User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

August, 2008 – July, 2009

Welcome!

Hello, and Welcome to the Wikipedia, Tryptofish! Noticed your deletions over on the Richard Deth article. Here are a few perfunctory tips that, hopefully, will enhance your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

And some odds and ends: Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Verifiability, Village pump, and Wikiquette; also, you can sign your name on any page by typing four tildes: ~~~~. Best of luck, Tryptofish, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words

Thank you very much for the kind words at Talk:Crucifixion#In Popular Culture. I found it very difficult not to respond to the attackers in kind, and I appreciate your comments. TJRC (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ingrid Newkirk page

Hey, good job on tightening up text on the Ingrid Newkirk page. I was certain it was going to be vandalism, since there is so much on that page, but I was pleasantly surprised to see your edits. Well done! Bob98133 (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Quatermass (Aquarium Wiki)

Sorry for not replying sooner. For some reason Wikipedia isn't sending me emails to inform me of changes to pages I'm 'watching'.

Brian (Arjes) and I started the AQW a few years ago and B. applied for a interwiki link and got it. We've certainly never heard about any bad feeling towards us or the site from Wikipedia or its editors.

We're not aiming to be as high brow as Wikipedia. I personally feel we need a more human touch to some of our articles is needed to get info across. Which is why we do review of products and list clubs.

We don't have a huge number of editors unfortunately, less than 4 regulars in fact, so everything takes its time. I'd like to think this will improve. But not so far!

--Quatermass (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC on Human genetic variation

If you have time, please answer this question.[1] --Wet dog fur (talk) 12:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC on Keith Olbermann

Hey, thanks for taking the time to comment on this RFC. However, I really must ask you to assume good faith regarding other editors' motives and actions. While there is obviously one editor who seems determined to bait those with whom he disagrees, no other editors have responded with snarky comments. Summarizing the debate as "personal arguments among other editors" and that the RFC is "being used by editors already in the dispute to keep re-arguing their same arguments" is both factually incorrect and discourages other editors from commenting. One, all editors are encouraged to comment in the RFC, regardless of previous explanations -- the RFC is the official procedure, so to speak, and they need to be on record. Two, so far you are the only editor to comment twice -- no one else has used the RFC to repeat arguments. Three, I've only made one comment during the debate at all. Four, by summarizing the dispute as a "personal argument" you completely minimize the issue at hand and make it sound like an adversarial procedure. Try to limit yourself to commenting on the issues and avoid coloring the debate with incorrect accusations. No offense.  ;-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm so sorry that you completely misunderstood what I meant; it was actually the exact opposite of what you say here. Explanation here at your talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey man, thanks for taking the time to respond. We all appreciate your input at the RFC, and please don't let this experience turn you off from participating in the future. Your response, from an uninvolved editor's point of view, makes it sound like both sides of the disagreement have been engaging in the problematic behavior noted above, which can poison further debate. If there is gross misconduct, I would recommend you direct your comments specifically -- editors aren't likely to continue that sort of behavior when they realize the community writ large doesn't accept it. As it stands now, I think it's likely uninvolved editors will rush to assume this as a personal dispute. At any rate, thanks for the response, and sorry if I came across as having a harsh tone. Badmintonhist is doing his best to bait me, and I'm sorry if there was some collateral damage. Cheers! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Seeyou (RfC on Bates Method)

Sorry that you feel as you do. My patience with Seeyou wore out long ago. The current approach is to warn Seeyou repeatedly, and block him when he goes too far.

I'm happy to work with new editors that want to help with the article, but anyone coming to the article at Seeyou's request should be prepared for dealing with Seeyou and seeing how others are currently dealing with Seeyou. --Ronz (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

{{clear}} template

Thanks again for your continued work on the Crucifixion IPC section. I thought I'd point out the {{clear}} template, if you aren't already aware of it. This template can be used to keep a graphic from creeping down into sections that it is not associated with. Using {{clear}} is a better alternative to putting the graphic in a prior unassociated section.

I moved the anime graphic back to the anime section, from the music section, and added the template to keep it from intruding into the "famous crucifixions" section. TJRC (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hymen RfC

Did you have an opinion on the changes I made to the article before lockdown? I am trying to get consensus for when the lockdown expires. I merged the dupe refs and changed the headers, and integrated the myth section adding one to the lede, and removed the one that was unreferenced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Answered at your talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Inward Rectifier

Thanks for the explanation regarding the inward rectifyer. I commented again on the "Talk" section of the article with further issues that need clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shershko (talk • contribs) 02:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Bouvier des Flandres

Hi, I've removed the general reference and added inline citations to passages I believe require direct sourcing in the History section, as requested. Feel free to add page number requests to each of these references. I don't have immediate access to the book from which I excerpted the breed's history, but will be sure to add page numbers as soon as I can get some time with the book. Regards. Roadmr (t|c) 18:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Answered at your talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I had noticed your name in a couple of other places, and consider you to be a fine editor. I'm glad that our differences seem to revolve around minor stylistic points rather than matters of substance...I really wouldn't want to be arguing against you. Regarding refs in the Atheism article, I stated my view but if you and others feel it better to include them mid-sentence I don't think it's a disaster; just a minor point in a difficult article. Doc Tropics 18:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much, especially coming from a more experienced editor! Answered at your talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Atheism mood

If two phrases have slightly different meanings, yet in the interest of brevity people argue that "nobody in their right mind will think they mean different things in this context", and your intelligence was being questioned for drawing attention to the issue, and people talked about you like you were not present, saying you needed to be ignored and had no point, is it unfair to question whose attitude might be making aiming for scholarly writing fruitless? We have also, for example, more arguments that brevity makes "belief in deities" better than "belief that deities exist". When did aiming for scholarly writing become "pedantic"? --JimWae (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note that other people, not me, said those things. I'm trying to help your views with respect to the references. I think that this is a case of consensus having evolved over time, more than it is one of editors who are treating you badly. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
To me in now appears consensus is moving away from plugging everything into one sentence, and that others are beginning to acknowledge that taking the state of mind of a person who has never considered deities and making that a philosophical viewpoint that can be a definition of atheism (or anything for that matter) has more than a few problems. Btw, I was trying to follow the style of WP:Indent. I do think people are cooling down a little & I do see people agreeing with one another - and not just as the "3rd man in" --JimWae (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, and that's good. I think what the page says at the moment does reflect the issues you described here, although there is always room for further improvement. About talk page format, you might want to take a second look at WP:Talk page guidelines#Layout, especially the "thread your post" point, and make special note of the correct use of indents (:) versus bullet points (*). --Tryptofish (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Your other accounts An unsuccessful attempt to intimidate me

Could you please say what your other accounts are, please? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

My only account at Wikipedia (and at related projects) is this one, of course. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying you've never edited with any other account? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Please understand that I am doing my best to edit responsibly, and there is no justification for personal attacks against me. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
You're not the very annoying user formerly known as N? :-) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Is that what this is about? No, I absolutely am not that person. If that is what you have been thinking, then please understand that it is a misunderstanding. If it would be helpful to you in understanding the situation, please feel free to explain to me what it is about that other person that made you suspect that I was him/her, and I will attempt to see if I can offer an explanation. Please understand that I am very perplexed by your apparent anger towards me, and do not understand it at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I have tried to find a user-page for N. I don't know if User:N is the same person, but that editor seems to work on completely different pages than I do. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm disappointed that you've decided to mislead people about this (which is a violation of WP:SOCK). It's obvious that it's you -- and I was not referring to User;N, as you know very well. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
That is categorically untrue. I am trying to understand; please stop this unfair hostility. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Trying to make some sense of this, I found a barnstar on the accuser's user-page, signed by "N" and linking to User:Nickptar. That person absolutely is not me. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: If you think there is a reason to suspect a particular editor of being a sock, and of doing so in violation of policy, you should use WP:SSP to put forth your reasoning and evidence, rather than making allegations at the editor's talk after the editor has addressed them. ++Lar: t/c 19:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Lar, thank you very much for that. (I'm responding to you here, in accordance with what I think is your "Pooh" policy!) I am really feeling very unhappy about this situation, and would appreciate any advice/guidance/help that you or others can offer. (And it makes me feel good about WP that someone has noticed!) P.S.: relevant information can be found at Talk:Animal rights#Personal pronoun in lead picture caption and Talk:Animal Liberation Front#FBI quote in lead. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. This page is on my watch list. I was already aware of those links but thanks for giving them. ++Lar: t/c 07:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I make it a practice not to indicate my gender, because I believe that it is completely irrelevant to the content or value of my edits. However, I want to make a note, here on my own talk page, of this comment by the accuser, in which she states that the person whom she alleges (wrongly) me to be is female. And, I want to say "thank you" to those editors who I think are paying attention. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I decided to keep a record here of these diffs: diff and diff. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Neuron, dopamine, striatum, etc.

I undid the deletion of the discussion of dopamine and its effects in the striatum. Your justification was that this has been refuted by other sources. If possible, could you post the relevant sources in the discussion section of the article. My wife is a neurobiologist who works on physiology of excitation and inhibition (mostly glutamate and GABA) in the striatum, and she is of the impression that the Surmeier review was accurate. I have created a section in the discussion page for the article to discuss this there if you like. Xargque (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, will do, just give me a day or two. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

ALF/FBI

Hi, Trypto - I looked and commented at the ALF article and started watching it. I'll have to read through it more thoroughly, but I added my thoughts to the talk page. Thanks for pointing me at that article, even if I didn't agree with you on this edit. :) Bob98133 (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Aquarium

Hi Tryptofish, I'm really new to editing on wikipedia. Actually it all started for me when I couldnt find an article on my faveorite fish. So I made one. Gobioides Broussonneti. I have one other article completed, Long-nosed Loach. Anyway, I join wikiproject aquarium fishes and noticed that it is very dead. I saw your post about reinvigorating it and replied. Is there any way we can completely restart this project as I feel it died before it even left the ground. I would like to see wikiproject aquarium fishes working at the same high speed level as other wikiprojects. Drew R. Smith (talk) 13:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, that's great! Answered more at your talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I didnt mean to offend anyone. To clear things up, I didnt say peoples work was dead, I said the project was dead. As in not functioning. The last newsletter is from 2007, and most of the requested articles had been completed a long time ago (which is why the requested articles section is empty). Rougly half the users on the member list havent contributed anything to wikipedia at all since December 2008. The expand featured article section shows Chiclids, I believe, but they are no longer on Featured article nominations, or Featured article page.Drew R. Smith (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
We now have a portal. Aquarium Fish. Drew R. Smith (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Erg. Went down to the local library to get some book references and hopefully expand my article on the violet goby. I checked out three books, Aquarium Fish-The visual guide to more than 500 marine and freshwater fish varieties, Aquarium Fish & Fish care, and Focus on Freshwater Aquarium Fish. All huge books, all had some species I'd never heard of. And none had any information at all on my fish. One, the last one, had a picture and a caption but that was it! Do you know of any good books that might have my fish in them?Drew R. Smith (talk) 02:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Answered at your talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately petstores always have them in a totaly freshwater tank or worse, totaly marine! They also like to make up horror stories about how viscious it is. Most violet gobies go home with the nut cases and meet a very painful death at the fins of jewel cichlids and other veritable fish psychos. Another problem is they like to sell them and the marine fish harbor goby under the same name of dragon goby. Drew R. Smith (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help

Drew R. Smith (talk) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew R. Smith (talk • contribs) 06:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

changes to "antipsychotic" article's talk page

The history of the advertising term "antipsychotic" certainly is relevant to discussion of the article. I don't think you should have deleted this section. It is important that major tranquillizers were renamed "antipsychotics." Big Pharma's decision to do so led directly to the over-prescription of these expensive drugs. "Antipsychotics," as a class of drugs, are now the biggest revenue draw of any drugs, even more than statins. This information should be on the talk page and in the article. 24.69.136.143 (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for getting in touch with me. I figure I'll reply here, since you don't have an account. If you disagree with my deletion, please feel free to revert me. But I think that the talk was becoming an argument about the points you raise here, rather than a discussion of how to improve the page. Our article talk pages really need to be about improving the page, not about arguing about the subject of the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your inputs

A quick note to say thanks for providing sane and well reasoned inputs on the RfC on the Gun violence page. When I attempted to implement it, I was blocked for 48 hours, despite never violating 3RR, for "edit warring". Nonetheless, I wanted to say thanks for caring enough to comment. Yaf (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Dispute

Hey Tryptofish/Archive 1, I'm wondering if you could weigh in on this dispute between me and another editor:

It started here:

And spilled over here:

  1. Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#.22violent_direct_action.22_is_misleading
  2. Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Fhue_and_User:NRen2k5
  3. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Fhue

— NRen2k5(TALK), 00:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Answered at your talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

SfN workshop

Hi -- I've been participating to some degree in organizing the workshop. If you could enable email for your account, I'd like to tell you a bit more about it -- there are aspects that aren't quite ready for public announcement yet. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks. I'm following a very strict policy of hiding my real-life identity here, partly because I make difficult edits (Animal Liberation Front and such). So, I'm not going to activate my e-mail here, nor provide that sort of information. However, I'll get your e-mail from the SfN member website and e-mail you, and you can get back to me from that. Thanks again! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay. For what it's worth, enabling email doesn't reveal your address -- it is only revealed if you actually reply to a message you get. Also, email is enabled on my Wikipedia account, so you could use that if you like. Looie496 (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, actually I know that, just a little extra careful. But I did send you an e-mail at your gmail account. And thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Since you like SlimVirgin almost as much as I do…

I thought this would interest you: I dropped a warning on SV’s page for her bad faith on the talkpage for PETA’s article. Just a few minutes later, I got a message from one User:Mysidia on my talkpage, accusing me of warning abuse and disruptive editing. No sign on-wiki of SV communicating with this user. So either this user has something on his/her watchlist (within the rules) or SV is communicating with him/her off-wiki (against the rules in this context, I think).

What do you think? — NRen2k5(TALK), 03:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. First, I want to say, for myself, that this has nothing to do with whom I like or dislike. Those are your words, not mine. I'm just here to edit. I've read all the talk, and Mysidia is someone I haven't interacted with before, so I'm going to AGF. Now, that said, I certainly share your concerns about how unpleasant some of this editing has become. Reluctantly, I'm starting to think that the situation may need to go to arbitration enforcement, although I've been trying to avoid increasing the drama. In that regard, my STRONG advice to you is to be beyond reproach in your own edits and talk. Be polite, even if it seems pointless; don't bait, and don't give anyone anything they can use against you. If you want some background reading, I suggest going to the archives of prior ArbCom decisions, and make note of the warnings they have given SV in the past. Myself, my father died recently, and I'm not in the mood to start any kind of dispute resolution action unless I really have to, but I may really have to. Good luck with your edits. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I’m sorry for your loss, and thank you for the good advice. — NRen2k5(TALK), 21:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks on both counts. Best, --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Atheism

While I respect your revert. Do you think there is any chance at developing a consensus? I mean, it seems pretty clear. We already have an entire section, consisting of large portion of the article, devoted to the definitional debate. Why not simply refer to it, while using the definition preferred by every major dictionary and encyclopedia, "disbelief in god"? The term "disbelief" has the benefit of encompassing all 3 of the possible beliefs listed in the lead. I'd rather not have 2 sections (the "lead" and the later "definition" section) where we have debate on the name, and just let the lead have the common dictionary definition, with more than enough citations, and leave the definitional problems to its own, already existing and through section. --kittyKAY4 (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Let us avoid the committee discussion in the lead, lets just go with the simple one, and reference it to the committee version later in the article! --kittyKAY4 (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for getting in touch with me about this. Please understand that I actually felt a little badly about reverting you, because I do realize that you put a lot of thought into your edit and you have some very good ideas. So, I'm going to try to give you a detailed, even lengthy, explanation of my thinking.
You wrote: "Atheism is broadly defined as a disbelief in deities, [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] however there exists further debate and discussion of the term's usage."
  • One issue is just with the actual wording and formulation, as opposed to the idea. You have a very long list of inline cites, which look unattractive for a lead sentence. Also, you blue linked "debate and discussion" to a section lower on the same page. Given how vague the "d & d" phrase is, it ends up being an Easter egg link (one that the reader does not expect from the linked text), plus the wording is too vague and equivocal for a first sentence (doesn't the reader want to know something about what is so debatable about it?), and also it is questionable form to link from the first sentence of a page to another part of the same page. Either someone reverts you, or a lot of editors would start piling on about the flaws in the sentence. For a lead sentence that has been discussed as much as that and gets as much traffic as that, you'd be better off presenting any proposed version in talk, and seeing what comes back.
  • If you haven't done it yet, I would strongly suggest that you go to archive 40 of the talk for the page, start reading there, and keep reading until you get to where something like the current lead got onto the page, a couple of archives later. You'll see there a huge amount of discussion about the differences between denial of existence versus absence of belief versus rejection of theism. I take your points about simplifying the 3 forms as you did (at least in the first part of your proposed sentence, though not the second part), but there is also a strong case to be made for unpacking more of what "atheism" means than what you did.
  • In that regard, please note (WP:LEAD) that the lead should be an introduction to the major issues of the article that follows, in the manner of an encyclopedia, rather than a definition, in the manner of a dictionary. I think your arguments are too oriented towards defining atheism, as opposed to introducing the page.
  • You ask "Do you think there is any chance at developing a consensus?" My answer, honestly: no. That doesn't mean that I would discourage you from discussing this more (not here, but on the page's talk page), but please realize that you didn't even have consensus (maybe 2 for, 3 against, but with some ambiguity) in the limited talk that occurred before you made your edit. The fact is, Wikipedia is, by definition, writing by committee.
I hope that helps you understand where I'm coming from. Please understand that I appreciate what you are doing, and I don't want to discourage you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate the explanation. I should have taken a closer look at WP:LEAD. Your revert is very well justified, thank you again for the explanation --kittyKAY4 (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

UK/US vs U.K./U.S.

Is there a wikipedia policy on this because you edited all the UK's and US's in the Speaking of Research article to U.S. and U.K. and I personally find it doesn't read as well (and looks a bit odd). Do you mind if I change this back or has Wiki weighed in with a "correct" method here.

I point towards, say, the UK article which is filled with UK and not U.K. Regards London prophet (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. My mistake, and you are correct. I checked WP:MOS, and it does say that when UK is in the page, then US, not U.S., is used. Please feel free to change it back, or I can. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Just in case nobody else says it, thank you for your calm, civil discussion in the Christian violence AfD, it is appreaciated. Some came off as condescending and lecturing with those who disagreed, but you did not. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Expert contributions

Tryptofish - I wrote an extensive review of the history of computed radiology. I am a neurosurgeon. I then cited the review when I added to history sections in this field. In any case, I have no interest in violating any guidelines. Please feel free to remove all of my contributions. I teach and write books (e.g. "Do You Really Need Back Surgery" for Oxford University Press) to inform the general public. However, fortunately, Wikipedia has a wealth of knowledgeable contributors (many of whom conceal who they are). I guess I'd better stick to academics. However, it was my impression that this issue was raised when I first started doing contributions. These were reviewed and approved by other editors and appreciation expressed. There was no warning that I was violating some rule and needed to stop writing. I think you are mis-stating the policy, but as I said, please feel free to remove everything I have written if that is what your fellow editors think is appropriate. We have no idea who you are other than that you like fish so there is no verifiable way to learn when you are violating WP:COI. At least I am honest and upfront about who I am.Afiller (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sincerely sorry that you interpreted my comments that way, and the last thing that I would want to do would be to discourage you from participating at Wikipedia. I am sure that you have many valuable things to contribute. Please note several points: I was not in any way questioning your qualifications as a neurosurgeon or academic, nor would any such questioning have been relevant here. All I did was leave two very gentle comments at your talk (diff and diff), and they did not rise to the level of a policy warning. Nor did I, myself, revert anything that you wrote -- that was other editors, not me. I was just trying to help you understand what might have been their reasons. I most certainly never told you to "stop writing." I am unaware of any previous discussion of this issue with you by other editors. And finally, please do not imply that I am dishonest. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Tryptofish - Thanks. I think the problem is three simultaneous editing issues. Firstly, Looie496 did not take down the references, he just raised a question about using Nature Precedings (not refereed). I added the associated journal reference in response. Then you wrote to pointedly communicate "WP:COI." At the same time (within a few minutes), my editing on a different page - Diffusion MRI - was vandalized. I wrote to the user in his discussion page, he deleted my comments and further vandalized the site. This user then settled down and started to communicate on the discussion page which is helpful. Most of the edits I see - whether academic or non-academic are anonymous (unknown user names). If you look at the discussion on Diffusion MRI - this person really just wants references to my groups work removed completely so he (or the group he likes) can claim they are the sole source of the research - a classic Wikipedia mess. However...it is clear who I am and what my conflicts might be, but we have no idea who this enraged person and can't find out, but we have to try to accommodate to the bullying. Hence my comments about COI hints from someone we cannot identify. Conflicts exist everywhere. The competing references being discussed in the Diffusion MRI article (and they are already referenced extensively) come from a scientist at NIH who is very senior and controls the grants going out to hundreds of labs. When someone champions him - how do we say there is no conflict of interest - or is this person "Basic Truth" Dr. Basser himself - hard to say. Overall if there is any issue of conlict, the academic world has chosen to ask people to contribute but to declare their possible conflicts. Signing a piece that references Aaron Filler and signing it afiller with clear ID on the user page leaves no doubt as far as I can see.Afiller (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Behavior

Hi Tryptofish, please try to focus on specific issues and avoid referring to me or to your perceptions of my views or motives. IOW, focus on the message, not the messenger. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll take that into consideration, but considering the history at those pages, I find it a little strange to have that comment directed at me, not that you were the offender in that regard in the past. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I try to focus on the message myself, unless someone is personally abusive, in which case an external behavioral solution is needed, not escalation. The history of a page is no reason to deviate from that policy. Crum375 (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I really do take your point. As a suggestion in return, please note that I am not reverting what you did (as much as I might be itching to do so!). I've noticed that you have been very quick to either revert or edit in response to the edits I have made, and you might want to consider slowing that down yourself, and taking concerns to the article talk page first. I'm willing to leave a version on the page that I dislike, and you might want to feel free to do likewise with a version you dislike. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I rarely edit that article lately, generally just vandalism reversions. It's just that I noticed that section, which I did edit in the past, mysteriously lost the PETA POV, so I restored the famous Singer quote. Crum375 (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and I hope you realize that I agreed with you that restoring that quote was the right thing to do. I guess I'd hope that you'd be a little more understanding when I point out that the edits you made subsequently seem to me to go over the top in drowning out the critics' POV with PETA's. It may have been better to discuss it on talk without so many edits to the page itself. Problems start when editors are going at it too rapidly, and I admit that I've been just as guilty of that myself in our interactions these past two days. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tryptofish/Archive_1&oldid=1190131686"