User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8

April – June, 2010

Spoiling your blank talk page

"thank you for visiting"? Why do I get the feeling you don't love me? NickCT (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Nick, this is starting to get kind of uncomfortable. I'm not that important. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Very well. But so you know.... You're a very important person. We're all important people. NickCT (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Flowerhorn idiocy

If you can fix the Origin section to that article, that'd be nice. Obviously there are no native cichlids to Malaysia; indeed, there are hardly any native to Asia at all, and no native cichlids outside the Levant, western Iran and southern India. Yet the Origin section suggests Malaysians either crossing a native cichlid with some other type of cichlid, clearly wrong, or even more insanely, crossed cichlids with some native perciform, whatever the Karoi might be. I personally couldn't care less about flowerhorn cichlids, but seeing this article really is a bit of a joke, and fixing the Origin section would be a good place to start. Cheers, Neale. Neale Monks (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been giving that page very little attention for some time (despite what I said on my user page), as I've been involved in other things instead. It's true that the page currently relies too much upon a single source, and as a result may have a lot of UNDUE issues, and may even be inaccurate. (For what it's worth, I do know some cichlid experts who have told me in conversation (OR, not citable) that there are East Asian native cichlids, so, perhaps, it may not be as idiotic or obvious as you say.) I was drawn to the page because I think the images have a lot of potential and because that source does include interesting information about different strains that I haven't seen elsewhere. What would really help would be more sourcing, beyond what most references say: that they are of unknown origin. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot

Thanks a lot for your review! Jean-Francois Gariepy (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure, happy to do it. And I appreciate the gap you are filling in our coverage of the subject matter. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Happy Tryptofish's Day!

Featured article star.svg

User:Tryptofish has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Tryptofish's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Tryptofish!

00:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. RlevseTalk 00:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Criticism article

Hello, Trypto. I have responded to your comments regarding the canards. I am very interested in your response. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 05:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for being one of the somewhat outnumbered sane and civil people in that talk. I appreciate the thoughtful way you are trying to deal with these issues amid the noise. I've just made a quick read through the lengthy comments since I last looked, and I saw your questions to me, and I'll be sure to address them once I've had time to digest it all. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I've taken a shot at it now. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


You are correct that the [citation needed] template was placed specifically to verify the Yeaster claim. I do not object to it's mention however requested the source for my own research. The other Holy days shown in the article are supported by independent references which I have seen. Yeaster on the other hand was new information which I had not yet seen. It may in fact be true but deserves a citation IMO. Thanks for doing what I believe was the responsible thing for the interim. And that is to remove it until such a time as a reference can support it's inclusion. Bravo!My76Strat (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad you found that helpful. My guess is that the person who added it did so as a prank, and was not serious about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Christianity and violence article

Keep up the good work on that article! I keep looking for things to edit/fix, but you're doing a great job so I can't find anything. Yaki-gaijin (talk) 08:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so very much! I really appreciate that! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your support at my RfA

Admin mop.PNG Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 99 supports, 9 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Your support was much appreciated.

Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks back

Hey, Trypo, I appreciate the work you're doing on articles we both edit. We might not agree about some stuff, but your edits are always well-thought out and cite reliable sources. Particularly glad after recent futile discussions in animal rights and veganism articles! Bob98133 (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm cautiously optimistic about animal rights starting to take a turn for the better, by starting to look at specifics about inline cites. Veganism is not on my menu watch list, fortunately for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


If you don't like big pictures, perhaps you should avoid articles on the visual arts, where they are necessary? Johnbod (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Will answer at your talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


I reverted not because I disagreed with what that IP said (which I do), but because I saw you previously reverted his/her comments. Just wanted to make that clear —Tommy2010 16:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting that. No explanation needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions

Civility barnstar.png Civility Award
For your recent work in Criticism of Judaism. Your ability to remain calm and civil during endlessly difficult discussions is worthy of admiration and a source of inspiration. Nuujinn (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Studies of scientists' belief in God

You will notice I have for now returned the 3rd level headers. This is because my first two paragraphs were intended to be a summary of the list of statistics about scientists' belief in God. This way the reader knows that the subsequent long list of studies are basically saying the same thing - which is summarized in the prior section.

If you still don't like the headers, I think we should find some similar way of isolating the summary. We also might consider just starting a new wiki-page for "List of studies of scientist religiosity" - although I am not sure that is quite necessary yet.

Regards, -Tesseract2 (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I answered at the page talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


Mensch5.png The Barnstar of Integrity
Thanks for setting a good example. Noleander (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Any thoughts on Atheism sidebar and footer templates?

Tryptofish: could you share some thoughts at Template talk:Atheism2. My aim is to help readers by bring more breadth and coherence to the sidebar and footer templates. Any help is appreciated, thanks. --Noleander (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for asking. I'm traveling now, and my editing time is very limited, but I'll be sure to give it some attention when I can. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.

Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:

  • The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
  • Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
  • Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
    • "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
    • "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
    • "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
    • "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"
The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.
  • All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
  • Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
  • The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
  • All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
  • Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
  • Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
  • Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (utc) 00:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sweetland quote

Sorry about that. I just looked at the section that the link went to. I wondered if it might be elsewhere. Bob98133 (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. The whole subject on that page has gotten to where we all need assistants to help us keep track of it. Best, --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson#Your Request for Adminship which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia workshop at SfN

I noticed the Wikipedia workshop at the SfN meeting last year but couldn't attend. Will you organizing one this year?Saoirsebf (talk) 02:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of one. No one has contacted me about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The "C"-shaped brain

Hello Tryptofish, Thank you for your comment. The apparent "C"-shape of the adult human cerebral hemispheres has in fact an embryological origin, called "hemispheric rotation" (Hemisphärenrotation, Chr. Jakob, 1911; Spatz, 1949). Is there a more adequate, simplified, insightfull description of this overall C-shape (cerebral arch, flexure, curve?), which has homologous consequences for the underlying cerebral structures? And not less interesting: is this continuous C-shape an indication for an existing hierarchy in human (and mammalian) brainlobes and functions?

“… expanding embryonic cerebral hemispheres cover the brainstem by performing a morphogenetic movement known as hemispheric rotation.” … “Hemispheric rotation is not a true rotational movement, but comes about by the insertion of a large, wedge-shaped segment of neocortex …” (Color atlas of embryology, Ulrich Drews, Astried Rotgheburger, David B. Meyer, Thieme, 1995, p. xxv and 207).

“First, the hemispheres form parietal and frontal lobes; posterior expansion next forms occipital lobes followed by growth in an inferior direction producing temporal lobes. … By its caudalward growth the hemispheres arch over the tela choroidea and choroid plexus of the roof of the diencephalon. This “C”-shaped expansion causes many underlying structures to also become “C”-shaped e.g., corpus callosum, lateral ventricle, choroid plexus, caudate nucleus, fornix. The insula is a lobe of the brain that remains relatively undeveloped as it retains a fixed position while the rest of the hemisphere grows around and over it …” (

See also:,

Tmajoor (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I really don't disagree with any of the science that you say here. My concern was just that, basically, the hemispheres are more complex in shape than "C-shaped" would imply to the general, non-neuroscientist, reader, and therefore, saying it that way would tend to confuse our readers more than it would help them. Let me suggest this instead: take a look at neural development, and see if you can work up something not-too-technical based on the above for that page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The only mammal that lacks the basic C-curve, as far as I know, is the platypus. Even the echidna has it. It shows up most clearly in the curvature of the hippocampus -- the platypus is the only mammal whose hippocampus looks like a straight tube. In many mammals, for example the rat, the shapes of the hemispheres themselves don't show the basic telencephalic curvature very clearly. Looie496 (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The question came up, originally, at human brain. Just seems to me to be the wrong context for it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, my main concern is with an insight in the non-arbitray order of the 5 brain lobes (TA, 123, 132, 136 and 149) in the adult human cerebrum, and secondly with the exact shape. Order of lobes is confused in many general and neuro-anatomy textbooks. C-shaped cerebral expansion in humans has been described in the section ‘Embryological development’ at Cerebral hemisphere: “The hemispheres grow round in a C-shape and then back again, pulling all structures internal to the hemispheres (such as the ventricles) with them.” (Gray-figure 658). I only added (confusingly?) the expression “crescent-shaped” cerebral hemispheres in the section ‘Development’ at the general text Human brain. I leave the mammalian neural development to an expert. Tmajoor (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
At this point, I'm no longer sure what edits or suggested edits we are discussing any more. I think the best approach would be to discuss these things on the talk page(s) of the relevant article(s), rather than here, and to frame it around specific edits to be made. My sense of this is to keep it to developmentally-focused articles, and to avoid being overly technical. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, now I just saw the new edit at human brain, and I agree with it fully. Good improvement! Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


I have replied your comments in I look forward to seeing your reply on the issues —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisaniceusername (talkcontribs) 12:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Climate change moving to Workshop

This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ Amory (utc) 20:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)