User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

January, 2017 – April, 2017

Happy New Year, Tryptofish!

Happy New Year!

Tryptofish,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thank you Donner60! That's very kind of you. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

Hi Tryptofish, Thanks for the welcome! My students and I look forward to interacting! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfsinger (talk • contribs) 00:14, January 4, 2017 (UTC)

@Bfsinger: You are very welcome! I obviously edit under a pseudonym, but in real life I've been a professor doing drug abuse-related research, so your class is in my interest area. By the way, I noticed that you accidentally removed your own talk notice at at least two of the pages. I restored it, but you should probably check other pages where I haven't looked. Also, you and your students can (and should) sign your talk page comments by typing --~~~~ or clicking the icon that looks like a pencil at the top of the edit screen. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

About anonymity

^{(talk page stalker) Oh my, now I'm really super duper impressed. I never understood why so many intellects on WP have chosen anonymity but then again, my question may hold the answer. 🤔 Atsme📞📧 17:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)}

Well, since you brought it up, there's actually a story behind that. During the most active time of my research career, the Unabomber was on the loose. Law enforcement people quietly contacted scientists whom they thought could be vulnerable, to warn them to be careful. They contacted me that way. When you run a research lab, there are packages being delivered almost every day: stuff like Petri dishes and pipets. I told the students in my lab that if any unusual package showed up, they should not touch it, but instead come and find me. It was unnerving. Fortunately, of course, nothing actually happened. What I came away with from that experience is a heightened awareness that there are a lot of people out there on "Teh Internets", and a few of them may be nutcases. So I decided right from the start of my editing here to remain anonymous. And let's face it, if you edit here for any length of time, you'll end up pissing somebody off. Early in my editing here, I argued that the image at the right, here, should not be deleted, and I got death threats for doing so, from trolls who object to anything that comes from Japanese comic books, because, well, it comes from Japanese comic books. Nutcases, indeed. Anyway – I also like to leave my identity out of it because, when I edit scientific pages, I believe that it would be wrong for me to give the appearance of "pulling rank". Plus, of course, I really am a fish! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course I too edit under a pseudonym. My user name very often leads people to think I am female whereas I think you both (Tryptofish and Atsme) know I am male. I am constantly surprised at the way editor's approaches to me change when they find I am male rather than female. I am glad I opened my account under a pseudonym. One distinct advantage of this is that I can cite my own research, which I always do with other references to support the findings so it is not COI, without drawing accusations of UNDUE or COI. In my opinion, all new users, but especially new expert users, should be very strongly encouraged to open their account anonymously. This can always be changed later and avoids letting the genie out the bottle. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I've assiduously never indicated my gender, and I often find assumptions by other editors to be amusing. About the COI thing, I never cite anything that I wrote, and I avoid citing anything written by my collaborators or friends. I've bowed out of editing pages where I might be tempted to edit from a COI. For example, a while back, some of the pages about the science underlying schizophrenia cited work that I know for a fact to be discredited, by a scientist with whom I have had public disagreements. I would have loved to correct that material and cite work that was done by some friends of mine, but I walked away instead, although I did leave a talk page note indicating what I was doing, in the hopes that other editors would take it from there. I really would discourage any editor from citing their own work, and using anonymity for that purpose strikes me as a misuse. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I did not set out to use anonymity to cite my own work. My username is actually what my partner at the time used to call me because she knew it annoyed the hell out of me! I have read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Citing yourself and I am 100% certain I have not violated that. I think perhaps you have adopted a black and white rule for yourself (which is of course perfectly acceptable), whereas I edit within what PAG's allow. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Because you had posted that way on my talk, I felt the responsibility to say those things. But that's a very helpful answer, and I'm fine with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Good to hear - and a belated Happy New Year to you! DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and the same to you! Just as you left that message, I was coming back to add something that I think could be helpful. In citing one's own publications without falling afoul of COI, it can be useful to consider whether or not the citation simply provides sourcing for material, which is helpful, or whether citing it serves to draw attention to it or to advantage it over other sources with which it disagrees. It can be situation-dependent. Thus, in my example, I was considering the fact that I have an interest in a disputed topic, for which different sources present opposing sides. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course you are correct. I consider myself to be a content editor. I do edit in disputed topics sometimes such as Pain in fish, but I have never worked in this area in real life other than researching for that article here on WP. I try to work with other experienced editors in such articles such as yourself and Epipelagic, and always attempt to make a balanced article presenting both, or multiple, points of view. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and this has been a good discussion. (But pain in fish? Ahhhh!) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Before I get all excited...

...have you seen this? If so, your thoughts...if not, watch it when you can, then share your thoughts. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. The basic concept looks legit to me. I'm a little skeptical that recovery would occur as rapidly as they claim, but it is plausible that stem cells from the same person (maybe not stem cells from anyone else) could regrow wounded skin. I have no idea whether the "gun" mechanism of application is ideal or not, and it might not be. It's also possible that the stem cells need more than just being sprayed into place: for example, they might need some sort of growth factors, or some sort of physical protection or support. Note that they say that the device has not yet undergone regulatory review. But as a concept, yes, stem cells should be able to regrow wounds like that. If any of my other talk page participants can add to what I said, please do. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Certainly has the "wow" factor. Imagine if former burn victims who are badly scarred could regrow skin. I can't help but think of Dax Cowart, knowing what he went through after watching his documentary. What an amazing man. I first learned of Dax through a dear friend of mine who went to law school with him, and named his daughter after him. Then there was a family friend named Jeep who was another severe burn victim. He and a few of his buddies were at their deer lease when the accident occurred. Jeep attempted to light the pilot on a gas heater and it exploded on him with the first strike of the lighter. He was burned over 90% of his body. He spent nearly a year in and out of hospitals getting skin grafts and spending time in rehab. He was actually on the road to recovery when he was diagnosed with leukemia, and died about 6 mos after diagnosis. There was talk that he may have contracted the disease via blood transfusion. Doctors thought that because of the severity of his condition and very low immune response, his system was unable to fight the "foreign" introduction. He was a young man, too - middle 30s, very active and in excellent health before the accident. Anyway, that pretty much explains my interest in the technology. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes indeed, those are compelling stories, and there certainly is a continuing need for medical research. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• ok here are 2 cents. they have no scientific publications on their website here which is not a good sign (this is the same kind of thing that Theranos did - lots of hoopla but no publications). So there is no way to evaluate their science; their claims are extraordinary and I would look for strong publications to back that up, but they don't exist. so that is a bad sign. They are doing a nice job with PR for their investors (to keep the stock price up) for what that is worth. they have two products in development - "cellmist" which is a stem cell suspension derived from the person (autologous) and the spraying device. They are going after a 510K for their device now, but not to spray the stem cells - rather just for irrigation, per this. It will take a lot for them to establish/standardize the process for making the "cellmist"; regulators will want to see that, and they will need to use the standardized process to make the "cellmist" used in clinical trials to show safety and efficacy. Then they will have to figure out how to make that work commercially if the product is going to remain on the market and be widely used. Trying to sell autologous preparations is a challenging business model - you cannot manufacture the drug ahead of time - you either need to courier the tissue to some central location where you process it, and then courier it back, or you need to develop a separate device that does the processing that people buy and use locally. Lots of challenges with the latter. For a couple of examples of such products see Strimvelis and Sipuleucel-T - Dendreon went bankrupt trying to make money off the latter. It will be a few years (like 4 or 5 at least) before this would be available on the market. They went public through a reverse merger in January 2014 per their annual report from FY2013, filed in March 2014 so you can buy shares if you believe what they are pitching now. Jytdog (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! That's a very thorough analysis, way more than I had done. I share your opinion that this faces major hurdles and is insufficiently vetted (sorry Atsme). One thing for sure: I'm not buying any shares! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

yer welcome. all that said, it is exciting and what the biotech business is all about... trying to gin up interest while you try to make good things happen in the real world. i hope they succeed. they have some serious people on their management team and some significant partnerships so it is not total bullshit. Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow, thank you!! I will proceed with cautious optimism (and lots of prayers!). ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all for an interesting discussion! I've slept on it, and it occurs to me that the video seems rather dodgy to me, in that they seem to show a great deal of healing after what sounds like just a couple of days. Problem is, I don't think cells can divide and assemble into tissue that fast, on that scale. If there is anything I learned over the course of my own career, it's that Murphy's Law is a genuine law of nature, when it comes to getting a research project to work. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I can't think of any place on WP that I've learned more than right here, Tryp, and I just wanted to say THANK YOU to you and your tps. You are a special Wikipedian. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that really means a lot to me, thanks! And I'm not even a reliable source. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for John Hughes (neuroscientist)

On 23 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John Hughes (neuroscientist), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the British neuroscientist John Hughes shared the 1978 Lasker Award for co-discovering opioid peptides in the brain? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Hughes (neuroscientist). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, John Hughes (neuroscientist)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Schwede66 12:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

New Wikiproject!

Hello, Tryptofish! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a new WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me, but I'm actually not that interested in that topic. Just got involved in it by way of following up on GMO issues. But good luck! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Soooo lonely....

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Florida Smash HLS. Long time, no comments after my nom. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Biology is glorious

Further information: User talk:EEng § For collectors of creative vandalism

And so is taxonomy! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Glorious, but I thought entomology articles would be safe from political topics of this nature. Add this one to the list along gamergate ants. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! Obviously, I found out about it via your talk page. Believe me, there is no such thing as a safe topic around here. I've gotten death threats over content about a comic book. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I may have gotten the last word in: [1]. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I have absolutely nothing to retort to that Yoda-esque edit summary. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Admittedly, one of my best edit summaries that is. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I just starting going through my watchlist and that made me guffaw. boom, mic-drop. Jytdog (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Part two

Ouch!

From Varicocele: "Causes of varicocele include... Nutcracker syndrome, and ...". (I saw a link to this page on another editor's talk page.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Part three

At List of marine aquarium invertebrate species: [2] --Tryptofish (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

We usually don't wikilink journal names in citations?

Hi Tryptofish.

Re your revert of my edit you said "We usually don't wikilink journal names in citations.":

• who is "we"? I have wikilinked many journal names in citations with nary a problem. I can understand that you may consider it redundant, as you are familiar with the titles, but for the common man this may not be the case. DadaNeem (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Not a big deal, so please feel free to revert me on it, no problem. (By "we" I meant Wikipedia.) I've just checked the applicable guidelines, and Template:Cite journal, and it looks like linking periodical names in references is optional (but should be done in a consistent manner throughout an entire page, either all linked or none). I've seen many edits by other editors that removed such links, so it's not just me, and I assumed from seeing those edits that it is customary not to make these links, and it now looks like I was mistaken about that. If any of my talk page watchers can provide more information about this, please do. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

It is a style thing - no right or wrong but consistency in an article is good. Some people love them and use them to see if the journal is any good, some people feel like they are an important form of librarianship to include. I really dislike them and view them as clutter - i get mad when i click on one by accident and end up on a WP page about the journal. Jytdog (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I know my personal preference is to only wikilink journals if they are mentioned in the text. The references have their own annotations that I agree it does seem to clutter up any templates. That's probably because the only time you're clinking a reference is to go to the reference url itself, so I think there is a good case for wikilinks being too distracting. Maybe there was some bot issue or something awhile back, but I seem to recall a discussion on this topic some time ago. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Found what I was thinking of.[3] It doesn't specifically refer to journal names per se, but wikilinks in citation templates have a high potential to cause errors. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

It looks likes that's just if they conflict with an external link for the field, which doesn't seem to apply to Journal titles. --tronvillain (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

On that last point, yes, that only applies to certain fields, and not to the names of journals. But anyway, thanks everyone, and I sure do have wonderful page watchers! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Intriguing...

Twin study by NASA is intriguing. I'm inclined to believe it has something to do with altitude (in my humble layperson's opinion). I spent a month in the Andes, and experienced substantial changes in red cell count (obviously), overall health and endurance (positive), among other things. Even with the reduction in O2 levels, I looked & felt younger after the trip, although it was a bitch in the beginning. 70+ year old Peruvians were running circles around our strapping, athletically fit American men. I'm sure the reasons are multifaceted but I'm wondering if there's any relationship to what the astronaut experienced in space? As a SCUBA diver/instructor/NITROX instructor emeritus, I'm aware of influencing factors as ATM pressure increases (and so on) but I can't help but wonder if the decrease may somehow be influential in a positive way despite the controlled environment considering weightlessness is still a factor? ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

First, my obligatory caveat that all of it is described as preliminary. But, yes, this is truly intriguing! I also looked at the Nature summary that was further summarized by the source that you linked: [4]. As for altitude, it's worth considering that you experienced a thinner atmosphere in the Andes, whereas I assume that inside the Space Station was kept more like sea-level atmosphere here on Earth. I'm especially intrigued by the telomere findings, that seem to have been reproduced by separate labs, because telomere length relates to the aging process. I'm very curious as to whether this data reflects Einstein's relativity theories, because Einstein proposed that time in space travel is unequal to time on the Earth's surface. Relativity within the human body??? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. O2 levels would have been adjusted, that's a given, but the weightlessness is where I think the mystery lies, (in my simple layperson thought process), and in that mystery, we still have to consider "pressure" exerted on the body, be it the weight of the ocean at depth, or the lack of weight beyond the pull of gravity. If weightless, you don't have that pressure as you would at say, 3 to 4 Bars below sea level. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there are very possible effects of gravity (or its absence) on living cells as well. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NFCC explained listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:NFCC explained. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:NFCC explained redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

I was getting ready to restore the MFD but you beat me to it :-) Thanks and now I'm off to add my flake to the snow. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 00:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

No worries! There certainly are a lot of flakes! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Violation of OUTTING at the talk page

Now the talk page needs to be suppressed. This is getting way out of hand. Maybe you can help. QuackGuru (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I've just commented there, and you should see what I said there. I'm absorbing information that is coming at me fast and furious, but I'm not seeing any outing (simply saying that two accounts are socks is not outing unless one of them has revealed personal information, but if that happened, then it was voluntarily revealed and is not outing either). If there is something that I don't know about, I suppose you could email ArbCom, but I would lean towards just taking things slow for now, instead of putting up a fight. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Jytdog was indeffed. Admins should not be treated differently. QuackGuru (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

If there is anyone who insists that admins should not get special treatment, it's me, but you are on the wrong track here. Please leave Jytdog out of this. I'm saying this in multiple places, but there either was a bad-faith violation of the socking policy or a good-faith mistake that sort of resembles editing while logged out, and my gut feeling is that it's the latter (but I don't know everything that happened and I could be wrong). I think that you are wrong, however, about anyone having been outed. But if you are right, you are doing no good by drawing attention to it: see Streisand effect. Please drop it for now, but if not, please leave me out of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

fwiw earlier today i emailed various parties involved, to express my thoughts and requests and avoid streisand-effecting this further. Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

That's good, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Precious four years!

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

AN/I

Tryptofish: Your moving of the "DrChrissy" header and subsequent archiving of the entire bottom of the thread was inapprorpiate, as the only thing settled at AE was a specific request for a specific block, while the discussion after the original position of the "DrChrissy" header was about that editor's future if they continued behaving in the same manner. I have therefore returned the header to where it was originally, and unarchived that section of the thread. I have also struck-through your comment about there being nothing more to discuss, as that is clearly not true, as editors are indeed discussing things which are unrelated to the AE block. I know that you get along well with DrChrissy, and that's fine, but please don't let it lead you into making edits which squelch appropriate discussion about an appropriate subject: the behavior of an editor whose been sanctioned a number of times. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me here. I have replied at ANI, as well as corrected your strike-through of my comments. In the future, please refrain from presuming that you know what I am thinking, beyond what I actually say that I am thinking, or presuming that you know an underlying reason why I did something. Please also consider whether you may have some issues of your own, in the way of officiousness. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I have indeed considered it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Chilling effect

I'm concerned that this will produce a chilling effect on the community discussion it's embedded in. Would you consider moving it, or better, emailing it instead? - Brianhe (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not worried or chilled except in the way trypto intended. and trypto doesn't email. thx tho. Jytdog (talk) 05:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm just seeing this now. Thanks Brianhe for being sensitive to the issue. And what Jytdog said is correct – he and I go back a long way (and of course he has my full permission to delete it). So let's all chill. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Question...

The devil is in the details, right? I was thinking I had this stuff down pat, but the more I read, the more confusing it becomes!! *lol* I'm trying to understand as much as I can regarding H index, etc. So if an academic whose work is cited internationally (in accounting which to me is like watching paint dry) has garnered 4480 citations, has an h-index of 14, and i10-index of 15 would it still be considered just a little above average despite the field of study, or would it be above average because of it? ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Agh, reminds me unpleasantly of my earlier life of publish-or-perish. To tell you the truth, I find these indexes tiresome and uninteresting, and I have actually never heard of i10 before. But anyway, one cannot really define a given number as being the average/median for all scientific fields, because the fields vary tremendously in how many publications a typical investigator generates, and how many other members of the field there are to cite those publications. A reasonable approach is generally to identify a bona-fide leader in the specific field, defined narrowly, someone who is definitely notable for Wikipedia, and compare their numbers. For junior-ish scientists whose bios tend to get to AfD a lot, I'll often compare their number with that of their PhD or post-doc advisor, as a way of assessing the degree to which they have or haven't become independent investigators. Another thing: the order of authorship matters a lot. Typically, the person who is most responsible for the actual work is named first, and the head of the lab is named last, with others in between in descending order of importance of contribution. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Your community wishlist proposal

Hi @Tryptofish: I saw https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T157848 and left a comment in the task for you. I'm not sure if you're already subscribed to the task, so pinging you here just in case you're interested to follow up. :) --LZia (WMF) (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

For my talk page watchers, this is about the proposal to ask new editors during the account registration process if they might be editing "for business or promotional purposes", and to put Template:Register-COI on their user talk if they answer "yes".

@LZia (WMF): Thank you very much for this! I hadn't realized that it was being followed-up on, but I am delighted at any support at all that it might get. Yes, I'm very interested in following up. (Myself, I have zero skills for implementation, and I do not have an account at Phabricator. I don't think that I want an account, because the last time I looked into it, I was concerned about privacy issues, so I won't be commenting there, but I have bookmarked it and will be watching.)

As it happens, I was planning to start an RfC here in the next couple of days to try to demonstrate strong support in this community, as a way of jump-starting efforts to get the proposal acted upon. Maybe that's not necessary now.

I read your comment about quick testing. I know for a fact that there is a lot of interest in this here at en-wiki, so it would make sense to work on it here, whereas other projects are probably less interested. I would guess that a way that you could do it would be to temporarily enable it at en-wiki, and leave it enabled only for as long as a few new accounts answer "yes" to the question, and then follow-up on what happens with them. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

a little hero worship

would you have a look at Steven M. Paul and make sure it is OK? Jytdog (talk) 05:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

was inspired by the creation by someone else of Phil Skolnick, who collaborated with Paul at NIMH. Jytdog (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Will do. (Shucks, I was hoping that I was the little hero! (just kidding).) I've looked, and am going to go at it mercilessly later today.

First, a question to you: is "precompetitive" a thing (or a typo)? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! The term "precompetitive research" may be a bit "in bubble" in the biotech/pharma world, but it used in pharma/biotech and even academia to talk about collaborative work that is not directly on a product (like a discovering a specific drug or validating a specific diagnostic or imaging test) or about a narrower project like working out some specific transduction pathway like you would write an R01 for, but is essential science (often Big Science) that everybody in companies and in academia needs in order to make progress. The Human Genome Project, ADNI, etc are examples. See this and this and this and this.... for just a few discussions of it. When that framework is put on a collaborative project, typical concerns about keeping research secret (in academia, to get an edge on publishing and grant-writing, and as the norm in pharma/biotech) and intellectual property rights are treated very differently. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

companies and academics in the semiconductor/materials science space also use the term: see here. Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

petroleum industry too per this Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll keep that in mind (but I'm going to modify it because it won't be understood by general readers). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for working it over! Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I enjoyed it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

^{(talk page stalker) Nothing derogatory intended but for the sake of humor...some of the comments in this well-executed exchange, particularly the last two, made me think of a perfectly innocent but hilarious exchange...not to mention that it's Happy Hour where I am right now. 🍺🍺🍺 All in fun...Atsme📞📧 21:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)}

^{That's the first time anyone has compared me to Rick Perry, which I'll try very hard not to let happen again! Well, Jytdog and I walked right into that one, didn't we? Why Atsme, it seems that liquor brings out your dirty mind! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)}

^{Nay, nay - this gal's mind is wholesome ...but I did notice how quickly you related to Perry and not Franken. Let's just chalk it up to liquid bravado, with a splash of uninhibited humor after an intense day of NPP. Smiles are like the Prius - they get better mileage. Atsme📞📧 23:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)}

^{You know, it did occur to me that, strictly speaking, Jytdog would be Perry and I would be Franken. But (a) no reason for me to insult Jytdog, and (b) it wouldn't have been funny if I had said Franken. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)}

funny usercats

Don't bother arguing with those sorts of !votes. People who will !vote "no" on a proposal for that reason are not only invalidating their own !votes, they're evincing the need for more humor on this site. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I see your point, and it was a one-time reply. I just saw it, and it really pushed my buttons. It was, after all, really a jaw-dropping !vote. By the way, I think it's entirely possible that the RfC will be closed by someone with no sense of humor. But thank you for getting the RfC started. I recently put it on CENT, hoping to get wider input. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

PS: It is, after all, a matter of herding cats. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Apologies Re Memphis Meats

Apologies for getting over-heated on Memphis Meats. ... And also sorry for my ... really bizarre misspellings of your name ... Typtofish, Tryptosill, Tryptofish. I appreciate the patience--216.12.10.118 (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and no worries. A good rule of thumb is to always comment on the content and not on the contributor. About my username, it's a funny thing: when I was a very new editor, I was trolled by someone who intentionally kept calling me Typofish, so I tend to notice that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

And on another note, my recent talk page history reveals that there are still trolls who get worked up over me. So nice to get so many page hits! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Just a heads up: I am departing Memphis Meats. I think, unfortunately, that the vote that was set up is simply running parallel to the discussion (which is why new voters are not commenting on the current version that you, Jytdog, Utsill and I worked on). I just want to clarify that one of the reasons that I felt so passionate about a vote not occurring was that it felt like real compromises could be made (see: me agreeing that the product names might be too much, Jytdog agreeing to the fact that videos were used being fine, etc.) ... and making static versions of the article (version 1, version 2 ... ) would either: (A) prevent people from making those compromises or (B) set up a system where the vote on old versions would run concurrent with the development of a new version. To be totally clear: I was somewhat wrong, I thought (A) would happen, and it turned out (B) happened, but I think it's disappointing nonetheless. Regardless, best of luck in your continued WP usage - you seem like a great user!--216.12.10.118 (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the kind words, and I'm sorry to see you go. I'll be taking a look there soon. I haven't yet seen the talk page, but I saw that the page has been reverted to somewhere pre-page protection, which is no big deal, so good ideas can still be implemented. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

You're awesome! I know it must not feel like it but I think we're a half step away from being there. Also you more than deserve this.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		For shepherding the cats on Memphis Meats, magically–by pure force of Will and the Five Pillars–forging a consensus out of a nasty and decrepit situation. You were a true leader, and you kept an impressively cool head amongst users (including myself) who failed to do so. Wish you all the best, 216.12.10.118 (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm getting so many edit conflicts with you there, that I am simply going to log out now. Please just work with what I left there. But I really do appreciate the kind words. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Understandable! I actually have finally finished my last run of edits (sorry I added a table) - so I am genuinely done making contributions (no more edit conflicts with me!). Although I agreed with Jytdog about FBS, I am in favor of either version, I just wanted the argument fully articulated.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't resist...

Further information: Head shop

Do you realize the kind of memes that will be spawned if this procedure is successful...?? ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I LOLed when I saw what you are linking to! Poor Ann Boleyn, it's too late for her. The jokes just write themselves, don't they? @EEng: Endless possibilities for Trump jokes. I looked around, and per this I'd say that strictly speaking, it's a body transplant. Also, it sounds like it's bogus science, but it's certainly entertaining. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it's best seen as a head transplant, because the genes are in charge. EEng 23:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's awfully selfish of them. (Now if someone gets me something to drink, I might say "shellfish" instead, which reminds me: I'm getting hungry.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, whatever science decides to call it, my desires are quite simple - if the procedure ends up beating the first public transit system to Mars, I want to place an order for Pamela Anderson's body. And please don't share this information with Gwyneth Paltrow. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, wow! Does that mean that we can order their bodies? Can I get them at Amazon.com? What's the return policy? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Better hurry - I've already lost out to Chelsea Manning. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I just watched the second video you linked to. I think that surgeon is really Woody Harrelson. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh my...you may be onto something...if you have the guts for it. You may have paved the way for a new season of True Detective based on the WP article Organ trade, and it wouldn't cost an arm and a leg to produce it. Wonder what Matthew McConaughey is doing these days, and if he could find it in his heart to give us a discount? I'm not too concerned about Harrelson, he'd trade his left arm for a part in the series. What we need to focus on is the entire body of work, so let's put our heads together and see what we can do to make this happen. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

This conversation is going way above my head...which was on the coffee table last time I saw it. ;-) DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, all! Come to think of it Harrelson has been quite public in stating his liking of head shops. (And, on a serious note, as I've thought about this, I'm convinced that there is no way that their plan for reconnecting the spinal cord could possibly work, and that means dire consequences.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

So are you saying you don't have the backbone to engage in such an endeavor? Are tryptofish somehow related to the phylum Cnidaria? I think not, as I have witnessed you navigate turbulent waters, oft times swimming against the tide, n'er once beached or lost in the vast open ocean of WP. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC) ^{Let's not get serious just, yet. 21:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)}

^{(afterthought)...And remember, your words...I'm convinced that there is no way that their plan for... are similar to the words that got Trump elected. Atsme📞📧 21:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)}

How poetic! I'm flattered! As for your afterthought, there's a good candidate for a brain transplant. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

PS: By happy coincidence, I've just spent the last several hours situating some new (for me) Cnidarians in my reef tank. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

^{I'll get back to you after I've had a shance to reshirts the 10k+ shpecies so I can make an etchucated guess as to which shpecies you would feasibly sich-uate. Luckily for the Snide-darians, itza a reef tank, not a drunk tank, the latter of which is cuss-tomarily ashociated with happy hour...(notice ET right now - it's 2 for 1). Seriously...like fish, I don't drink. Atsme📞📧 22:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)}

And I drink like a fish! (Hmm... does that mean a lot or a little? And no, I'm not going to say that you can lead a horse to water but you cannot tuna fish. That would be beneath even me.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

^{Sssshhhhhh with the tuna-talk. We don't wanna wake-up Bishzilla or Drmies cuz they liable to make us stop dishcushing Shitnadarians, and think we're the ones who are tanked. Sssshhhhh. Don't fERget, TGIF. Atsme📞📧 22:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)}

Hm

This is the kind of thing I would usually handle via email, but I understand your desire for privacy, so here it is.

I found you - as you did me - unreasonable in the discussion.

The comments about me here do not belong on an article talk page.

From my perspective, you are getting your own fixed ideas about me and getting too unrestrained in stating them, and it is starting to feel condescending to me.

Not sure what to do about that, except to articulate how I feel. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate that your perspective is naturally different than my own, and I respect that. I feel that, going back over our editing histories, including the extraordinary extent to which I defended you during the ArbCom GMO case, even to the point of exposing myself to a lot of unpleasantness while you were absent from editing, puts me in a position where I may be particularly frank with you. That said, I think that you are right that I should not have said that part of it on an article talk page, but instead at your user talk, and I will be more attentive about that in the future, sorry. But frankly, if you don't want to feel like I am being condescending to you, then don't conduct yourself in a manner that invites condescension. I'm not kidding about how exasperated I was with you at that page yesterday. And I'm not wrong to compare that to the lousy discussion recently at WT:PROF. Now, all I was trying to do was to get consensus, in an RfC that you started, about the phrase "sustainable cultured meat" instead of "cultured meat". Everyone else, from many POV perspectives, had already agreed to it. You were standing in the way of consensus, for exasperating reasons. You said that you agreed, then you said that you disagreed, and when I asked you, you said that you were opposing the kind of promotional content that another editor had been advocating for. But what we were discussing at that point was nothing like that kind of promotional content. It's content that you agreed to today. But you were refusing to hear me yesterday, much as you had done when editors at WT:PROF asked you to provide examples of AfDs, and you kept on criticizing the editors active at the guideline page instead. Hear me on this: I genuinely thought that you were being tendentious at that talk page yesterday. You made consensus much harder to achieve than it needed to be. And you kept complaining that I was not making myself clear to you. Maybe I failed to express something as clearly as I might have, I don't know. But it wasn't for lack of trying on my part. It takes a lot to get me angry at another editor. But that's what happened. And I know you've had other editors say a lot worse to you. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes I noted that your behavior was uncharacteristic yesterday - I understood that you were very frustrated with me. And yes people have said/done worse things to me; however, I value our relationship and your insight - and your sticking your neck out for me sometimes.

I do appreciate the support you have given me at key times and your looking out for my Wikipedia "career" and reputation. From where I sit you have done that because a) whatever the underlying content issues have been, have been important to you and b) you agreed enough with what i was doing content-wise and c) you agreed enough with how I was doing it behavior-wise. In my view you call things like you see them and you don't play the politics game. You are aware of Wikipedia "careers" and reputations and the role that politics can play, which I think leads you to keep an eye out for that stuff - but you don't play politics.

You have made it clear that you feel I am too often a Javert (and that this hurts me, Wikipedia reputation wise).

I am sorry that you are bringing up the GMO Arbcom again - this signifies (to me) that this remains a sore spot with you and you regret getting involved in that, especially with me bailing. Or that you don't feel like I have heard you before, that you are unhappy about that. As I have said before, I did bail and left you and everybody hanging. That was not good of me and I remain sorry about that. I am sorry that it remains a sore thing for you, something that you have to carry. I don't know how to fix that. We've never talked about why I bailed (I never offered and you never asked). I don't know if that would help.

All that said, I don't feel like you were hearing me yesterday or were understanding of what was at stake for me in that discussion. I feel like you were just seeing Javert, and that's all you were seeing. And what you wrote above is more of that. Which remains hard, as I value our relationship. Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

On a lighter note, talking about oversweating small stuff, this edit made me chuckle. Jytdog (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your very thoughtful reply. And I'm happy that you found that OCD edit funny, which indeed it was. And I also very genuinely appreciate the kind way in which you characterized me – and I'll respond that, whatever differences we may have in a particular editing discussion, I consider you to be an extraordinarily intelligent and perceptive person and a very dedicated Wikipedia contributor. I wouldn't be bothering with these discussions if it were otherwise.

Let me clarify a few things about exactly how I feel, so that you (and for that matter, any watchers here) understand better. About that GMO thing, yes, it remains something that leaves me feeling less positively about Wikipedia than I used to. I'm finding it difficult to entirely put in the past, to a degree that surprises me and probably reflects a flaw in my personality. I don't do as much content editing as I used to, and I've been finding it hard to get back to serious neuroscience editing, often just doing some gnoming instead – and that is very much a result of how I felt that I was treated by the then-membership of ArbCom. On the positive side, I now have a better understanding of how it feels for editors who become unhappy with WP, and I think that makes me better able to move policy in the right directions.

But I don't blame you for that, really, and it's got nothing to do with my concerns that I have expressed to you. I brought it up above simply for the on-the-surface reason that I said, to justify my being frank with you. In no way do I think that you don't hear me about it, please rest assured. And I really don't feel the need to discuss any more about what happened, or why. I need to make an effort to put it behind me, and not dwell on it. So no, I really don't need you to explain anything about it.

As for the Javert thing, I don't see it as being a particularly significant factor in the M Meats stuff that bothered me. Maybe peripherally, in that you (understandably) care very strongly about not allowing promotional content or promotional editing, and maybe that was an important factor in your editing position about how we described sustainability and so forth. But it wasn't really the problem. It was more like I felt that you were responding to my talk page comments too rapidly and without really thinking about it, and that you kept appearing to me to be unresponsive to what I was trying to say to you. At the WT:PROF discussion, I had repeatedly asked you to provide examples of relevant AfDs, and other editors were asking for that too. It was a sincere request: I and the others genuinely wanted to see examples so we could better understand. But it was like you weren't hearing us, because you never provided examples, but instead you kept repeating your criticisms of the other editors. And the other day, I felt like I had pushed a boulder up a mountain in order to get all the other editors to agree to that new lead sentence, which contained the word "sustainable". I kept asking you why you objected to it, and you did much the same as at PROF. You kept saying that you were trying to oppose (as I did) the promotional approach favored by another editor, and that sounded like you weren't even aware that the rest of us had moved on to a newer version that I believe solved that problem. I still don't get it: were you actually objecting to the word "sustainable" in the lead sentence, the way that it was now framed? It sure didn't seem to me to be promotional any more. I kept feeling like I couldn't get through to you, and that was the one thing that stood between us and consensus.

So, distinctly from the Javert thing, my specific concern was how you seemed to me to be responding to me very rapidly and maybe distractedly, and doing so in a way that came across as IDHT.

So I still don't really understand where you were coming from, and you say that you still don't understand me. If all of what I'm saying here is still unclear to you, and you want me to clarify something, please tell me and I'll try. And – up to you – if you want to explain to me why you took particular positions in that discussion, please feel free to, because I'm interested. Or, if you'd prefer to just move on, that would be OK with me too. Either way. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

PS: I replied here before looking at whatever had developed at Memphis Meats, but I see now that the content dispute has been resolved and the page improved, which is good news indeed. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining more about the GMO Arbom affected you. Hard to carry.

Thanks too for explaining what you saw - too fast/sloppy answering and not listening. I was saving too quickly for sure. And I should have yielded sooner. But i heard you every time. (I did!) I was trying (and failing) to communicate why I cared so much about that one word and I was hoping to get through -- but going fast is never a good route for that. Never. I should have waited, maybe come here. And yielded sooner.

There are similarities to how I acted at the PROFN discussion. Understanding people like I can sometimes, I should have expected the reactions I got and been prepared for them. I also have been re-thinking the concept of notability; my former notions don't work. So i was unprepared and reacted out of fairly bitter disappointment. Just handled it badly.

In any case it is good to have the MM article settled for now. It is good enough and way better than it was. And I can now get back to the work that led to that tangle, namely the rest of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Vipul_enterprise_-_philanthropy_articles and more sets of articles beyond that with similar issues.

Thank you for talking through this with me. I appreciate the time you took. Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

You're very welcome of course, and I wouldn't do this if I didn't care. And thank you, in turn, for such a thoughtful and gracious answer. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

PS: I just saw that you made a reference to your boss, on your talk page. I take it that you have landed on your feet after the start-up failed. I had been wondering, but didn't want to ask. But glad to hear it! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

And with this i am now howling Jytdog (talk) 04:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Vaginal steaming

On 1 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Vaginal steaming, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "sorcery for your vagina" can result in second-degree burns? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vaginal steaming. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Vaginal steaming), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Yikes! I hardly contributed anything to it, and didn't even know that I was listed for the DYK. As I said somewhere or other, it would really have been more notable if steam were coming out instead of going in. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

For your consideration. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Yikes. But I have to admit, some of the trollish replies down lower on the page are pretty funny. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

and then there was dlisted....^{Atsme📞📧} 01:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Limited time offer – one day only!

WT:BLP#Requested move. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I was reading along, smiling at the replies, and then came EEng's response...made me pause...and then it hit...still *LOL*!!!! Heza crazy guy! ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, CCxSA, User:EEng#Other saucy humor "Check out the edit summary". (Trypto takes a bow.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Very clever! *LOL* ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

just so you know

I'm going to get all POV on you at your requested BLP move. Because it's funny. I don't mean a word of it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey, is there a category for that? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

<evil grin as he runs off to his user page> ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

From my many admirers

• An administrator says that I'm WP:NOTHERE and a pervert.
• But on the positive side, I'm also Shitpot Fry. Well, actually, that would be Doctor Shitpot Fry to you! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Extremist, perverse trolls who aren't here to help the project, the lot of us. All because we disagree with her. One begins to wonder how many such diffs it will take to rouse Arbcom into taking her mop away... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)