User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 3
![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
November – December, 2009
Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Edits at Animal cruelty
I just recently posted the "Animal Cruelty Statistics" section. I was trying to put information about the worldwide animal cruelty statistics. It did not pertain to laws, persay, of other countries. I just thought that the addition would catch people's eye and let them know how bad animal cruelty actually is.
14082009aug—Preceding unsigned comment added by 14082009aug (talk • contribs) 19:24, 12 November 2009
- Thanks. I'll answer at your talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Re:Neuroscience
Hi! Thanks for the welcoming!I decided to join after I found that there are many articles that need expansion and since there are few subjects with which I'm familiar. However, there is still the language and time barrier -but I'll do my best. My expertise is in cognitive neuroscience and I wish to find an article need improvment and join to the efforts-I know many, but will welcome any guidance, I guess that to improve an article alone would be much harder. So, if you have any idea/s, it would be welcomed. Best wishes --Gilisa (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
30% no confidence and desysopping
In Wikipedia_talk:Community_de-adminship/Draft_RfC#Support_5.1 you wrote: "If one needs around 70% to pass RfA, then one should still need around 70% to retain the community's support."
This can lead to yo-yo RFA/DRFAs, where a person has 75-80% support in an RFA, makes a mistake, then gets hounded by the 20-25% of people who were against him and their friends, "losing" a DRFA with 65-70% support, then a month later running in a drama-filled RFA that results in some outcome, followed by another drama-filled RFA or DRFA and so on and so on.
By putting a wide margin between the "get the job" support level of 70% and the "keep the job" support level of 30%, you avoid drama-filled back-and-forths. Perhaps 30% is too low a support level to keep the job, perhaps 40% or 50% is more appropriate, but it should be quite a distance from the level needed to re-gain the bit in a subsequent RFA. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for coming to my talk to discuss this further. As I've been saying throughout, this particular point is the toughest one to work out during this comment period, and also the most important to get right. Let's see what happens. And, as it happens, just after seeing your comment here, I also saw your bold edit at the proposal. You will see that I modified it, to try to show that it represents a change, but I did not want to actually revert it. I also commented at the project talk, and you can see what I said there. I hope you understand that I wasn't intending to disrespect the edit you made, but, rather, to avoid confusing other editors who are evaluating the proposal. Whether I succeeded at that or not remains to be seen, I guess. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Your proposal at CDA draft
In Wikipedia_talk:Community_de-adminship/Draft_RfC#3._Publicity_required You propose: "3.2 Modify the second bullet point about publicity." but you don't say how. I infer from your support statement that you want to remove the requirement from the Admin and crat noticeboards. Could you clarify your proposal so it is clearer?
Assuming I inferred correctly, I think wider notice is required. I'm still mulling over where it should be, seems like it ought to be incorporated into the RfX table, but if not, it needs wider notice than just the Miscellaneous board. Maybe this just reflects my reading habits, I often go to Village Pump and start reading through Policy, then Technical, then Proposals. My intention is to continue on to Miscellaneous, but sometimes I don't get there. Not a sufficient argument in itself, but I suspect that Miscellaneous isn't sufficiently viewed for such a major issue.--SPhilbrickT 21:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for pointing that out to me. You are right, and that's very helpful. I'm still trying to think it all through, but I'll work on that. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Please note discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/RfC Strategy. Ben MacDui 19:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
maybe
Hi. Given your interest in science and religion, you may find the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Faraday_Institute to be of interest.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- All well said. BTW, as you no doubt knew, I had no way to know which way you would vote -- simply that the subject matter was of interest to you.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that's true, you could not know. Thanks, glad I could help. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- All well said. BTW, as you no doubt knew, I had no way to know which way you would vote -- simply that the subject matter was of interest to you.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
I'd seen it done both ways and was led to believe the period should go after the ref. Thanks for clearing it up. Cmiych (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- No problem! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Crucifixion
I have removed the non-free image again, since it fails enwiki policies, notably WP:NFCC#8. I have no idea what the edit-summary you placed when you reverted me means, but it appears to be a combination of assuming bad faith, personal attack and ignorance of policy. Probably not the best idea, really. Black Kite 05:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Under the circumstances, I had assumed quite naturally, but based on what you say here I now realize wrongly, that you were familiar with what was going on at the same time at the talk page of the article. Now, I realize that you were not, and that your noticing the image at this time was purely a coincidence. Please let me suggest that you take a look at the talk page, where there is currently a discussion about that section, including, unfortunately, some very bad canvassing. I'm sorry that you got caught up in it, but I think that you will see that it was understandable on my part. Now, that said, I'm going to go to that talk myself, and speak to the issue you raised about WP:NFCC#8. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. To pass NFCC8 though, the image really does have to add to the subject in a way that would not be possible without it. Since an image showing an anime character on a cross is easy for the reader to imagine, and since the subject of the article is crucifixion, not "crucifixion in anime", it don't see any way it can pass the criteria. I don't have any view on the existence of the section itself though! Black Kite 16:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. The way I see it, the image is about the subject of that part of the article, as opposed to of the article as a whole. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- The best thing I can say is to repeat what I've already said elsewhere. It seems Crucifixion in Japan is a historically significant topic. God knows we have several articles on "X in country Y", and it would probably not be objected to if one were created for this, which would potentially include all aspects of Japanese culture. The big problem I see is that anime is only one small part, historically, of that one culture, which is itself not directly relevant to a large part of the world. In fact, other aspects of the subject are probably much more significant. And since the Popular Culture WikiProject has started, pop culture articles have been treated with a bit more respect, so I don't think that an article on crucifixion in the broader culture would be likely to be deleted if it dealt with the subject well. With Johnbod's help, I'm fairly sure the Christian art aspect could be covered very well, because he is an excellent developer of content on that subject. And I don't criticize you for reducing the amount of cruft in the article, but applaud that. We tend to get more pop culture, "fannish" editors of all sorts than academic types around here, so many or most articles get that sort of thing. My own mention of the crucifixion scene from GL/GA was because it is one of those which is pointed to as being most important in that 70's "comics can be socially relevant" (and in this case a little shocking) phase, which itself got a lot of attention at the time and is still considered significant in the history of the medium. Having said that, I just think a bare mention of that scene, and maybe of why it would be important, would merit inclusion. My own preference would be to create a crucifixion or crosses in pop culture article, which I would hope would follow a basically historical format, which could also include doggerel (I think I remember a nursery rhyme mentioning it, I'd have to check), discuss how portraying the crucifixion itself was not permitted in Christian art for several centuries, and what other symbols were used instead, how and why that changed over time, etc. But, particularly considering displaying the crucifixion per se was verboten for at least a few centuries, I think that there is sufficient cause for such an article to exist, along with all the content which there clearly exists about the subject. John Carter (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. When one gets right down to it, you and I actually agree to a very large extent. I sure hope that, once we get past the current drama, we can actually come to a productive outcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- The best thing I can say is to repeat what I've already said elsewhere. It seems Crucifixion in Japan is a historically significant topic. God knows we have several articles on "X in country Y", and it would probably not be objected to if one were created for this, which would potentially include all aspects of Japanese culture. The big problem I see is that anime is only one small part, historically, of that one culture, which is itself not directly relevant to a large part of the world. In fact, other aspects of the subject are probably much more significant. And since the Popular Culture WikiProject has started, pop culture articles have been treated with a bit more respect, so I don't think that an article on crucifixion in the broader culture would be likely to be deleted if it dealt with the subject well. With Johnbod's help, I'm fairly sure the Christian art aspect could be covered very well, because he is an excellent developer of content on that subject. And I don't criticize you for reducing the amount of cruft in the article, but applaud that. We tend to get more pop culture, "fannish" editors of all sorts than academic types around here, so many or most articles get that sort of thing. My own mention of the crucifixion scene from GL/GA was because it is one of those which is pointed to as being most important in that 70's "comics can be socially relevant" (and in this case a little shocking) phase, which itself got a lot of attention at the time and is still considered significant in the history of the medium. Having said that, I just think a bare mention of that scene, and maybe of why it would be important, would merit inclusion. My own preference would be to create a crucifixion or crosses in pop culture article, which I would hope would follow a basically historical format, which could also include doggerel (I think I remember a nursery rhyme mentioning it, I'd have to check), discuss how portraying the crucifixion itself was not permitted in Christian art for several centuries, and what other symbols were used instead, how and why that changed over time, etc. But, particularly considering displaying the crucifixion per se was verboten for at least a few centuries, I think that there is sufficient cause for such an article to exist, along with all the content which there clearly exists about the subject. John Carter (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. The way I see it, the image is about the subject of that part of the article, as opposed to of the article as a whole. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. To pass NFCC8 though, the image really does have to add to the subject in a way that would not be possible without it. Since an image showing an anime character on a cross is easy for the reader to imagine, and since the subject of the article is crucifixion, not "crucifixion in anime", it don't see any way it can pass the criteria. I don't have any view on the existence of the section itself though! Black Kite 16:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Moved here from Talk:Crucifixion. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
|
Comment on the Crucifixion discussion page
Hi,
Thought I'd reply to you here rather than on the crucifixion talk page (because it isn't really relevant to that discussion) but to answer your question: you said in the post above mine - 'We can talk about specific edits shortening the material, but what I've been hearing so far from this recent talk (not limited to you) has been the equivalent of "Wikipedia stinks and delete the whole thing". No thoughtful editor would take that seriously. --Tryptofish'
One implication that could be derived from that is that my own posts were also the equivalent of "wikipedia stinks and delete the whole thing", which of course could not be further from my intended - and stated - opinions. Upon reviewing it again it seems you may have been trying to say "not including you" or something along those lines so there's no problem here as far as I'm concerned, but on a text based medium tone doesn't carry very well so it helps to be very specific about what you want to say, especially when such a message could be misconstrued. Hope that clarifies it anyway. :) IgorsBrain (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, point taken. At this point, I can't remember everything that's been said, and I'm pretty sure you are right that I simply mispoke. I've just had death threats removed from my talk page, so this hasn't exactly been the kind of situation that Wikipedia strives for. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to hear that - no one should have to put up with that anywhere, let alone a community based encyclopedia! Why anyone would think that'll have anything but negative consequences for themselves I do not know. Internet disagreements are obviously serious business to some people. Don't let them get to you! :( IgorsBrain (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, point taken. At this point, I can't remember everything that's been said, and I'm pretty sure you are right that I simply mispoke. I've just had death threats removed from my talk page, so this hasn't exactly been the kind of situation that Wikipedia strives for. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The Anti-Flame Barnstar
The Anti-Flame Barnstar | ||
For well thought out and balanced editing on articles about morality and religion, topics for which there is never a lack of dispute over the 'truth', and for keeping a cool head when subjected to personal attacks – a well deserved Barnstar. LK (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC) |
Extended content
|
---|
ANII'm sure you think your pithy comments are cute, but if you're not going to add anything to the discussion there's no need to post it.Yzak Jule (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
|
Signpost?
Monday's Policy Report is going to be on WP:Civility, but we don't have enough quotable material from the talk page yet, so I'm beg ... er, soliciting opinions from people who have spoken up on that talk page recently. If you have something quotable, or if you don't, feel free to weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Policy report_for_Signpost. - Dank (push to talk) 23:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Done, not sure if it's what you needed or not. Thanks for asking. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- You made a good point. I guess the questions it raises for me are: does the policy page currently help typical editors deal with bullies? If not, what should it say? (Feel free to reply either there or on my talk page.) - Dank (push to talk) 02:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Again, done. Again, not sure if it really helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- You made a good point. I guess the questions it raises for me are: does the policy page currently help typical editors deal with bullies? If not, what should it say? (Feel free to reply either there or on my talk page.) - Dank (push to talk) 02:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Warning usersI already left a warning on ImmortalYawn's talk page. There is no need to add a level 3 warning seeing that he only made one edit on the page. -Reconsider! 01:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
|
Hellooooo
Looks like you've had an interesting time on Wikipedia recently. Cmiych (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, thank you for noticing. It must say something: when I saw your message, my instant reaction was to delete it as another troll. Then, with embarrassment, I realized I had made a mistake, and self-reverted. Oh well. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Just noticed the craziness you got involved in and wanted to express my sympathies. Gratz on the talk protection btw. Apparentally I haven't pissed anyone off enough to have to go that far yet. :::knock on wood::: Cmiych (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Knock on wood indeed! I wouldn't wish this on anyone, although I have to admit that, as it goes along, I increasingly just find it funny. Some people out there are truly crazy. I'm glad that I edit under a pseudonym. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Just noticed the craziness you got involved in and wanted to express my sympathies. Gratz on the talk protection btw. Apparentally I haven't pissed anyone off enough to have to go that far yet. :::knock on wood::: Cmiych (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi -- actually the IP was right, that's definitely the thalamus. The putamen is the roundish thing in front of the thalamus; the caudate is the long thin piece circling around the top. I'm not reverting right now just because I hate serial reversion without discussion so much, but may I please? Looie496 (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Really? I can't believe I blew that! And to think I used to be an expert! I'll self-revert. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Done. And on an anatomically-related note, I asked the IP at basal ganglia to go to the talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
unwatching page
I'm unwatching this page. I assume you'll drop me a line if anything needs my moppish eye. tedder (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up. Will do. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Break in by fat slob in red
John Carter is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.
John Carter (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Your edits to Something Awful
I notice you've been recently editing the Something Awful page, yet you seem to have recently developed a disliking for that particular website in the Crucifixion talk page. Most of your changes seem roughly ok, though one or two (like this one) might seem to be unduly critical. I notice that particular edit's gone now, but please be careful to maintain WP:NPOV in light of your potential bias. --Jonnty (talk) 10:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to speak to me about it here. I have also responded at the article talk page. Please AGF about my editing. It is natural that I would have looked at the page, and, as you note, my edits were constructive. I realize that you came to my talk to be helpful, and I appreciate that, but I also note that other editors had best be careful not to preemptively object to my rights to make constructive edits. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Noting that this editor subsequently vandalized my user-page. So much for AGF. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Whoops! Sorry :)
Just accidentally rollbacked you at ANI, have rolled myself back to correct it. Not used to a touchpad yet! DuncanHill (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- No problem! Thank you for telling me. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
"see also" and columns
It is self-evident that if a "see also" section requires two columns then it is too long. Either one or the other is true. Given your evident ownership problems with the crucifixion article, I expect that you'll undo one or the other of the changes you made to that section. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- My understanding of style guidelines about "see also" sections (WP:SEEALSO) does not correspond to yours. And the rest of your comment is both incivil and wrong. If your concerns continue, you can certainly bring it up in a civil manner at the article talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- WP:SEEALSO makes no exception for long lists which is not covered by the concerns of {{too many see alsos}}. Columns are generally used on Wikipedia for lists which exceed a length regarded as generally navigable if presented in one column; I've seen no consensus that the multi-column format is appropriate for lists of less than a dozen items. So as I said, the list is either too long (in which case the tag is inappropriate) or it isn't (in which case the columns are inappropriate). I've given you the courtesy of making a choice here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Given that I do not own the page, notwithstanding your inappropriate comment, my choice is to raise the issue at the article talk page, and invite other editors to comment. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not having this discussion in three places. Please continue it on my user talk. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Given that I do not own the page, notwithstanding your inappropriate comment, my choice is to raise the issue at the article talk page, and invite other editors to comment. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- WP:SEEALSO makes no exception for long lists which is not covered by the concerns of {{too many see alsos}}. Columns are generally used on Wikipedia for lists which exceed a length regarded as generally navigable if presented in one column; I've seen no consensus that the multi-column format is appropriate for lists of less than a dozen items. So as I said, the list is either too long (in which case the tag is inappropriate) or it isn't (in which case the columns are inappropriate). I've given you the courtesy of making a choice here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your advice at ANI. Sorry about being rude to you before, too.Yzak Jule (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for saying that. Sincerely, I appreciate it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 00:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm already there! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Greetings
Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and thanks for being nice to me over at the Animal (non-human) Testing 'discussion'. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 19:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Re: FSM Lead
I trimmed it a tad. The image makes it look deceptively longer. Mnation2 (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |