User talk:Tryptofish

Newsletters.
Check RfAs.
WP:ADREV.
Statistics on most-viewed neuroscience pages.

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 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

WP:There is no deadline

Moved here from Talk:Crucifixion. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Am I the only one around here who sees something wrong with the picture that we have an active RfC, opened only a few days ago, that invites editors from throughout the community to come to this talk and evaluate a section of the page that no longer exists? Let me please invite interested editors to take a deep breath, and reflect, I mean really reflect, on what has happened at this page over the last few days. I'll comment more on this soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong, get over it. Yzak Jule (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's one alternative to reflection. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that you've put in quite a bit of time and effort in maintaining this page over the past year and that you did prune the Anime section from its original even messier state. However, an consensus has been formed to remove the section. At this stage, you're pretty much the only person against this. Take a deep breath and consider just for a second that the dozens of people that have argued for the removal did so, not because of "meat-puppetry" or some web mob mentality but rather a genuine desire to improve the page. And your RFC has already done its job by roping in interested editors. It would only make sense to continue the discussion if there was any further dissent but you're the only one arguing to keep the section at this point. Leecming82 (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Leecming82, and welcome to Wikipedia. I believe this was your first edit here (quite a place to start!). I appreciate that what you have said, you said in a spirit of constructive criticism, and I'm taking it seriously. However, you are incorrect on several facts. Some editors did indeed have a genuine desire to improve the page, but many clearly did not, and it is not "my" RfC, as another editor started it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you're increasingly gaming the system for your ends. (1) While you did not create the initial RfC, I find it inappropriate to make comments such as "What I do ask is that editors who are reasonable, please speak up substantively at the talk page." [1] in the ANI discussion where the tone of the discussion is already colored. (2) You state on this talk page [2] -- "I'd definitely want to give [a long-time editor of this article] a chance to come back before making any decisions." While you're correct in citing WP:DEADLINE, that comment treads on WP:OWN territory. You then go on to state [3], "Hi TJRC, I hope that you don't feel discouraged about the last couple of days. I, for one, am not going anywhere." which suggests an attempt at votestacking under WP:Canvassing. (3) You placed a NPOV notice on the section, then failed to explain why [4]. And you haven't yet expanded on your comment in this subhead, either. Again, the RfC is there, so interested parties are free to comment on their own. If you're unable or unwilling to carry out your argument at that time, why start them? (4) You reverted [5] an edit to remove vandalism when you and everyone else can see the diffs if they needed to. Keeping it there contributed to the negative atmosphere on this page that you were against. (5) I appreciate that you have been one of the more civil participants in this discussion and understand that you're forced to deal with the blunt of the trolling, but there's more to cooperative discussion than what's outlined in WP:CIVIL. There's a persistent tone of condescension in your posts which is not conducive to a cooperative discussion. There is no need to make indirect comments such as "Am I the only one around here...", or "I mean really reflect," and "Clearly, a high-quality scholarly site (sarcasm intentional)." [6] Just say what you have in mind, and let others respond accordingly. Nobi (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel I need to reply to Nobi's accusations, although they do little to advance this talk page, because they factually distort what I actually did and said. There is no gaming by me. Standing my ground is not gaming. (1) The quote you presented was in the context of editors who were, rightly, concerned about personal attacks, and hate-speech against people with a disease, and I encouraged them to speak out against it. You incorrectly imply that I was lobbying them to agree with me about content, but that's simply not true. (2) I said that I wanted an editor who has long cared about this page to have an opportunity to comment if he chooses to, which is just common courtesy. I much later went to that editor's talk and in effect told him not to feel discouraged about criticism directed at him, and that he has a friend in me, which I did in the course of thanking numerous editors who have been kind or helpful to me. You are making a stretch to see those things as some kind of conspiracy. (Arguments about OWN tend to come around in circles. Editors who decide that there is consensus when there are more editors than me raising questions, and thus decide that whoever comes later to an RfC won't need to be heard, could just as well be accused of OWNership.) (3) As I said in the diff you cited, "I will explain what specifically concerns me in the near future. I'm concerned that, if I go into detail now, it will be counter-productive..." because of the ongoing incivility. That was yesterday, not exactly a long time ago, and within a very short amount of time the section was removed to another page, removing my tag and making an explanation moot. And, after that move, I commented here that I wanted more time to think about it, per no deadline. You raise an issue of my not commenting more in this section, after only a couple of hours (during which, as it happens, I was on an airplane), which again sounds like a deadline to me. (4) Some other editors have complained that removing the incivility was censorship. And please don't make it sound like I created the atmosphere that the slur in question created. (5) Thank you for acknowledging that I have been one of the more civil participants in this process. The middle quote, about really reflect[ing], is just a good idea and much-needed, and I totally stand by it. In fact, while the other two quotes are sarcastic, I stand by them too, and it is a distortion to take them in isolation from everything else I have said. There is no moral equivalency between what I said in those quotes and the plethora of utterly abhorrent speech. I find it strange that you feel sensitive about those two sarcastic statements, while, when another editor used your name in saying "It's all paranoiac bullshit. What people are saying is that a bunch of shit cartoons..." you never felt the need to distance yourself from it. I've been saying what I have on my mind, and just look how some (but not all!) have responded. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

All of your endless typing, and not one solid justification to have an "in anime" section at all. None. Anime isn't that culturally important, but that seems to have escaped you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.165.188 (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The endless typing directly above is a response to endless accusations. I've made plenty of justifications for my comments. It's your opinion whether they're "solid" or not, but perhaps their solidity escaped you. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 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)

Personal reflections on the Crucifixion controversy

It's been a couple of the most interesting days in my editing experience. :-) Given that a lot of the discussion has been about me, I feel it might be appropriate for me to say some relevant things about me. I'm doing it here, because it clearly does not belong on the article talk page.

First of all, no, I do not have Asperger's syndrome, although I have the utmost respect for people who do and who make valuable contributions to society. And I deplore the hate-speech that has occurred.

What may be more interesting is that I also do not particularly like anime. It doesn't make me upset or have any particular salience for me, but I just don't think it's much of a big deal, or particularly interesting. I'm not a fan of it. Also, the editors who know me from WT:BIO, where I frequently argue against recentism and fancruft, would likely be very surprised to see me arguing for pop culture in this case.

So, what gives? My personal opinions (or those of any other editor) are irrelevant to whether something is or is not notable and encyclopedic. I care, a lot, about Wikipedia telling the truth in an NPOV way. And sometimes, that means questioning people's preconceptions about what is or is not worthy of inclusion. Think of it as a sort of one-person Wiki Civil Liberties Union. What erupted at Crucifixion is still being sorted out, but at least some of it was various forms of Idon'tlikeit growing out of Christian or Western or various other Points of View. Material that is notable can sometimes make people uncomfortable, and they'll find ways to object to it for reasons that sound objective and reasonable, but which are really unexamined. I'm convinced that's happening—with some editors, certainly not everyone—in this controversy. Wikipedia is richer if that gets examined.

And another thing: I have no use for bullies. Bullies show up from time to time on this website, and most good, thoughtful, editors are not very good at dealing with them, often just giving in. What happened over the last few days has been a massive display of bullying masquerading as a snow closure, and the bullies chose the wrong editor to pick a fight with. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User-ifying three images

Holding on to three images for later reference. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Sailor Mercury.jpg Caption: Sailor Mercury is crucified on a crystal cross. Screencap from episode 74.
File:Crucifixio.jpg Caption: Crucifixion (Corpus Hypercubus) by Salvador Dalí
File: Piss Christ by Serrano Andres (1987).jpg Caption: The controversial Piss Christ by Andres Serrano, 1989

Re:Thank you

I'm just standing by to nip "PETA in Anime" in the bud as soon as you start it. :) Yzak Jule (talk)