User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

November, 2014 – July, 2015

David Rioch (1900-1985)

One of the most significant developments in biology in the past half century was the emergence, in the late 1950s and early 1960s, of neuroscience as a distinct discipline. We review here factors that led to the convergence into a common discipline of the traditional fields of neurophysiology, neuroanatomy, neurochemistry, and behavior, and we emphasize the seminal roles played by David McKenzie Rioch, Francis O Schmitt, and especially Stephen W Kuffler in creating neuroscience as we now know it.[1]

Note: we still have no article on David Rioch. Viriditas (talk) 10:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'm embarrassed to say that I don't recognize the name! As it happens, I'm about to be away from Wikipedia while, ironically, attending a neuroscience conference, but I'll look into turning it from red to blue when I get back (although any of my talk page watchers should feel free to beat me to it). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe someone at the conference could address the problem. Viriditas (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• I don't suppose it even occurred to you to have me invited to give my wildly popular PG talk. Harrumph. EEng (talk) 06:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, you're invited. But I will be at another session. (I didn't know you were an expert on Procter and Gamble.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This film is Pretty Good

There seems to be some confusion... EEng (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

If discretion is required, I'll be very discreet. And, all joking aside, I want to very sincerely express my appreciation to you over the fact that we genuinely are making progress on that PG page. I'm happy that we are finding ways to make things work, and I thank you for your cooperation in achieving that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Still a red link! Viriditas (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and I feel guilty about that. I've been busy in real life, and there's a content dispute that has been eating up way too much of my time on-Wiki. There's also a page about a public aquarium that I promised to help with, and I haven't gotten around to that either. Mea culpa. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I just started User:Viriditas/David Rioch. Viriditas (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I've just put it on my watchlist, and I'll try to help with it as soon as I can. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

If you can provide copies of the sources listed in the further reading section, that would go a long way to helping. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Good job on the article! You're welcome to move it to mainspace at any time and nominate it for DYK. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! And thank you for getting it started and for making me aware of a subject I did not previously even know about. Yes, at this point I don't think we need to do more before taking it live, and I cannot think of anything more I want to add. If you'd like, I'll go ahead with those things soon, and then I'll add some categories and some links from other pages to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

There are several non-free images floating around; if you like, I can upload one. I also notice that many of the sources discussed the importance of selected publications. Perhaps a section highlighting these citations would help? Finally, the further reading section has important sources that can help fill in the biography and complete it. I can make a request on the resource board, if that will help. Viriditas (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm about to start the DYK next. Personally, I prefer to stay away from non-free images, and only use genuinely free ones, but of course it's subjective. It might be best not to get involved with those kinds of files until after the DYK has run; no point in inviting a reason for a reviewer to argue. I looked for those further readings, and didn't have access to them, so that request would be a good idea. Likewise, the selected publications would be a good idea too, and I was thinking that if I got around to looking at them, I could expand some on the specific areas where he advanced the field. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

PS: I added some related content at Neuroscience and History of neuroscience that I feel quite happy about. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done Template:Did you know nominations/David Rioch. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I opened a resource request for the Psychiatry article. If you have access to university library stacks, maybe you could send me a copy? Viriditas (talk) 07:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

NQ was kind enough to send it to me. I've got a bunch of articles that I need to send you. Since you don't do email, I'll put them on a temporary dropbox and you can access them from there. Let me know if that's OK. Viriditas (talk) 08:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's very helpful, thanks. I'm afraid that I no longer have access to university libraries. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll link to the Dropbox account here when I have the documents uploaded. Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Dropbox. Please let me know when you are done downloading so I can delete the folder. Viriditas (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I've got all the files downloaded now. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

RfA: 'Some data that I would like to see'

Hi. See the most recent threads at WT:RfA and a current RfA in that context. Cheers, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Kudpung. I looked where you suggested, and I'm going to try to write my thoughts about the "data" section that I started, although I'm painfully busy with off-Wiki things right now. Was there something specific you wanted me to notice, other than the unexplained oppose and the "opposes" in the support section? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello Tryptofish. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

welcome back!

hope SfN was great this year! i heard some good things. Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that was fast! Yes, I always find it a very worthwhile meeting. Now, I have to dig my way out of all the things I'm behind on here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you talk a little bit about the neurogenesis poster presentations you saw? I'm particularly interested in growing a second brain. Viriditas (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Myself, I have enough trouble with the one brain that I have! There were over 31,000 people at the meeting, so obviously I could not even come close to seeing everything that was presented, and neurogenesis is not something I follow closely. But what I do know is that a lot of progress is happening in neurogenesis at the cellular level, whereas we are many years away from being able to grow entire brains, and still some years away from being able to get small parts of brains to regrow. Here are some sessions that dealt with that topic: [2] and [3]. (Note: not peer-reviewed.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw them, which is why I asked. I've talked to a few people with TBIs who are in clinical trials, and I assumed (possibly erroneously) that they may have been involved in some kind of neurogenesis trial. I'm curious, what do you think what happen if we had widely available smart drugs (beyond provagil, phenibut, and the widely abused ADHD drugs). I mean, we already have "stupid" drugs, legal and illegal, that people can get a hold of, and that may contribute to the high levels of crime, violence, road fatalities and other public health issues. We all know about how much damage alcohol and tobacco do to a society, yet they are everywhere. Caffeine doesn't necessarily make people smarter but more alert, and my pet theory at this time is that caffeine increases aggression in people genetically predisposed to it. In any event, what would happen if smart drugs were available on every street corner? Can you envision how that would help or hurt society? Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I'm very skeptical that there really will be such a thing as a smart drug (as opposed to drugs that simply increase alertness and so forth, and make people think incorrectly that they are smarter). For one thing, the route of administration would matter (maybe intranasal, but not likely by mouth). For another, it's a question of increasing function in very specific parts of the brain without affecting function elsewhere. Drugs for improving cognition in Alzheimer's disease have been very disappointing. As for society, my best guess is that such a thing would first find its way to the very wealthy or powerful, before getting to the street. I think that something that truly makes people smarter would create terrible inequality unless it were provided to everyone equally. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

What do you make of the evidence that this is already happening? Take, for example, the offlabel use of ADHD drugs as nonmedical prescription stimulants by students in the United States. There are estimates showing that as many as 500,000 students are using the drug in college (on and offlabel), out of the five million prescriptions on file. It is also alleged that the "great Adderall shortage" of the last few years is due to offlabel use by students. Granted, this isn't necessarily a "smart drug", but it is being used this way and may be contributing to an "arms race" of sorts amongst students. In other words, students who don't need them might be pressured into using them to "keep up" with their classmates. I also know of a number of scientists in highly respected research institutions who use them offlabel to perform their work. Of course, the term "offlabel" is used very loosely here, as they can easily get a prescription by mimicking the symptoms and requesting the drug. Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I probably don't know anything about it that you didn't just say. I think the "arms race" is a very sad phenomenon. This is the first I've heard of it in the context of academic science, but I'm regrettably not surprised, having worked in the field myself for many years. I left the field, professionally, several years ago, for a variety of reasons, but one part of it was my growing disgust with what does indeed seem like an over-competitiveness over diminishing research funding and other resources. Academia, at least in the US, has become a rather ugly place to do serious basic science. Talking to friends of mine who are still in it, at the meeting I just got back from, makes me glad that I found a way to move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you see any potential in the brain-computer interface (BCI) sector, with products like NeuroSky? Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about products that are already starting to come into commercial production, but I think the basic research in that area looks splendid in the long run. Not for "smartness", but for neurological conditions that are neuranatomically localized, such as Parkinson's disease, where there has already been spectacular progress. I've seen some very promising preliminary work on applications even to major depression, although it's still very much in the early stages. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Shameless advertising

Whatever you do, don't read User:Tryptofish/ACE2014! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

ACE2014 question

Hey, I answered the question you asked me. Sorry it took me a while to get to it. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and good luck! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Opioid dependence

I see you are working on improving opioid dependence. Do you have any insight into the efficacy of ibogaine treatment centers in Mexico and Canada, and the rationale for the United States to make it more difficult for addicts to get help? It almost looks like the US wants addicts to remain sick or die off. Viriditas (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, opioid dependence is something where I have a deep and longtime interest in the source material! I don't have much research experience specifically with ibogaine, but I've seen documentary coverage of it (maybe it was on VICE?). Anecdotally, it sure looks like it works, at least for some people. Hard to be sure why, and possibly it's like electroconvulsive shock. The tricky thing with opioid dependence (and in my opinion with all kinds of substance dependencies) is that individual people differ from one another, a lot. So there's really no way of knowing whether or not ibogaine works consistently or for most opioid addicts, without a controlled trial. And that leads to the second part of your question. There is absolutely no doubt (per me) that the long history of drug prudishness in the US gets in the way of drug research, as well as the fact that drug laws finance the for-profit prison industry. I don't think that there are any scientists or physicians who want to see addicts die off, but scientists have to get funding, and I know for a fact that the leadership of NIDA always have to look over their shoulders to see whether those genuises in Congress are going to dislike something they might fund. (By the way, it should be obvious, but I'm answering with my real life opinions, not as a Wikipedia editor.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm more familiar with the social history, and I've listened to a lot of audio interviews with former addicts. My understanding is that in therapeutic sessions, the majority of addicts lose the craving and feel at peace with themselves for the first time. It's like the addiction has been surgically removed from their mind. Of course, they probably require major followup therapy to avoid relapse, but from listening to the addicts, it's like a huge burden has been lifted from their shoulders. One would think that in an evidence-based medical profession, these treatment centers would be available across the US. I am forced to conclude, however, that someone at a very high level is benefiting from keeping addicts addicted, and keeping the drugs flowing into the country. I've read elsewhere that if the flow of drugs into the country was stopped, the entire, global financial system would collapse, as it depends and runs on narco-profits. I don't know if that is true, of course. It is unusual, however, that prior to 9/11, the Taliban had virtually eliminated opium production. After 9/11, the US was and continues to be flooded with heroin, which is destroying communities and adding new blood to the prison industrial complex. Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

As for relapse, that's a big deal, for people who are prone to it. And it's very possible that the addicts who make their ways to Canada or Mexico are different than the many more who don't. Some people can walk away from opioids, and other people cannot. No question about the benefits to someone in power, and it's the prisons who contribute money to Congressional candidates. All the evidence in the world won't shake loose the funding one needs to do the study to allow a treatment center to open, if the funders are afraid of getting fired if they give you the funding. (Added after edit conflict: What you added subsequently, about 9/11, I don't believe that.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

What part don't you believe? Is it true that prior to 9/11, world opium production had fallen due to the Taliban? And is it true, after the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan, opium production resumed and reached its highest levels, with increasing imports into the US while the US was occupying the country? Have you been following the long, series of investigations into heroin availability in the US in the major media for the last 10 years? And what about the similarity to opium availability during the Vietnam war? Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I'm just thinking about 9/11 conspiracy theories, but maybe I misunderstood why you said it. I sure don't think anyone in the West made 9/11 happen so that heroin profits would increase! Prisons being big business in the US and big business funding politics in the US are phenomena that predate 9/11 and continue for reasons having nothing to do with 9/11. But Vietnam – there's a great example of something I said above. Many US troops used heroin over there. A small percentage came home addicted. But the large majority came back and never relapsed; they just walked away from heroin without having become addicted. And think of alcohol: most people can use it socially without becoming addicted, but a small percentage are alcoholics. Many people like me, who have looked closely at the science, believe that most addictive substances are only addictive to a subset of people, not to everyone who ever tries them. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The Taliban banned opium production in early 2001.[4] Feel free to delete or archive this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Competence

I felt I had to defend my intellect[5] ;-). Best, AGK [•] 23:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I actually realized that you intended it that way. But I sure don't have to tell you that it would have been just a matter of time before people would have found a reason to construe it the other way. Better to be inappropriate than to be incompetent, I guess. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Some old discussion

[6], as you know that I didn't had enough time to contribute then, I was more concerned with few other issues and I couldn't describe better. I really meant to say "Except", I was saying that the section about non-creationism theory of Jains must not be removed because it has been criticized by numerous notable people, including Dayanand Saraswati.

I thought of removing that question from your comment, but then I thought of telling you about it. I hope that I have clarified. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I had completely forgotten about that long-ago discussion, and currently, I actually do not care about it at all, so what you are telling me here is no problem at all. By the way, according to WP:TPO, you should never remove parts of what other editors have said (except for some special exceptions that do not apply here), but you can always add a new reply of your own. In this case, I'm perfectly happy if we both just forget about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course I am aware of changing others comments, that's why I thought of informing you about the unanswered, instead of changing it. Anyways, having these articles on watchlist is good though as no one knows that when the material is being removed again, or it is nominated for deletion. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Wealth and religion

Are you watching Wealth and religion anymore? I am having edit war with SPAs. Although I had explained my changes on talk(page), some weeks ago. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It's still on my watchlist but I haven't been paying close attention due to other issues taking more of my time. I'll take a look now that you have asked me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've looked. I'm not seeing anything that is out of control, in that you have been able to revert the edits that you object to, and there isn't an active edit war. It does look like one or more other people come back from time to time, and reinstall the questioned material without really explaining why. Most of the material that was disputed is stuff where I don't have a strong opinion and I don't care very much. I do notice that the other editor said that some of the person names they tried to delete are not actually on lists of the richest people. It seems to me that is something that can be objectively checked in sources. So if there is good sourcing, add that to the page, and if there isn't, then you could agree to deleting the names. Also, I saw that you placed a rather strongly worded comment about sockpuppetry on that editor's talk page, and that leaves me with some concerns about WP:BITE. It's certainly possible that the IPs are the same person editing logged out, especially since they seem to have the same concerns, but they could also be different people who looked at the page and simply disagree with you. If you really are concerned, it is better to go directly to WP:SPI (partly because, if someone really is gaming the system, then telling them on their talk page actually gives them some clues about how to avoid detection). But I'm not seeing enough WP:Tag team behavior to make any of that necessary. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The main article under that section is linked to List of the 100 wealthiest people. SPI is embarrassing to open if there is no abuse of multiple accounts. Not that I ever did that way, but I have seen that IP is not revealed by CU per privacy policy. If a user has frequently abused an account and an IP, a page protection or temporary block can be requested. Bladesmulti (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It looks to me like things are under control, but if you have any further problems let me know. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

WEF

Could you expand upon what you said here? Who asked for these changes? How does WEF's latest announcement meet editor needs? Chris Troutman (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm basing it on the discussion at the Education Noticeboard. You are free to disagree with me if you want. I'm not interested in having an argument about whether or not I should have complimented someone. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not looking to argue; I guess the text doesn't convey that. I'm honestly curious if you meant to take a swipe at WMF by pointing out WEF's action, or you were against the number of classes involved in Wikipedia. If you don't want to answer, that's fine. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I completely misunderstood what you meant, sorry. I thought that you were objecting to my saying nice things about WEF, but it sounds now like you are asking about my implied criticism of WMF, which is a very reasonable question. I didn't mean it exactly as a swipe, in the sense that I wasn't trying to be snarky. My intention was to leave a positive message. But I was thinking about all the things like the media viewer and the visual editor, etc., where some editors have felt that the software developers rolled stuff out that made things more difficult for experienced editors and that experienced editors felt insufficiently consulted. I'm certainly not of the opinion that all WMF folks are doing a bad job, and quite a few of them strike me as doing excellent work, although I've had my differences with a smaller number of them. Wikipedia:Petition to the WMF on handling of interface changes is a good place to see what I was thinking of, and I even linked to some examples of what I like and what I dislike in my comments there. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Thanks for the clarification. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your refugium welcome!

Fothergilla (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC) I will surely take you up on your offer of help. There is a lot to learn.

You are very welcome! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Ag-gag

I see you added <<

>> -- but that's the only time "Australia" appears on the page. Not sure what's intended. Thanks. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I was influenced to do it by the IP's comment at Talk:Ag-gag#Australia. I don't know more about it than what the IP said. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes this page must refer to Australia.[7]-[8] Bladesmulti (talk) 15:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, so those are some references. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Missing topics about Neurology

No hurry on this, but when you have some free time, could you pick one, maybe two articles from each category (section) on the missing topics page that you think are of top importance and make a list here? I'm thinking we can start knocking these out if we combine efforts. Perhaps others will join in as well. Viriditas (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm very over-extended in the topics that I'm editing (too quickly attracted to the shiny thing over there), so I'm constantly failing to get around to things that I already said I would do. I also find that I see a greater need to improve existing pages than to start new ones. However, I think an excellent strategy would be for you to post about this exact idea at WT:WikiProject Neuroscience. There have been several new, younger editors who have been showing up there, and I bet you could get one or two very smart takers. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas, are you talking about an existing list, or about creating a new one? If an existing list, could you give a pointer to it? Thanks, Looie496 (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Looie, I'm guessing Viriditas was thinking about the link at the top of my talk page to User:Skysmith/Missing topics about Neurology. It occurs to me that the list there is actually very out-of-date by now. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah thanks. It doesn't look out of date, but nothing there looks particularly important -- except neurobabbble. How could we not have an article about that? Looie496 (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I meant that there are probably pages that were red links then, when the list was created, and are blue now. (It could be argued that we are neurobabbling right now. joke) Anyway, as I said earlier, I'm currently more interested in improving existing pages than in starting new ones, but if there's any place where you and Viriditas see an opportunity, by all means go for it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of improving existing pages, can either of you look at cannabis and time perception, an article I created, and help expand it based on the sources? If not, can you make suggestions on the talk page? And Tryptofish, I left some notes for expansion on Talk:David Rioch. I wasn't sure if you saw it. Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I'm aware of the talk page comments, but I haven't yet had time to give them careful attention. For the next day or two, almost 100% of my wiki-time is going to be devoted to a mediation discussion that I'm involved in. It's a very big task. After that, I promise to look carefully at the Rioch page and the other things. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I started User:Viriditas/W. Maxwell Cowan per your recommendation. Viriditas (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks! That was fast! --Tryptofish (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm awaiting further recommendations. Viriditas (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Could you check on the accuracy of this statement: "W. Maxwell Cowan was a South African neuroscientist known for his early work on developmental plasticity." The sources don't say he was known for his work on developmental plasticity, I just felt, from reading several sources, that subject best generalized his work. However, I think specificity might be better than generalization here. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I did, and I made an edit to make it more specific, and I'll do more as I get around to it. As for suggesting more new pages, it occurs to me that every President of the Society for Neuroscience will have been someone who is highly notable. There is a list of all the past Presidents here. We have bio pages for most of them, but not all. If you could track down the ones we don't already have, and start adding them, that would be great. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm more interested in actual neuroscience topics than biographies. For example, articles like biological computation and computational neuroscience need serious work. If there's a really notable president that needs an article, find me the name and I'll help you with it. But first, I think we should focus on expanding W. Maxwell Cowan, when we both have time. Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. By and large, my perception is that there is a greater need to improve existing pages on these topics than to create new pages. In some cases, I think there could actually be more of a need for merging pages that popped up separately and are really about the same things. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm currently working on one GAN and two GARs, but at some point, I would like for us to finish up User:Viriditas/W. Maxwell Cowan and move it into mainspace for the DYK. Obviously, it's not there yet, but if you have any ideas for how we can split up the work, let me know. Have you run into any other interesting sources? Viriditas (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Update: it just occurred to me, I'll start uploading whatever I find to dropbox and leave you a link when I'm done. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Good, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like to focus on getting Cowan into mainspace next week. With the Super Bowl coming up, it occurs to me that we have no article on alcohol-induced aggression. I find this a bit odd considering the plethora of sources on the subject. Any ideas? Viriditas (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I have to admit that I LOLed over the Super Bowl having prompted the thought, but I agree entirely! I think both of those things are good ideas. I'll start looking around to see if we cover alcohol/aggression under some other page name, and look for some source material about it, and I'll also put some more work into the Cowan draft, in the next few days. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Place cell

Hello! I can't find this information in the link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Place_cell&diff=635696836&oldid=634366416 Can I undo your edit? --Hungry Vampire (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for discussing it with me here before making the revert! Actually, the information is correct, but I just added a second source that directly addresses the concern that you raised. Please let me know if that is not sufficient, and thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for David Rioch

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for your contribs to Wikipedia! Bananasoldier (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! That was a great pick-me-up, and is much appreciated. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good time for you to re-enGage. EEng (talk) 10:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi EEng. I'd like to assure you that I haven't been ignoring you, but the truth is, I guess I have. I've been busy in real life, and on-Wiki, other things have been more pressing. Sorry. I am aware that you have repeatedly been "bump"ing me. On the plus side, I'm confident that you are back on the right track with that page, and that the beneficent tutelage of Mirokado has done you a world of good. I'd be more attentive to the Gage page if I thought there really were serious problems. So please accept my Wiki-apologies, and know that my thoughts are with poor Phineas, and that I will drop by again in due, or maybe undue, time. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I never thought you'd lost interest. I just wanted to be sure you didn't think I had. I believe the current 3-4 bumps are all (or almost all) are just waiting for you to OK what Mirokado and I have come up with, so we can close those threads out. I don't think it would take much time at all, and if there's one you want to skip to comment on another time, that's fine too. EEng (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your considerateness. Please bear with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

PS: I just saw your latest appearance at ANI. For goodness' sake, watch your tone with other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for being patient with me on the education discussion. Now that I am seeing the new new course proposal requests I am getting a *bit* more context for the concerns.

HullIntegrity (talk) 01:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! That's so nice of you. And I'm very happy to help. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

What do you think?

Did you ever see the interview Dawkins did with Wendy Wright? I was just watching it, and I thought her behavior was a bit unusual, as if she wasn't really "there". Other commentators have said that it seemed like she didn't hear what Dawkins was saying. So, I went back and watched it again and noticed several things. First, look at the right side of her face (her left), where the hair comes down over the ear. Unlike the left side (her right), the hair never moves, as if it is lightly glued down, to prevent us from seeing her left ear. On the other hand, the hair on the left (her right) moves often, and we see her right ear under it. I think she's wearing a wireless earpiece in her left ear, and her hair is set in place to prevent us from seeing it. The earpiece is feeding her creationist talking points to respond to Dawkins. Further, if you pay very close attention, several times throughout the interview, she cocks her head, as if she is listening to something being said in her left ear. Of course, none of it actually helps her case, but it does explain why she acts so strange throughout the video. What do you think? Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I started to look at the video, and saw that it lasts over an hour, and I just don't have that kind of time to spend on it. There's certainly all kinds of oddball stuff that the talkerati pull, so nothing would particularly surprise me. As far as I can tell, this doesn't relate to any editing decisions here, so that's about all I'm going to put into it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

DEAL

Tryptofish, I disagree. For better or for worse admins are entrusted with certain things, like safeguarding BLP and removing/blocking for personal attacks, etc. So if an admin removes a personal attack, for instance, or a BLP violation, it should not be replaced and it is a good idea for the hypothetical reverted to check why and by whom a certain edit was reverted. Then again, we haven't really heard what the blocking admin thinks; still, this is what I think. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, thanks for discussing that with me here. I think you know that I have great respect for you, and I value your opinion. I guess this is just a case where we happen to have differing opinions, at least to some extent. In the interest of common ground, I'll say that I have no quibble with the idea that, when an admin takes an action for the good of the project, it is indeed something where any editor should think twice before undoing it – so we don't really disagree that much. I was just pointing out that admins aren't any "better" than the rest of us, to the extent that a regular editor could also have hatted or reverted the incivility, and in that case, it would also have been a bad idea to revert. Anyway, I don't mind at all that you disagree with me, and I'm sure you don't mind that I disagree with you. Best wishes, --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I looked at my talk page after logging in before I looked anywhere else – so, now that I've looked elsewhere, I'll follow up with a few more thoughts. I see that you unblocked, and I think that was very kind of you, so kudos from me to you about that. I also saw your comment at ANI about how admins can feel unfairly criticized by non-admins, and I want you to know that I understand what you meant, and I am inclined to be friendly to your perspective there. There's something about Wikipedia that makes people edit angry too much of the time, and I wish there were a corrective: most of us really are here to do something good, and not to pick fights. Finally, I see that the blocking admin has now returned to that thread as well as to a newer one, and I've got to say that the responses were very disappointing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Request

Hello again. Thank you for noticing this thread and the message you added there.

Do you know much about this kind of situation? I have a couple of questions as regards procedure (to which I haven't found or have missed the answers) and there are a number of observations I feel I could make about the thread's content, ranging from what appear to be mistakes and misinterpretations to queries as regards context and possible misunderstandings or misreadings – and, not least, the severity of what's being proposed. I don't have an idea, though, as to what's considered an efficient and effective way to proceed, so I'd appreciate advice and/or pointers to where good advice should be found. (It may be advisable, for instance, to communicate privately rather than via talk pages..?)

Thanks again for your post,
Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You are very welcome, and I'm happy to try to help. I think it is best to reply publicly, on that thread, rather than trying to do it privately, unless there is something (such as personal information) that should not be divulged online. Then, the key things to do in your reply are to be very polite and non-adversarial, stick to the facts, and be concise. First, if you can think of anything that you can do better in the future, so as to avoid such conflicts going forward, own up to that and say what you will do. Second, provide any corrections of fact, in a straightforward and non-confrontational way, and avoid any negative comments about the other editors in the discussion. And feel free to ask for clarification of anything that you don't understand. The point is to be factual, and to come across as a friendly and well-meaning editor. By the way, User:Mr. Stradivarius, who opened the thread, is an editor I've worked with extensively in the past, and I know him to be a very reasonable person. I'll keep an eye on the discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for your reply, which I've already read again a couple of times. I should've been clearer in that parenthesis I added to the end of the initial message: it was only meant as regards this conversation...

...Since starting to draft this reply, I'm glad to report this (to which I've just responded). I'm more hopeful, therefore, that something (much) less draconian will result.

Thanks once again, Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

PS I've also worked previously with Mr. Stradivarius – more accurately, he generously and speedily created {{Generic template demo}} from the wikicode/HTML version I'd constructed – and have benefited from his know-how, finding the experience to be, as you describe, friendly, well-meant and reasonable – and so at odds with the way in which he acted here (cf context) and then issued his proposal.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=644459322&oldid=644458777

Having set more time aside today to concentrate on another response, I've just noticed the above. I... Pah, forget it. After all, no consequences for anyone else. And if nothing else, perhaps you'll be hit by the incongruity of your last sentence there when – if – you read your message again. All essentially a result of a few editors – no more than a handful – thinking they'd explained things to me and my not following-up unfinished conversations or unnoticed posts. Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way. I'm saying what I think is best for Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• That sounds almost... rehearsed. You really think now that it's in Wikipedia's best interests to allow a few editors to undermine another and potentially drive them away..? And what kind of logic is this: "An editor who has this much difficulty responding here needs some boundaries with respect to editing templates" – ? I suppose it doesn't matter much now whether or not I throw caution to the wind, but whether or not it'll be worth the time and concentration. Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sardanaphalus I have been following the discussion and have looked at your contribs and interactions with other editors. While it is great that you have wanted to contribute to improving templates, you've been making some serious mistakes along the way that have created a lot of work for other editors, all of whom are volunteers like you. Folks have called your attention to these problems and asked you to discuss your proposed changes to templates first, and you have ignored them. I haven't seen any place where you have acknowledged your mistakes, nor that you are creating messes that other people have to clean up. Lots of people have tried to help you, nicely. Nobody wishes you harm. Trypto gave you very good advice above; editors who are self-aware, who acknowledge their mistakes, and who are really willing to work collaboratively, don't lose editing privileges. (Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right, and those priveleges can be restricted or taken away altogether when people act badly and refuse to change). The situation that you are in, is of your creation. Please learn from what has happened to you here. If you don't, and keep editing with the same behavior in a new field, you will find that the same thing will happen to there. Like Trypto, I wish you well and hope you can learn from this. Jytdog (talk) 12:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for taking the time to comment. To help me understand the mistakes and misjudgements I've made, I'd appreciate, if/when possible, your choices for any of the following:

• some of the serious mistakes you've seen me make, creating a lot of work / messes;
• instances where I've ignored people;
• instances where people have tried to help me, nicely – but, presumably, I've rebuffed or ignored them..?

I hope this doesn't sound too demanding or as though I have expectations. Thank you again. Sincerely, Sardanaphalus (talk) 13:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It is too demanding. It is all there already, and my re-presenting it, will do nothing to change that. I hope you can hear this - the reason this has happened to you, is that you refused to hear what has already been said to you, several times, and very clearly. Please see WP:IDHT. It is sad to see. I suggest that you yourself review the interactions folks have had with you, and really try to read what people have already said to you with an open mind, and to hear it. Good luck to you. Jytdog (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm sorry. I thought that as you said you'd looked at contribs and interactions I'd had with other editors, something would be memorable. I wasn't expecting a litany or chapter and verse. I apologize for not making that clear. I'm also sorry you haven't seen one of the times where I've acknowleged and apologized for a mistake I've made. It is a sad situation. My best wishes to you too. Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I want to thank Jytdog for his comments here. Sardanaphalus, I saw how at ANI you referred to yourself as the indictee. It's not really like that, and it's not like anyone is trying to punish you for anything. Please look at it this way: there is a well-established precedent at Wikipedia that, when someone gets an editing restriction such as the possible template-editing ban, if they show over time that they are cooperating well with other editors in that area of editing, they can then request that the ban be lifted, and the community often agrees with such requests, when justified by the record. If you look forward to that, and recognize that most kinds of editing will not be restricted, maybe it won't look so bad.

In any case, Sardanaphalus, I think that at this point it would be best for you to stop posting here at my talk page, and instead, say whatever you want to say at WP:ANI. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Question

One of the queries I've had about procedure for this scenario is the quorum requirement. Do you know what it is or where I've overlooked it, please..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

As I said to you just above, I feel that there are diminishing returns for you to keep posting on my talk page. However, the answer to your question is that there is no such thing as a quorum. Wikipedia works by WP:Consensus, and not by formal voting procedures. That's the way it is, and you need to understand that and not get stuck on the point. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for replying. I imagine you know that quora/quorums/etc needn't only apply to voting; I was wondering if one might be (part of) a safeguard. Returns-wise, let's face it: if you've been as naive or stupid enough to find yourself up before the magistrates...
  Yours, Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome. I just looked at the page information at ANI, and it shows 6,417 editors as having it on their watchlists (and that does not include me). Of course, not all of them are watching currently, but you can be sure that there are enough people looking in that no one is going to be corralled by a small and unrepresentative group of editors. The consensus at ANI is clear, and at this point, you really need to just accept it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

SPI

Does this editor match your Lagoy SPI? Guettarda (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, unambiguously. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

And reported and blocked. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It looked like it, but I didn't feel like I had a good enough sense of the whole case to block them myself. Guettarda (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. It sure does feel like the snakes on Medusa's head, the way they keep popping up. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soapamalkanmaime

Sometimes there is a fine line between persistence and WP:IDHT. Even though you created a lot of work for me and for others, you fell easily on the side of persistence. What's more you were unfailingly civil. I'm glad you're satisfied now and I appreciated your efforts. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

When I had read as far as the first sentence of your message to me, I was worried that you were accusing me of IDHT, but I'm very happy to realize that you found my participation helpful. And I, in turn, thank you for your good work on the problem. I'm someone who has very little knowledge about the technical aspects of IP addresses and how people disguise where they are editing from, and I only come to SPI when I have a reason to, based on problems at a page I watchlist. In this case, there was a significant problem of a bunch of users, who turned out simply to be the socks, trying to overturn a well-established consensus, as well as some unhelpful speculation by some other users as to who was really doing the socking. Now, we know what we need to know, and we can get back to productive editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Symbiodinium

I have undone one of your edits to Symbiodinium because adding the parentheses for the authority names was incorrect in this instance. Using brackets in this way has a special significance. It means that the original authority named the species but the name is no longer valid and has been changed. In this case, the source was this page at WoRMS and you will see that none of the authority names is in parentheses. In contrast, if you consider the article Asterias, and the source for the species names, you will see that two names are in parentheses, because they have been changed when new taxonomic information came to light. When I started editing biology articles on Wikipedia, I got this wrong too! :) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your very generous and kind explanation! Of course, I fully agree with you. One of my favorite things about Wikipedia is that I learn stuff in the most unanticipated ways – and I'm always happy to be corrected when I make a mistake. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Please give a read...

Lionel_de_Jersey_Harvard (which will appear in DYK Monday night, so I'd appreciate your giving it your scrutiny). EEng (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC) Amazing goings-on at AfD, no?

 Done. It really did not need much of anything from me, but I found a tiny bit that I could de-EEng-ify. (Seems like this guy was notable for being born and for dying, more than anything else, but I guess that's just my own hang-ups. Nonetheless, kudos for your work there.) As for AfD, the haters gonna hate, hate, hate. And as for that other page, yeah, I know. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I said nothing about any other page, but now that you mention it, at this point I think (hope) you'll find there's little for you to do but to ratify the several things Mirokado and I have done in past months, if you find them agreeable. After that there will be maybe three more bullet points and we'll be done with that list, and actual article development can resume in earnest. There are just a few parts that need further development before I run out of things to do, barring new research developments.

Certainly Lionel's notability is founded thing pretty much beyond his control (his birth and death) but it really appears that he had an unusually likable way of carrying himself that people recognized and valued greatly. Of course all the WW1 dead were lionized, but I've read a lot of that stuff in recent weeks and the way Lionel was written about is different. I'm only partway through Lowell's correspondence but it certainly seems that the feeling of personal loss he professed in public was real.

De-EEng-ify. I love it. Maybe you can insinuate that into the general Wikipedia lexicon. I'll be famous! I did, I'm afraid, re-EEng-ify -- can you look at it again? Maybe I'm not seeing something. EEng (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I looked, and I do not care at all, either way. Actually, your edit changing it back is the very essence of EEng-ification. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Please say you're not mad. EEng (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm so sorry! No, I wasn't mad at all. I really was just saying that I don't care about it, and I was attempting, and failing, to be humorous about it. A lesson for us all: humor tends to misfire in digital communications! Anyway, please do not be troubled about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It was the reference to SO2 that concerned me. Thanks for clarifying. We now resume our normal programming, already in progress. EEng (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Facepalm Hmm... so H₂S equals SO₂? (Tryptofish does a snobby and smart-alecky victory dance.) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, let me say the following, in all seriousness. If I really do have a complaint about anything, I will do my best to say it in a serious manner, and clearly and directly. After all, a serious concern is not something to joke about. Conversely, if I am joking, or posting an odd-looking image, or blue-linking something in an Easter egg fashion, then I do not have a complaint to be concerned about. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC: AfC Helper Script access

An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I've commented there. When I got this message from you, it was initially unclear to me why I had gotten it. You might want to make it clear that you are (I assume) contacting the editors who currently have access to the Script. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Dudley House (Harvard College)

The secret handshake

I hope those offcampus "untouchables" appreciate all the trouble we're going to in saving from deletion the article on their pathetic "13th house". EEng (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you just gave me an edit conflict in replying to Kudpung just above. I have to admit that the editor who inserted all his comments inside my own comment hit a nerve of one of my Wiki-pet peeves. On the other hand, EEng, I don't really believe that you graduated from there. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Here, let's do the secret handshake. BTW, I'm in charge of world copper prices -- what's your assigned role? Thanks for your help with Lionel, even if I did revert 50% of your changes. It's really a sad and beautiful story, isn't it? EEng (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

ENB Neuroscience

Just checking in to make sure you don't know something I don't about NeuroJoe. The course in question looks to be a Boston College neuroscience course, but not one of his. Am I missing something? --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The short answer is no, you are not missing anything.

The longer answer is that I just assumed from what Jytdog had written that NeuroJoe was the instructor, and went from there. Several years back, I worked together with NeuroJoe on his on-Wiki class, because of my interest in neuroscience, and it had gone very nicely. Since that time, there have been some postings about his later classes at ENB, WT:MED, and WP:ANI, about situations similar to the present one, in which editors were finding student edits without a clear link to an instructor or course page, and some resulting editor unhappiness over how to deal with problems with the student edits. That's pretty much the history. In any case, my suggestion to you is to identify who the actual instructor is, and reach out to that person. I'll also look more carefully at the most recent comments at ENB, and add anything further I can think of there. Thanks for checking with me! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

If you want to know whether a student has actually taken the training or not, you can check the Wiki Ed dashboard which now displays that info. (You need to click on the course and then scroll down to the student.) Not that you should feel obligated to do so or anything, but since I noticed you were posting reminders, I thought you might be curious. (At this moment the dashboard is displaying weirdly on my PC, but it's fine on a Mac. Hopefully that will be resolved very soon.) Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

In the interest of not falling afoul of rules about posting to a single talk page with multiple accounts, I just wanted to note that the #SPI section up the page is also me, posting with a different account. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! Somehow, I hadn't realized until just now that you are the same person, wearing all these various hats. Kudos for all of your work benefiting Wikipedia! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Starting to think it is time for Arbitration.

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.

---

I'm saddened, but it is apparent that User:Seicer doesn't want to do the right thing, and the community doesn't want to address the multiple instances and complaints against this administrator for abuse after abuse after abuse for the tools. As such I'm wondering if you are interested in taking this in front of the Arbitration Committee? Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I looked back at his user talk first, before responding here, and, wow! I guess there's a bit of a positive step in that he, sort of, admits that he wouldn't say "crap" if he had it to do over again, but otherwise, that was really over-the-top. I would be inclined to do one of two things, and I'm interested in your opinion about this. One would be to, first, post about this at AN or ANI, to get whatever community feedback there might be, even if it does not result in a definitive result. Do you know, does he have a history of this sort of thing, going back to before what he did to EEng, or was this a first time problem? I think that makes a difference. I feel negatively about going directly to ArbCom, because I'm just not seeing any kind of imminent threat that he is going to continue to do harm. The other option I am considering is to just let it go, while keeping an open eye, and to be prepared to make a case if/when another incident occurs. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• User talk:Seicer/Archive 21 shows almost nothing but trouble from this admin since they have unofficially returned from semi-retirement. There was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive869#Admin User:Seicer and WP:ADMINACCT which was inappropriately closed as "per OP consent" based on a comment that Seicer appeared to be engaging on the talk page (only diff I could find), when multiple other editors contributed. Then there was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive869#EEng of questionable civility and the four subsequent subsections. I think that a pattern is emerging, but I'm not sure there is enough of a history to go to ArbCom yet either. I do still think Seicer's repeated refusals to discuss the issues are of great concern and if it continues, further complaints on AN/I will be appropriate and will likely be ignored resulting in a trip to ArbCom. I'd hate for it to have to come to that but it appears that may be how it has to be. I'd love to get some feedback from MrX, Ritchie333, and Softlavender before moving forward in any one direction. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

What I'm seeing there is two incidents, very close together in time: the one with MrX, and the one with EEng, both of which have pretty much blown over, other than Seicer's most recent conduct at his user talk. (Please tell me if I'm missing something.) I'm fine with having further discussion here, on my talk page, before we decide what, if anything, to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Well, Seicer's conduct at Talk:Kader Khan#Date of birth was not what I would expect an administrator to write (see DangerousPanda's arbcom case for where that can lead you), though I've heard far worse from the local chavs around here, so I can't get excited about that. I'm sometimes blunt too and had harsh words with EEng myself so complaining about Seicer from my end would be the pot calling the kettle black. He says he's prepared to put things behind him, so why not take him at his word? Unless he starts going on a mad blocking spree (unlikely), I don't think the extreme drama-fest that is Arbcom is necessary. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• I may be missing something, but I'm not seeing anything that would constitute a pattern of failing to be accountable, nor do I see a consistently or egregiously poor judgement. Obviously if Seicer continued along the path of the couple of recent lapses, it could become a problem, but in no way does their conduct approach that of DangerousPanda's prior to his Desysop. Please correct me if I've overlooked something.- MrX 18:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everybody. I'm pretty much convinced that we should just let this pass, for now. If a future problem arises, then we'll remember this, then. I'm guessing from Seicer's self-reverted edit to his user page that he has been watching this discussion, so I hope that he takes the discussion here as useful feedback. For now, back to editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Hi, since my name was mentioned -- I disagree, and I think this user is seriously out of touch with Wikipedia and its current policies, guidelines, tools, and current best practices, etc., and has been so for many many years (in fact, he burned out on Wikipedia and became disillusioned with it [and with adminship] by July 2007, after only a few months of reluctant adminship). I can go into detail if desired. One of his more egregious actions of late is that upon logging in in January after having made an average of less than 100 edits per year for 5.25 years, he gutted the article on a photographer he has a professional rivalry with, then speedy-tagged it as advertising, and then when that didn't work, AfDed it. It seems this personal vendetta was the sole purpose of his coming back to wiki; playing around with admin tools for fun or practice (blocking 8 people, trying out pending-changes protection, massive amounts of revdel, etc.) was just a sideline. I do not think this person should have admin tools. I can write up a case report if necessary. Softlavender (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that new information, and I am quite receptive to changing my mind in the face of such new information. Could you please link for me to the page or the AfD about that photographer, and include the evidence of a WP:COI? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I too would be interested in seeing the evidence of COI editing, misuse of rev del, any questionable blocks and any thing else that doesn't follow WP:ADMIN.- MrX 15:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe this is all about Seph Lawless and its related AfD ... as far as I can tell, Seicer was removing serious BLP violations from the article, he wasn't the only one doing it, and was getting some unpleasant grief and hassle off-wiki about it. Given that, it's small wonder he was a bit blunt with people - who wouldn't be? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. There is a world of difference between editing a BLP to make someone with whom one has a professional rivalry look bad, and editing a BLP to remove BLP violations. At this point, I do not understand which of those two things we are dealing with here. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

To give a bit of background, I edited the Seph Lawless page to remove what I discovered was some pretty blatant one-ups based on interviews. I've never been a fan of paid-edits (even years ago when the rules were different) or paid articles. In some of these articles that I specifically had issues with, and which apparently no one contested, there were interviews that pretty much had information that could not be validated with another third party source. Basing information purely on interviews is not the best way to go about things, as the individual itself can pretty much make up any statement and have it printed on Wikipedia as truth. What's weird is that Seph had an image of his Wikipedia article set up at his exhibitions, so it led me to believe that he was using Wikipedia purely as a promotional tool and outfitting it with information as such.

I only met him once, and received some nasty threats after that. I can't reveal some of that information - it went to legal (and had information redacted multiple times here), but the threats from Seph were towards my personal well being and safety, to my parents, to my status at Wikipedia and so on. It included harassing phone calls (until I reached out to his phone company with records) and weird Facebook pages that mocked me. Nothing ever came about his threats, though.

Out of legal, I was told that it would be best to file an ArbCom case but that really wouldn't have done anything. There would be nothing binding since Seph only edits with an IP address, so what use would there have been? I let it drop both on Wikipedia on the legal side and the harassment in general has stopped.

I do, on occasion, will delete edits on the Seph Lawless page if they are BLP violations. I had one of my edits deleted because I had used a primary source, not a secondary source, and that was my fault to which I owned up to and admitted as such. But similar violations were occurring throughout this AFD process that included links to blogs and one-off-sites that included similar edits, so there was a lot of deleting to do.

As far as the AFD process goes, nothing vindictive occurred outside of the normal vetting process. It was closed as no consensus and that was that. I've let it drop because there are other things to do.

As much as my editing periods are concerned - I travel and do consulting work for a living (among other things), so my time on Wikipedia is very sporadic. Right now is a down time for me, so I've got some spare time that I can set aside for some projects. Hence why I've been on-and-off since 2009. If you really need to know more, please ping me and I can answer some other questions, but don't go behind my backs on this one. It's not going to work well since I'm infrequently on here. seicer | talk | contribs 16:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Based on the above comments, I support some kind of arbcom intervention, emergency desysopping, or whatever works to remove the tools from Seicer's account. Seicer, you should not be editing anywhere near the Seph Lawless page. I'm pretty skeptical of your claims up above, starting with "Seph had an image of his Wikipedia article set up at his exhibitions, so it led me to believe that he was using Wikipedia purely as a promotional tool and outfitting it with information as such." That's absurd. Exhibitions generally use images of media reception to promote themselves at the conferences. Everyone who has ever attended an exhibition knows this. You turned it around, however, and said he was using Wikipedia as a promotional tool. If any of the claims are true up above, detailing your professional conflict of interest, then this is even worse. I don't know what to make of your claims of harassment, but we only have your word to go on, and I'm afraid that's not good enough. This sounds exactly like the Qworty and Amanda Filipacchi situation, and we all know what became of Qworty. Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

You misinterpreted what I said. I noted that he had an image of his Wikipedia site up at his exhibition, and it was noted as such in the AFD by @Isaidnoway (http://www.cleveland.com/beachwood/index.ssf/2014/12/photo_exhibit.html, see image). No one uses their Wikipedia page as part of their exhibition to demonstrate their case for notability. I can't recall in any of the exhibitions that I have been to, or galleries, seeing anyone's Wikipedia page printed on posterboard or displayed on a wall for others to see. ("Look! I'm on Wikipedia!") And no, I don't know what happened to Qqorty and I don't care. seicer | talk | contribs 20:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I did not misinterpret anything, and just to be sure, I went back and read it again and reviewed your image. Your reply indicates you don't understand what I wrote. You said, "No one uses their Wikipedia page as part of their exhibition to demonstrate their case for notability." However, I never used the word notability, I used the word "promotion", and having been to quite a number of exhibition and conferences in my time, I can tell you, that people will use any and all forms of media reception, including Wikipedia. This has nothing to do with "notability", but with promotion. Qworty was a former Wikipedian who was discovered to be harassing his professional colleagues on Wikipedia by targeting their articles. You should care what happened to him, because the community forced him to leave. Viriditas (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as how I don't consider Seph to be a colleague, your point is moot. And seeing as how I haven't edited the page (other than deleting a revision and having some stuff oversighted), your point is moot. Again, the AFD led to a no consensus and I haven't pushed it since. Moot. seicer | talk | contribs 20:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

In the above, Softlavender said you "gutted the article on a photographer [you have] a professional rivalry with". If that is the case, then regardless of what you consider, Seph is, in this context, your colleague, "a person with whom one works, especially in a profession or business". Got it? Viriditas (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

If that was the case, the edits would have been contested. They were not. They were later reinstated by the paid editor during the AFD process and I didn't revert. We took it to the respective talk pages. Again, making mountains out of mole hills. But hey, it's closing time and I have to hit the road - so ping me and I'll get back to your message next week when I'm at the computer. (And geez, if you are going to complain about another editor, at least don't come to it with a lengthy history of blocks, disruptive editing, edit warring, BLP violations, making unsubstantiated accusations...) seicer | talk | contribs 21:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. And I don't have a "lengthy history" of any of those things, that's just your misreading of my block log, which reflects bad judgment on the part of admins who made those edit summaries, as well as their actions to block me. Given that you are one of these admins, you can see why I have a problem with your behavior. Viriditas (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Seicer, I am glad that you came here to comment, and you are welcome here. I want to hear from other editors about the S. Lawless page, because it's not something that I have followed, and I have an open mind about it. But I do still feel that I asked Seicer some questions at his talk page, now archived, and that I didn't get a particularly satisfactory answer. So Seicer, is there anything that you would like to either add or retract? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'm finding it difficult to read this section well do to being away from a computer and trying to read on my mobile device. What I will say from what I have been able to read is that Seicer admits he had some trouble with a topic where it went to legal and they suggested that ArbCom be involved as well. It seems that it was such a big issue that it caused concerns for Seicer where they felt that they needed to revdel sensitive personal information and may have been part of the reason for the 5-6 year absence from Wikipedia. Despite all that, Seicer is again involving themselves with that exact same topic and making controversial edits on the page for that topic. If that's what's happening, I would think Seicer would want to avoid that topic and the risk of feeling threatened in that area like the plague. If it went to legal as is my understanding, I would also think that such a thing would be just reasoning for a de facto topic ban to avoid that topic. I'm not passing any judgements since I'm not sure I've been able to read the discussion right, but I'll try to follow as best I can and will make a much better comment in a few days when I get home to my computer. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think so. I'm on a mobile device so the format may be off (correct it, please). I took a breather because I was involved in some contentious and some drawn-out issues with pseudoscience-related topics and two editors in particular who were involved in socking, some disturbing threats (some of which was directed at my workplace). Even doing something routine, like deleting an article after a drawn out AFD (by an admin who had 1,800 deletions at that point) could blow up with an editor calling for your head because they disagreed with your administrative action and the deletion review. When you are an admin, the routine stuff can get contentious because very few people have any appreciation for just how much grunt work is involved just with simple tasks. Deleting an article drags out into ANI. Blocking a user gets you threats. Putting up an article for AFD gets you weird threats against yourself/family and the creation of some weird Facebook pages and memes (I can share some for shits and giggles if you like). It really does get tiring after a while.

They are not the same topics, though. I see myself not involving in anything drawn out or contentious - like ANI cases and the sort, because I don't have the time commits for something of that scale at the time.

Like with Seph Lawless, if it's too involved, I back out. There was no consensus to delete, so I moved on (other than deleting some BLP issues from the record). I didn't challenge the paid editor's revision. I've left it up to others.

I also took a breather for work. I can't go too much details on WP for reasons I gave in the first paragraph, but it requires my stuff on WP and my work life to be completely divorced. I actually went through my user pages (and some other pages I had created) and found some rather personalizing information, so I deleted that today (you can request copies if you want). If you have questions, feel free to put them down and just ping me and I'll try to get to it as soon as I can. Sorry for being contentious earlier, but after seeing someone write on here some pretty sad stuff about administrators (and myself), I didn't feel the need to respond. I've been on here for years, completing thousands of thankless administrator tasks, but it's always "off with your head" when it's something someone disagrees with. There is never any middle ground. seicer | talk | contribs 01:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

There's plenty of middle ground, it's just that in your own hubris expressed here, you are so far from that middle ground, I question whether you can ever come back to it. I take exception to your continuous appeals to emotion, painting every editor as a possible harasser and "threatener". You even called Tryptofish a stalker merely because he noticed you returned without answering his questions.[9] The pattern is clear. I've seen other admins play this childish little game when called to account for their actions and it's really tiring. Sorry, but no, I'm not buying it. You keep claiming that you are the one being harassed and threatened, yet conveniently, there's no way to verify those claims. If being an admin is such a terrible thing, why don't you give up your tools and move on with your life? I really don't appreciate this little game you and others play and I'll continue to call you out on it. Stop distracting from the issues under discussion and take responsibility. Viriditas (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, just a note, my HDD died and I'm using someone's laptop and I've never used a laptop before and it's hard. Not going to be able to type much right now. Right now we're all talking informally and off the record. What I'd like to say is if all the numerous pertinent facts of the case are formally examined in detail, in order, from the past 8 years, they paint a picture in my mind of someone who although a very active and well-respected Wikipedian was never much into being an admin, burned out within months of being sysopped, eventually resigned adminship in October 2009 (on his userpage) and thenceforth made an average of less than 100 edits per year. He then returned a month or so ago and did some out-of-touch and questionable things, with and without the tools. Including "somehow" removing/revdelling every past iteration of his userpage today, so that civilians can't track it (don't worry, we took notes). My view is that Seicer's actual preferred mode on wiki is doing quiet editing of Kentucky-related articles, and that's where his joy and expertise is. I don't see someone who is in touch with wiki policies such as an admin should be. Given his preferred mode and expertise, and his lack of expertise in various current admin protocols etc., and some of the choices he has recently made, I see someone whose best interest would probably be served by voluntarily giving up the tools. In my view this would be in the best interest of the project. I say this with respect and with gratitude for the past good work Seicer has done. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 04:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I've read everything that everyone has said here, and I spent some time looking at the editing history and the AfD of the Lawless BLP. I'm sorry that there seems to be an outbreak of computer difficulties for some of you. Myself, my mother became ill this morning, and therefore my interest in spending much more time on the issue here is very low.

Viriditas, I want to say thank you for pointing out to Seicer how inappropriate it was to have called me a stalker. Seicer, I hope that you now understand that, after you had said on your user talk page that you would be away for a while but that you would respond to me and to Technical 13 after you got back, I was looking to see when you got back, and I gave you a reminder when I saw that you were back but had not yet replied to us.

I don't think there is a need for anything more than for Seicer to voluntarily take some feedback under consideration, and to keep in mind that things are likely to escalate if he does not make good use of this feedback. I cannot tell where personal animosity between Seicer and Lawless leaves off, and where Seicer's honest efforts to thwart promotional editing begin. But I suggest that you simply take the Lawless page off of your watchlist and allow other editors to take care of any issues there. If that's asking too much, then watch but don't edit, and post at WP:COIN or WP:BLPN when you see problems, and ask other editors to decide what to do with the problems.

Please keep in mind that calling EEng's comments "crap" was a bad idea, and that removing his comments instead of using Template:Hat or Template:Cob was also a bad idea. The expectations of the editing community about administrator conduct have gotten much higher over the last couple of years, and you need to be aware of that. It would be prudent for you to focus on editing subjects that interest you and to go light on the use of administrative tools, unless you are confident that the use will not be controversial. If nothing else, that will make your editing experiences less aggravating and more enjoyable. And, for all of us, if editing isn't enjoyable, then we're doing something wrong. Peace. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 7 February 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.

• Hope your mom is doing better. EEng (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks EEng, that's very kind of you. Unfortunately, the situation is getting worse, and I am probably going to be away from Wikipedia for an undetermined amount of time now. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm indeed sorry to hear that. I don't believe in prayer myself, but the sweet little old lady upstairs does, so I've asked her to pray for you and your mom. WP can spare you until the crisis has passed. EEng (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Aside

PS: On another front, thank you for your very helpful input about that other editor, who was having issues with templates. You have been very helpful there. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely sure what this refers to, I help a lot of various editors with templates, but I'll reply with 'no problem'. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)

I meant Sardanophalos. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Ahh. Yes. I hope he finds himself a mentor soon if he hasn't already. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I thought this section header meant you were planning a run for the arbcomm. If you're crazy enough to do it, you'd have my vote. Guettarda (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I actually am pretty much crazy, but then again, I don't even particularly want to be an administrator. But that was very kind of you to say that, and I appreciate it very much. Now, cover your eyes for the rest of this thread, lest you have to recuse yourself (joke)! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

AN edit

I think your edit on the AN page inadvertently removed another editor's comment. Please take a look. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I looked, and I cannot find it. Here's the diff: [10]. Just my comment added, and nothing being removed. Just after, both you and another editor added comments with the same time stamp as each other, but after my time stamp, with your comment below mine and the other editor's comment above mine. I don't think it is necessary to relocate the other editor's comment, but if there is anything else I'm missing, please let me know. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so very much for checking. What I saw came about from an edit conflict. It was Drmies edit [11] which showed up along with your edit. So, inspired by Roseanne Roseannadanna, I'll say "never mind". – S. Rich (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

--Tryptofish (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Sad news

My mother died earlier this morning. This is very difficult for me, and I am the only surviving family member, so there is a lot for me to deal with. I will get back to Wikipedia when I am able to, but I do not know when that will be. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm very sad to hear that Tryptofish. I lost my mother five years ago, so I can understand what you must be going through now. I hope you heal well, and soon.- MrX 18:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, Tryptofish! I am so sorry! EEng (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I am very sorry to learn about your loss.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I’m so sorry for your loss. seicer | talk | contribs 20:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• That is sad news indeed. Take all the time you need to get things back in order, there are plenty of us to hold down the fort. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Very sorry to hear, Tryptofish. Thinking of you. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Please take care of yourself during this trying time. Viriditas (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oh my God I'm so very sorry to hear that! That is a crushing blow, and having to deal with all the myriad details in the midst of one's bereavement seems heartbreaking. I echo Viriditas -- please take care of yourself. Love and (((hug))), Softlavender (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, please have care for yourself --Epipelagic (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• I'm very sorry to hear this sad new. My thoughts are with you. Take care. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 02:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• so sorry, trypto. Jytdog (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• I'm very sorry to hear that. Looie496 (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• Thinking of you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• So sorry to hear of your loss. If you ever feel you are not grieving in the "right" way - stop thinking that. We all grieve in our own way. Look after yourself.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• Sorry for your loss. Take care of yourself. Iztwoz (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• I lost my mom unexpectedly a couple of years ago, and my mother-in-law the year before that, so I know that's a really painful thing. I'm so sorry you have to go through this, and handle everything yourself. :-( --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• I'm so sorry to hear about your loss. I can imagine how hard that must be. My condolences. Guettarda/Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• I am very sorry for your loss and send my best wishes at this sad time. --Mirokado (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
• So sorry to hear of your loss. Thinking of you and wishing you all the best. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Been thinking of you

...and hoping you're coping. EEng (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. John Carter (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on WP:AN#Closure review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script

Hello! You have been selected to receive an invitation to participate in the closure review for the recent RfC regarding the AfC Helper script. You've been chosen because you participated in the original RfC. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. This message is automated. Replies will not be noticed. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 14:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

brain and heart
Thank you for scientific quality contributions, for example on Aquascaping, for supporting the Society for Neuroscience Wikipedia Initiative, and for speaking from the bottom of your heart, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (27 April 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 402nd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize. Quoting you: "I wish you the very best going forward." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for W. Maxwell Cowan

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Persondata RfC

Hi, You participated in the previous Persondata RfC. I just wanted to notify you that a new RfC regarding the methodical removal of Persondata is taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Thanks, —Msmarmalade (talk) 08:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Condolences, and welcome back

My deepest condolences on the events earlier this year in your life, to which I can relate. And welcome back! It's been a long road from the days of WP:CDA, and the way ahead is cloudy, but less lonely with good people aboard. Best wishes, Jusdafax 22:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Hooray!

So nice to have you back! missed you. Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I did a bit of lurking before I actually revealed my return, so I've seen the advice that you've taken, about not taking things too personally around here. I sincerely hope it's working out well for you. And... @DrChrissy:. I'm saddened to see that there was a conflict between the two of you, because the two of you are among the editors I've most enjoyed editing with. You are both fine people, in my opinion, and I hope that in time you will each appreciate one another. Happy editing, everyone! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Good to know you're back and 'fighting-fit'.--Iztwoz (talk) 06:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Good to see you back, T-fish. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement arbitration case opened

By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The [Arbitration enforcement] case [request] is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has, per the above, accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Apologies for the potential duplicate message. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
   1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
   2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)