as usual, analogous to the tobacco industry trying to promote their product for profit and downplaying the health impact for fifty years; or the fossil fuel industry promoting their product and downplaying the environmental impact of climate change for a century; or the private military industry selling weapons and waging war while downplaying the regional instability and terrorism their policies cause. Is the biotech sector historically any different? Viriditas (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

In my own words? You list a bunch of examples where I'm pretty sure I agree with you: the tobacco industry denying the science that shows their product to be dangerous, the fossil fuel industry denying the science of climate degradation that shows their products to be dangerous, and so on. I dislike science denial in the service of financial greed just as much as you do. And I'll agree with you also (in my personal opinion, not in my role as an editor), that there are some very objectionable things about how the biotech industry operates and how the government mishandles it. But, in the case of biotech, the science shows that the products are actually not dangerous (with a few caveats), and that the products can (with caveats) offer good things to society. That's a fundamental difference relative to tobacco products. It's actually science denial by the critics of an industry. But conflating them strikes me as wrong, and anti-science, and anti-intellectual. Whether that conflation is exactly a matter of "conspiracy theories" or whether some other choice of words would be more apt, maybe there is a better choice of words, but I think that is Wikilawyering. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed response. Am I correct in assuming that you haven't looked into or studied the history of opposition to GMOs? I ask, because when you look into it, you'll find it has little to do with "anti-science" positions or "science denial" by critics. When you study the issue you find a complex trail of regulatory controversy, combined with risk aversion and industry influence. In many significant ways, my analogy was more than apt: the same people and groups involved in the tobacco, climate change, and military advocacy detailed above are also involved in biotech advocacy. Perhaps names like the American Council on Science and Health ring a bell from the past. There are many front groups like this that have been active on the same issues. One of the most active right now is the Cornell Alliance for Science, which has received almost six million (from a three billion dollar fund earmarked for agriculture) from the Gates Foundation to advocate for GMOs in the media and on the Internet. Viriditas (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Bottom line for me is that much prejudice exists with regard to GMO coverage on WP. A large group of editors claim to believe that any questioning of the whitewashed GM articles comes from Monsanto haters, quacks, or fringe adherents. But what the RfC showed (and these facts are unrelated to my credibility as a witness) is that the ENSSER is on point: the 'scientific consensus' of GM safety is not supported by facts. We have a long list of refs after the claim, but none of them support it either alone or SYNTHed. It turns out only Domingo has done a review of the studies looking specifically at GM food and human health impacts - and half of the studies raise questions. Meanwhile, if editors were truly here to represent the science and WP guidelines, one would assume the unsupported claim would be tweaked, removed, or supporting refs found and added. None of this is the case. To have over 300 scientists calling out Wikipedia's Genetically Modified food article as misrepresenting the science and creating a consensus claim that doesn't exist is very serious, yet no one is able to remedy the problem due to ownership issues and the aforementioned good ole boys club that turns all criticism back on the messenger. Soapboxing on a talk page is in no way comparable to misrepresenting science in article space to such a degree that an international body of scientists writes a paper about it. petrarchan47 คุ ก 05:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm also curious as to what Tryptofish thinks of people like Dennis T. Avery, who not only has a long history with the Heartland Institute and the Hudson Institute, but is notable for his science denial in support of his biotech advocacy. Please also note the connection between the military, tobacco, climate change, and GMOs. It's right there. Viriditas (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for caring what I think, which actually is a bit surprising, but in a flattering way. And most of what I'm about to say is my personal opinion, not my editing stance as a Wikipedia editor. Dennis Avery and others like him? Of course I have a strong objection to people who actually advocate for financial gain. I've already said, above, that the revolving door between government and industry is something that concerns me a lot, and that I do think it should be covered honestly on Wikipedia (but also that I think that responisbletechnology.org fails laughably as a reliable source). I criticized another editor for reducing the issue to a matter of BLP. I'm in favor of labeling GMO foods, and I think that the industry's opposition to labeling is idiotic, not least because it makes it look like they have something to hide. I have no use for "institutes" whose reason for existence is to promote pro-business or right-wing propaganda. And I have no use for science deniers. At the same time, as a long-time scientist myself, I'm quite ready to find fault with scientists who engage in professional misdeeds. But I really meant what I said about science deniers, because there's a difference between scientists, who are human and have human failings, and science, which when done correctly is far more reliably truthful than human preconceived notions.

Are you "correct in assuming that [I] haven't looked into or studied the history of opposition to GMOs?" You are entirely incorrect (unless you mean whether I've spent a lot of time reading non-WP:RS websites that promote anti-GMO POVs). And, although my own scientific career was in neuroscience, I also have a very good understanding of the science of plant genetics, and the genetic modification thereof, as well as of the ecology of that kind of agriculture. Is agricultural monoculture bad, and made worse by the GMO industry? In my opinion, yes and very much so. Are there legitimate concerns about the ecology of "escaping" herbicide-resistant plants? To some degree, yes again. But do I think that GMO foods are unhealthy? Absolutely not. The "science" that says otherwise strikes me as a joke, and yes I've read it and understood it. It's like the few science studies that say global warming is just a natural fluctuation, and not far from the "scientists" who try to claim evidence for Young Earth Creationism. I entirely agree that, at the level of political advocacy, it's the same typical suspects showing up here, that showed up for tobacco, for carbon fuels, and on and on. But it's not the same scientists. And I agree that most of the folks who have become active in opposition to GMOs did not come there from a background of being anti-science, and most likely would want to trout me if they heard me compare them to creationists. But we have to really look at what the science does and does not say.

And I find it a little patronizing to pose the question based on the assumption that I haven't looked into it. I make plenty of mistakes, but I attempt not to talk down to other editors. I think I'm actually being very consistent, in the sense that I'm advocating for science over science denial. Tobacco defenders tried to deny the obvious science, as do the climate change deniers. People who argue that GMO foods are less healthful than genetically conventional crops, much like people who argue that vaccines cause autism, come to it in good faith, but they have the science, overall, wrong. It becomes a matter of group identity and group pride for them, and that makes it hard for them to let go of the idea, or to believe that those who disagree with them could possibly be motivated by good faith. And, unfortunately, I see that attitude affecting Wikipedia. Yes, I know about the paper by Hilbeck et al.. I've also looked at the author affiliations at the end of the paper. I do believe Wikipedia should cite it, but also that Wikipedia should treat it with due weight along with the rest of the scientific source material.

On Wikipedia, I've been around this block before. I spent a lot of time NPOV-ing our pages about animal rights, and I've heard all the arguments like this before. Should Wikipedia present both sides of the GMO controversy? Yes. Should Wikipedia be the place for WP:RGW? No. We have a problem with anti-GMO POV pushing that outweighs any pro-GMO POV pushing, and it is made worse by its smugness.

That's my honest opinion, and if you disagree with me, that's OK. Wikipedia is all about working with all kinds of other people, even those with whom one disagrees. Normally, I welcome discussion, even when the discussion is challenging for me. I hope you don't feel like I'm shutting you down from what you'd like to say to me. But I'm also going to point up to #Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water.... I promised myself, following my mother's death, that I would try to take some time off from Wikipedia drama, and it appears that I've completely failed at that!

But that's on me, not on you. I need to draw a line under the discussion here, so I am. Thank you for your understanding, and happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2015 (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.

Sending a smile your way

Hello Tryptofish, Viriditas has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you very much my friend! I'm glad that you understand my reasons for what I said above. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Re:Liz RFA

Replying to your post here because my reply has less to do with Liz than personal wikiphilosphy, and that RFA has seen more than its share of heat. With that preamble, here is a longer explanation of why I found Liz's participation in that thread on Sitush's page troublesome:

Discretionary judgment: I haven't come across the exact phrase before but read Sitush's "Has it fuck" as a expression of frustration (cf. WTF) rather than abuse (cf. FU). That said, it would be better if such ambiguous phrases that are liable to be misread in a multicultural environment like wikipedia were avoided altogether. But the way Liz entered the discussion that followed was not helpful. Firstly telling a frustrated person to effectively calm down and mind their language is almost always counter-productive, no matter how politely you say it. At a minimum, one must briefly investigate if the frustration is valid (as it was in this case) and if so acknowledge it, while telling the editor to be express themselves more clearly. Secondly, even that advice is best given by either a "friendly figure" whom the editor likes, or by an "authority figure" who the editors trusts to be fair and not by an editor one has less-than friendly interactions with (to see things done right, see Drmies and Newyorkbrad's reproaches at the end of this section and the contrasting effect they had). Thirdly , unless an issue of civility or personal attack is escalating or causing undue hurt/distraction, it is best to ignore it altogether and help the matter die by distracting the editors to address the topic of central concern instead, ie deescalate whenever possible (for that reason the "There is no question mark" comment was not helpful either).
Priorities: It you look at Balmiki caste page history, Rohinisinghaliya contribution history (incl. contributions from the period that were later deleted), and the section on Sitush's talkpage section, you'll see that there were lot of things to object to. As I have already outlined at RFA, Rohinisinghaliya article space edits were problematic in terms of content and sourcing and indicated sock-puppetry; Rohinisinghaliya had subsequently admitted to being a "clean start" account; there was the incipient edit-warring; there were accusations of drunk editing; and then of course there was the above-mentioned phrase. I believe focusing only on the last was the wrong priority, made worse when Liz said "I wasn't making a comment on the quality of the edit but on how you responded to their questions. I think you can be civil to any editor, even to a troll or sock. The material looked like it was sourced to me and I thought you would provide an explanation not a epithet." I actually agree with the second sentence but, as I said above, I believe it was the wrong thing to say under the circumstances. But the first and third sentence are the ones I have real problems with, since the material didn't look adequately sourced (unless one judges anything with ref tags and a url as sourced) and having an experienced editor say that when one is already dealing with a problematic POV pusher is immensely frustrating. I won't belabor the point since as an experienced editor you probably have an idea of what I am talking about.

The reason I think this is relevant to adminship is because admins at RFPP/3RR/ANI boards and at article/user talkpages often have to intervene in exactly the type of dispute Sitush and Rohinisinghaliya had, and I fear admins who treat all arguments between Randies and encyclopedic-content contributors as black-box "content disputes", and issue admonishments and blocks based simple on counting reverts or checking for violations of WP:CIVIL. As I have stated at this and many previous RFAs I am not too concerned if an admin candidate writes article content themselves, as long as their editing shows that they recognize that the purpose of wikipedia is creating content, and understand what that entails. Failing to even recognize poor sourcing, POV pushing, sockpuppetry and SPA behavior and choosing to (mildly) rebuke an editor dealing with this is a red-flag for me that the latter condition is not satisfied. What would have happened in the above case, if Liz had been an admin back in March?

Before concluding, I should add the caveat that the above is clearly an over-analysis of a small editing sample, and I am pretty sure no editor's complete ouvre will survive that level of scrutiny (that is another reason I am not adding the above to the RFA or RFA talk page, or pinging any of the editors involved). I analyzed the particular sequence at the RFA and here only as an example of conduct that I found troubling in Liz's editing history, and not as a smoking-gun proving unfitness to be an admin (as say recent BLP/copyvios, gross incivility, outing etc would be). In any case, hope that makes my reason for opposing clear(er). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I said at the RfA page how I respect you, and wow, that detailed, thoughtful, and courteous response most certainly impresses me even more! Thank you for explaining that so clearly! (In fact, I remember a time when I was still a fairly new editor, and I raised a complaint at the 3RR noticeboard. You responded with an IAR response asking me and the other person to work it out between us, and it was an important Wiki-education for me, one that I still remember and that now influences my own comments in disputes.) Long story short, I think this RfA is full of ambiguities, and it may well be that I have been mistaken. I do think that some of what has gone on there has been cultural misunderstandings between editors from different English-speaking backgrounds, and that there also has been a lot of harping on small mistakes that really ought not to be disqualifying. At the same time, I think that your explanation has been very helpful to me in not only understanding your position, but also the positions that were taken by numerous other administrators. Thanks again, --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Just stumbled across this talk page discussion and it's interesting reading now that the RfA ordeal is over. In hindsight, I could have handled that interaction with Sitush better (or, maybe, not at all). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Liz: It's certainly good to be able to look back at things after some time has passed. I'm glad that I supported you. It seems to me that you are doing very good work with the tools. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Both my nominators and I were stunned at the reaction at my RfA. I might pass, I might not pass...but no one expected it to become a battleground. After you've been the subject of hundreds of talk page comments, one can only approach adminship duties cautiously and carefully!

Maybe in a month or two, I can look at the Crat chat talk page but right now, I don't want what was said during my RfA (or who said what) to influence me. Once I have more experience under my belt, I can go read the pages where editors were debating my editing history and personality and not take it so personally. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a very sensible approach. In any case, it's only a website, and other people can have opinions that are just plain wrong, although sometimes they can also give helpful feedback. One thing you can be assured of: the majority, and the consensus, of participating editors trust you to be a good admin. The critics lost the argument. And per me, you are doing a good job. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

No longer just repeating

Hi, Tryptofish. When you removed this, that made sense because the incorrigible Darwinbish had added it to the box (a separate template) as well, after Manul's edit.[15] (Don't ask me what she was thinking.) But she has been reverted too, so now the useful sentiment doesn't appear at all. It should be visible somewhere on the page, don't you agree? Please consider self-reverting. Bishonen | talk 08:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC).

Hi Bish, and your incorrigible doppelganger. It took me a while to figure out what was going on, because the revert of your doppelganger was on the template, rather than on the page. And because when I made the edit yesterday, I was unaware of the template editing history (simply because I hadn't bothered to look), I mistakenly figured that it must have been there for some time, making Manul's edit redundant. That was why I made that revert. But frankly, I kind of agree with the editor who subsequently reverted you at the template, because it really does seem to make light of the Committee's often serious and under-appreciated role. So, I guess I don't agree – but it's also not a big deal to me either way. Perhaps it could go, instead, somewhere lower on the page. Maybe you might want to raise the issue on the talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

A suggestion: at the page bottom there is a template:commonscat. Perhaps the quote could be placed in a template:ombox next to that. But at this point, I'd oppose returning it to the top of the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

See, I have no idea what you said in the first two sentences there. I'm no good with templates and boxes. Darwinbish isn't too bad with them — she's made some fine boxes of her own, warnings and such, proudly displayed on her userpage. But those aren't transcluded anywhere, for good reason, and neither of us is much of a hand with that aspect. But as for your third sentence, yeah, I'm with you, and I didn't really expect you to put it back. I think Manul is pleased enough it stuck as long as it did. Compare[16]. Anyway, happy editing — I'm glad you're back in the water. Bishonen | talk 21:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC).

OK, then, @Darwinbish: here's what I was thinking, in case any of the Bishes care. Go to WP:Arbitration Committee. Then scroll all the way down to the very bottom of the page. There, you will see:

My suggestion is to take this:

...and type that Colbert stuff inside of it, and put it near the first box. That's only if you want, personally no biggie to me either way. And please tell Bishonen that I said thank you for welcoming me back! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Mediation?

DrChrissy, I know that you said that you won't reply, but I would like to know that you have given my reply to you a serious read. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC) Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

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.

Hi Trypto - so as we discussed above, I upset DrChrissy a while ago and he has remained upset. He pursued his upsetness into the Acupuncture article and got himself topic-banned from discussing MEDRS. Around the same time he made some other probing edits into areas I edit and he never had before, but didn't pursue them. In the wake of the Atsme ANI that led to her block, he has jumped into ongoing disputes at the Glyphosate article and is making the already-difficult situation there worse. I tried to discuss this with him at his Talk page. I am really sick of the drama boards so I thought I would try seeing if you, who seems to have a good relationship with each of us, might be willing and able to help. What I would like, is if DrChrissy just worked on what he likes; this ~seems~ to me to just be conflict-seeking behavior and I don't want more drama. And it is unlikely to end well for him, the more he pursues it - as has already happened before with the topic ban..... so not good for anybody, much less WP. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog. I've got a bunch of things I want to say here. The first is that, following my mother's death earlier this year, I have been very eager to focus on some content writing that interests me and to stay away from conflicts. Just a little way above, I hatted some discussion about GMO-related disagreements, so as soon as I saw Glyphosate here, my immediate reaction was one of oh, no. So please understand that my willingness to work on this dispute will be finite, OK?

The next thing I'm going to say completely violates what I just said above, because I'm nothing if not inconsistent.

I've done some lurking, in spite of my intentions otherwise, and I saw [17], [18], [19], [20]. I was very pleased to see how you handled that! I didn't want to post to your user talk, because I didn't want to draw attention to it, but your post here gave me the opportunity to say it now. I had suggested that you consider responding to editors by keeping in mind how it looks to others who are uninvolved. And there, you did everything right! The other person comes off badly, and you come off as sincere and understanding. Good! Please keep that up! Now, that said, I'm not seeing COI there, so much as POV. I would suggest being careful to refer to the right thing in these contexts, because it matters to get it right (and more on that below). If you say a POV pusher has a COI, they will complain that it's not a COI, and that sidetracks a legitimate concern.

OK, now to the matter at hand. I've looked at the Glyphosate stuff, and I see it less as a matter of WP:PSTS, than as a matter of WP:UNDUE. It's not that primary sources are in and of themselves bad sources for that page (the material was largely not medical, so MEDRS does not apply), but that, with so many primary sources, there are due weight issues with highlighting a few sources without rebuttal. Again, this is why I've emphasized the need to be precise in which policies you cite. I think that DrChrissy and other editors on that "side" of the discussion have a valid point when they say it's permissible to cite primary sources. What you and editors on the other "side" should do is work towards letting those things be cited, but be cited much more briefly, and followed by a refuting source. You are going to lose an argument if you are arguing against one POV. You'll be better off arguing for "both sides" of the issue. Yeah, I know about the limits of equal time in science content. But I'm just suggesting what is realistic at Wikipedia. Always look for ways to split the difference, instead of winning.

Now, that said, I'd like to look at whether there might be a problem with DrChrissy following you from page to page. DrChrissy, I hope you can come here, to my talk, and tell me your view of this issue. What I would like is for both of you, Jytdog and DrChrissy, to please address what you say to me, and not to each other. And I'm reluctant to have other editors who watch my talk jump in, but I cannot forbid it, so please use discretion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for being willing and sorry to distract you from what you want to work on here.

Thanks for your kind words on my interaction with Mr Bill Truth and feedback on that. Please know that when I ask an editor about COI, I really don't know the answer - the question is not a polite accusation. I do make a definite claim of promotional editing - edits of a fan of X and an edits of an editor paid by X look identical - but when I ask about "connections" I don't know if the answer will come back "advocate" or "COI". Mr Bill Truth could work for Null, or could be a fan of Null. (he has not clearly answered yet - "I work for nobody" is not really a response, but I am aware that responses from the community are tending to see unpaid advocacy, not COI)

Thx for your advice on the sourcing issues, which I won't respond to now so as to keep the mediation focused, but would be happy to, whenever you like (including now, if you like - i have thought a lot about this, per this on my User page, and it applies to all sides of any debate in WP) Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

You are very welcome, but no, I really don't want to talk about those sourcing issues. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tryptofish, I am so sorry to hear about your mother. I knew that you had taken a wiki-break earlier this year, however, I did not know the reason. You stated on your Talk page a while ago that you wish to avoid drama. I am going to respect this desire, and say that I will not engage any further in this thread after this post. I believe Jytdog is trying to unjustifiably attack me via the back door by bringing this here - if he really feels my behaviour is inappropriate, I have no doubt he would raise this on a noticeboard. I am also aware that very often, threads involving Jytdog bring with them many followers who I suspect will not respect your desire not to "jump in" and drama is almost certain here. I therefore think that the best course of action for me is to say "thank-you" for being amenable to this process, however, I will not be engaging in it as I wish to avoid causing you drama and because I do not believe "mediation" is necessary. I hope you enjoy your time editing articles you would rather be editing.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks, DrChrissy. I honestly do not believe that it is true that Jytdog is trying to attack you via the back door, whereas I really do believe that he is sincerely trying to avoid noticeboards about this. I think that he wants to see if something I can say to you can make the use of a noticeboard unnecessary. I strongly recommend to both of you that you look for ways at the Glyphosate article to present a balanced view of primary sources, without giving undue weight to any single primary source. OK? If the two of you are finding that you are having trouble getting along, and I could not care less whose "fault" it is, just try to steer clear of each other. And both of you, please hear me: I've edited with both of you, and I like both of you, and I really believe that both of you could work together happily. Just look at is as something where you will have to split the difference, instead of reverting. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Trypto, I will repeat what you said above and ask that nobody jump in here. I came here looking for as safe/no-drama of a space as can be found in Wikipedia, and hope that can be respected. Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Trypto - I hope this is the appropriate way to reply as you requested. I have read your reply and I thank you for that considered view. I will certainly take those thoughts on board for my future editing.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, no problem, and thank you for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2015 (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.

Re: Animal cognition

I know perfectly well that you don't want to be bothered with such matters as you are focusing on other things, but I could use your advice as to how to go about updating the animal cognition page. See User_talk:SlimVirgin#Animal_cognition_article for further information. I'm not looking to debate or discuss it (and I know you don't want to at this point), I'm just looking for the latest research literature and how to best represent the consensus. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've already replied there, even before I saw your post here. As for the latest research literature, there really isn't a neuroscience of consciousness, of a sort that would help with what you are discussing. There's plenty of science about, for example, what anesthetics do to brain activity, but that's not going to help you. If you want some other editor opinions, I can suggest checking with Looie496 and Randykitty. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, I don't speak Valleyspeak. Humor is tricky online. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I wish I could say you were helpful! :) Surely you know we were going off of the definitions over at animal consciousness? Fine, be that way. :) Viriditas (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I wish you had not added that. "Fine, be that way" is not a welcome comment. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The emoticon implies irony, and is meant to be read in Valleyspeak, with a swish of the head. Please try to lighten up, friend. Viriditas (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

What I actually said: [21]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Phineas Gage

– Corinne (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Ha! I'm not sure which is worse, those, or Gage's iron rod. Anyway, I'm looking forward to hearing what you think of the new color idea. Maybe we will even have a consensus! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I kind of drifted away from the conversation, but have tried to catch up. I didn't see mention of color. I'll have to look at it. Are you getting high-tech over there? Corinne (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, kind of lower-tech than before. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

no one cares a xxx's xxx it seems

Looks like that editor who hides behind the IP is never going to be found because no one seems to be doing anything at all, or seems to even care. Even though you also asked nicely. Am off on a break until I manage to cool down a bit - frankly I find the behavior of some of the editors quite reprehensible and improper, and I do not like having folks say I lied when I said I asked for some time to prepare answers when my wife might have been dying -- malignant melanoma's which are over eight inches long are pretty scary beasts, indeed. Then a trip to take minds off the possibilities - seemed better to do that than anything else. Collect (talk) 00:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: Thanks for stopping off here before your break, and I sincerely wish you some refreshment and renewal during that break. I'm leaving this message here for when you get back. Yes, that IP does concern me too, and I too have not been able to find any evidence of a checkuser investigation, although it may have been done without announcement. I actually thought about filing a request at SPI myself, but I cannot see a permissible way to list a sockmaster. However, I am cautiously optimistic that the clear requests for investigation by me and by others will give that IP some pause, because it is becoming clear that an ax will fall on whoever it is if another AE were to be filed.

That said, please accept my friendly advice. I'm seeing administrators at AE agree with me that you were testing boundaries in that revert, and you now know where the boundaries are, so please do not stray near them again. And, about what I said about "snark" at your talk, I know that you replied that the example I gave just shows that it was your typical sign-off, but please consider my advice that such a typical practice may be misunderstood by editors who do not know that it is typical. To tell someone that they are completely wrong, and then end with "Cheers", can easily lead to a misunderstanding of what that "Cheers" meant.

Those melanomas are indeed frightful, and I wish you and yours better times ahead. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Stuart Firestein

Any particular thoughts on Stuart Firestein and his book Ignorance: How it Drives Science (2012)? I thought his contrarian argument about hypothesis formation was on the mark. I'm just wondering if you have any critical views here. Viriditas (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't read the book, but I'm thinking now about reading it. I would quibble with him that hypothesis posing shouldn't entirely come after data collection, although hypothesis testing is indubitably data-dependent, but that's a quibble about language rather than a disagreement on the substance. More importantly, I tend to be a contrarian similar to him, so there's a lot that I like about what he says. I agree with him that there is too much bad-habit tendency for modern science to look for data that supports a hypothesis, instead of going where the data tells you to go. It's a big problem with peer-reviewed publishing: positive results get published and negative results get hidden (although recently there has been a very encouraging backlash against that in medical research). It's a near-fatal problem with funding: grants that get funded tend to be very cautious proposals that conform to conventional wisdom. I became very jaded with just those issues. As a matter of fact, I have come to the opinion that Wikipedia does "peer review" better than professional science does. So there! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Folta/Mediation

Hi,... sigh. I'm involving myself more than I want to already. I've lost too many nerves on wikipedia in days long gone, which you may or may not suffice to explain why I'm an IP, and not registered.

First, thanks for the 'comment' pointing towards this ArbCom-initiative about GMOs. The German quasi-equivalent "Schiedsgericht" doesn't deal with content issues. I did not know the en.wiki-version in fact does solve such issues, and I was delighted to find out. It allows editorial control over problems which would otherwise be stuck in an endless debate among contributing authors.

However, I feel like "GMOs" doesn't fully address one of the main issues mentioned in the mediation request. Namely "Is there a smear campaign brought against scientists, specifically Kevin Folta, supporting GMOs as being safe." I'm not certain what your comment implies with regards to potential mediation here.

I take issue with the argument made by one author on the talk page of the article (which really came up after the request for mediation), which seems either incredibly hyperbolic, or "fringe" in nature. I've supplied links to Tweets by Gary Ruskin, the person behind that "smear campaign", which should illustrate my point reasonably well. Talk:Kevin_Folta#Suggest_mediation

After reading through contributions of said author, I'm not overly optimistic about the chances to solve this issue through discussion, debate, or even mediation. Do you think the debate about what constitutes a "smear campaign" is covered by the ArbCom-initiative on GMOs (guild by association, so to speak), or should it be seen as a separate issue? It's certainly a very common term otherwise. --2A02:8070:8883:CA00:20E9:98C2:7B69:41CF (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me. It seems to me that a significant part of the mediation request has to do with the science of being either pro- or anti-GMO. As such, it is definitely within the scope of the ArbCom case. My understanding of MedCom is that they have a policy against accepting cases when the dispute is also being dealt with somewhere else, ArbCom in this case. Therefore, if my understanding is correct about those things, then MedCom is going to decline to accept the mediation request so long as the ArbCom case is taking place. As for the difficulty of resolving the problems through discussion, sadly I agree with you. Some people's positions are simply too dug in for discussion to work. And that's what arbitration is for. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I understand the policy regarding MedCom/Arbcom. However, I could see myself arguing that questions like "what constitutes a smear campaign" are separate, but currently very pressing issues. The whole POV/NPOV-debate in Talk:Kevin_Folta (including edit-warring) revolves around this aspect first and foremost. We could discuss this without even naming the topic "GMOs", especially since "FOIA-harassment" has precedent in other fields, and smear campaigns have many examples elsewhere. From what I gather from your reply this issue might get stuck between ArbCom:GMOs due to being outside of the scope, and mediation because of ArbCom!? --2A02:8070:8883:CA00:20E9:98C2:7B69:41CF (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, I went back and looked at the page again with that in mind, but it seems to me that there is no way to separate this particular "smear campaign" from the controversies associated with Monsanto and GMOs. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright then, thanks. I actually prefer if this issue is addressed in ArbCom, reasons are outlined above. Cheers. --2A02:8070:8883:CA00:20E9:98C2:7B69:41CF (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Was going to say something

I was going to say something right away when I saw your point being twisted into a straw man argument. I regret not responding right away, when I saw you defend yourself I felt the need to speak up. Perhaps a little late.

I see this sort of "recasting" as you say of people's comments all of the time, including my own comments. I always remind these people that if they find that misrepresenting what I have said makes it easier for them to defend their position, then perhaps they should reconsider their position.

The use of false dichotomies and other logical fallacies are often employed around here. Some people are aware and engage in sophistry and others just failing to debate in a fair fashion. It is important that we recognize logical fallacies and name them and describe them every time, otherwise people are all too quick to accept them. Chillum 23:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and I don't think that you were late at all. I think that everything that you have said both here and there is exactly right, and I appreciate it very much. You know, I think it's kind of funny/ironic how that editor was so concerned about editors being motivated to leave the project, while that same editor was engaging in exactly the kind of battleground conduct that really does make some editors think about leaving. Anyway, I'm not really that bothered by it, because I too see that sort of thing all the time. What does sadden me for real, as I said there, is that I really would rather not have opposed, but so be it. By the way, I have seen you around for a long time, and I always have found you to be one of the most sensible folks around here, so it's nice to have this occasion to talk with you. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hello Tryptofish! Thank you for your message:) I don't really know how to talk on Wikipedia... or do much of anything else on Wikipedia so I don't know if I am doing this right. If I'm not could you maybe explain how to me how to "talk?" I understand that I can not advertise on Wikipedia but can I ask for help with breeding fish? Thanks! C. Anemone Claire Anemone (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Claire Anemone, and once again, welcome to Wikipedia! About how to use Wikipedia talk pages, you did it exactly the right way, by posting in a new section at the bottom of my talk page and signing your message (you don't need to type your user name so long as you also sign). In replying to you, I put a : (colon) at the beginning, which indents my reply by one space, and if you reply back, you will use two colons, etc.

To learn your way around Wikipedia, one way to start is by going to WP:The Wikipedia Adventure, which provides a sort of guided tour. Another good place to look is at Help:Contents, which provides quick links to how-to information about most of the things Wikipedia editors learn to do. And of course, please always feel free to ask me questions right here!

I understand from your user page that you might be interested in breeding Siamese fighting fish, and the Wikipedia article on those fish is pretty good as an information source. You'll notice that the article describes how they are cared for in home aquariums and how they reproduce, but it doesn't do it in the form of "this is how to do it". That's because Wikipedia also has a policy against providing how-to advice in our articles. That's because you wouldn't want people to use Wikipedia to learn how to do surgery or file lawsuits – but it ends up applying to articles about pet care as well! So, because this is just my talk page and not a Wikipedia article, I'll step out of my "editor" role for a moment, and just provide my answer in a friendly spirit. The first thing, of course, is that you will need two fish, a male to be the father, and a female to be the mother. Most pet stores only sell males, so you may need to look around for a female. They are most likely to breed if the tank has some plants to make them feel at home. A good thing is that the parents take care of the baby fish, so you can keep them all together (some other fish species eat their own fry if the fry cannot swim far away!). Please remember that hobbyists aren't usually successful at this the first time, so you may have to do some trial and error. I think the easiest kinds of fish to breed at home are the ones in the family Poeciliidae. I used to have some swordtails, and they had huge numbers of babies almost continuously. So those are my ideas. Another place you can go within Wikipedia is the WP:Reference desk. You can ask questions there, and editors will point you to the right places where you can read about whatever you are interested in.

I hope that helps! Please feel free to ask me follow-up questions. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

THANKS AGAIN!

Thank you so much for your help! I am going to check out the Wikipedia Adventure and Help: Contents as soon as I get some free time:) Claire Anemone (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Adventure

Hi Tryptofish! I looked at Wikipedia Adventure yesterday and enjoyed it. THANKS SO MUCH! I hope I won't have any more questions to pester you with. You have been so helpful:) Claire Anemone (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Good, I'm so glad! You are very welcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I completed the adventure!

Thanks Tryptofish! I completed all 6 missions in the Wikipedia Adventure and really enjoyed it:) I hope to continue "talking" to you. I'd love to hear from you on my talk page! By:) Claire Claire Anemone (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Thank you for your awesome help. I don't know what else to say! You are just a great person:) (And I've only "known" you a few days!) Claire Anemone (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

One last question...sorry!

Tryptofish, do you ever go to the wikipedia Teahouse? I just introduced myself there. I wish I knew if you were a man or a woman. But I read that you are a fish. Well, for a fish you are very well educated!Claire Anemone (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't do much at the Teahouse, because I simply don't have enough time, but it's a fine place, and you will get to know a lot of other good members of the editing community there. As for the rest, I edit in a lot of controversial areas besides fish (a topic that mercifully is peaceful), and I have my reasons for keeping some things private – but thanks for all the kind words! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.