User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

September, 2011 – October, 2011

Link to aqadvisor on Aquarium

Please see Talk:Aquarium#External_link_to_aqadvisor, I would appreciate your input. Kat (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. As I've said there, I think you are absolutely correct. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking your time to review changes and for participating in discussions! Kat (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

thanks

for signing for me, --Nuujinn (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, no big deal. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks for the welcome and support. This will be my first time using wiki writing as an assignment, but the students seem very excited. Do you know how long it takes for something to be reviewed and evaluated as a good article? ProfRox (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to give a clear answer about the time for WP:GA, because everyone's a volunteer and you are dependent on someone getting around to it. In theory, it could be done in a couple of days, but in practice it is much more likely to be a couple of weeks, or longer. Reviewers will also expect the writers of the article to respond to critiques and make improvements to the article during the review, which may not match with students' expectations for a semester. User:NeuroJoe has run a course like this for a few years, and he recruited reviewers from several WikiProjects instead of relying on GA, so you might want to ask him about what did or didn't work for him. (By the way, although you didn't ask this, I'd suggest making students very aware of WP:COPYVIO, because Wikipedia is very sensitive to that issue.) --Tryptofish (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

What the hell?

Maybe you have some refined sense of taste that I don't understand, but when the Catholic choice of mealy-mouthed apologist comes at me (whether counterfeit or not) my response is my birthright. Who are you to allow the original post to stand, but to disguise my reply? Don't do your thing about hiding behind 'policies'. If you insult me with impunity you should have to stand for my reply. As it happens I am German by birth, and not Jewish, but I know who this Ratzinger fellow really was when we needed solace and saviour, and when we needed to save our friends who happened not to be eligible for the master race. As it turned out we got nothing but 'Mattigkeit' until Patton came along. Is this so distasteful that we can't be honest about what really happened, or do I need a reference for that (and you know there are plenty)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterstrempel (talk • contribs)

Mensch, (in all possible senses), sei bitte ruhig, die Lage ist hoffnungslos, aber nicht ernst. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Ja, aber Ich kann nicht das Denken Verschieben. Warum, mein Freund? Peter S Strempel | Talk 01:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Tryptofish can certainly speak for himself, but I would think that his concerns were simply that we'd want to make sure that a jest doesn't get out of hand. My point, and I'm sorry that my German is rusty, is that this started as a joke, and should stay so, even though there's a very serious vein that runs close by. Please accept my apologies if any of this strikes you as offensive, as that is certainly not my intention. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. It was bad form for me to vent here. Peter S Strempel | Talk 07:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Peter: I trust from your last comment that you were briefly upset by my hatting of some comments, including yours, at the verifiability revision talk page, but that you are now backing down from what you said at the top of this thread. That's good, thank you.

Let me make something very, very clear. It's a good thing that you have reconsidered, and a good thing that I was offline until after you did. Nuujinn was rather generous in replying to you. I would not have been. I strongly recommend that you take a serious look at WP:BLPTALK. Your comments about a living person, regardless of your opinions of the Vatican, were entirely in violation of policy, and you should consider yourself fortunate that I did not end up taking you to WP:ANI, because after your subsequent comments here in my talk, you most certainly would have been blocked. (By the way, I do not speak German, and I have no intention of seeking a translation of anything here.)

Anyway, I'm glad that you are no longer upset, and I hope that you understand. Again, thank you. I look forward to editing constructively with you, as we have done before. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Chat?

Hi, I messaged you some time ago asking about your name, but I was now wondering whether you had any time for chatting... on, perhaps, IRC or IM networks like MSN? I have the same non-professional interests as you seem to have, and I'd like to discuss them, if you don't mind doing that in a non-working environment? :-) 62.255.129.19 (talk) 10:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's really nice of you. However, I take a strict attitude of privacy when I'm on Wikipedia (I make some edits in controversial areas), and therefore I never give out any contact information. I'd be happy to discuss things on my talk page here, and no one would really care if some of it goes a bit off editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Nsport - clubs and teams

Hi, did you see my post at [1]. I believe you were quite active when this guideline got off the ground and wondered if you could help to answer it. Please post there. Thanks. 08:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldumpo (talk • contribs) 08:10, September 12, 2011

Thanks for asking me. I've commented there, but I'm afraid I don't have a whole lot of insight into that particular question. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that

Hi Tryptofish. I must apologize for my close of your thread at WT:RFA. To put it simply, I screwed up. I was so focused on the later comments that I completely forgot about the original discussion. I hope you'll forgive me as I didn't mean to imply the original thread was problematic. On the contrary, I agree with you that this de-admining is a first, and it's important as it could set a precedent for future bit removals. I also think it's important for the community to have a discussion about this issue, but, as you mentioned, others shifted the focus of the thread. Anyhoo, I just wanted to say that I'm sorry and I should have written a better closing statement. Please don't hesitate to let me know when I screw up in the future. Best regards. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, there's absolutely nothing at all for you to say sorry about! I agree with what you did! I tried to make that clear in my comment there, but I guess it wasn't clear enough. You most definitely did not screw up. You were right to put a lid on those few editors who, unfortunately, didn't get the message that the arbitration case had closed. I just thought that it would be good for me to add a note drawing readers' attention back to where it should have been all along. No worries. Happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks. I still think I should have written the close better at least mentioning the purpose of the original thread because it's an important issue. All the best. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 06:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Atheism and Atheistic morality

Just for my personal information, if you wish to answer (If you do not wish to answer, you may ignore this paragraph): Are your beliefs atheistic, agnostic or theistic? And please read that paragraph (beginning with "Vaishnavism strongly opposes...". If your beliefs are atheistic, please defeat those arguments. If you are an atheist, you can't be moral. You can't accept or understand morality. And, if you accept that there is no meaning to morality, what's wrong in vandalizing Wikipedia? Why include references? After death you will be zero, and I will be zero, right? So why bother? I know Wikipedia is not a forum, but, I am willing to put in systematic logical arguments against atheism. If yes where, and on which site, or blog? Thanks. Yottamaster (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

My personal beliefs, and the personal beliefs of any editor, are irrelevant. I'm sure that there are plenty of websites where you can put forth your arguments, but Wikipedia is not one of them. I can certainly urge you not to vandalize Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... —Yottamaster (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yottamaster, By chance I happen to look at this page, and it's not my fight, but I am very disappointed when people make absurd absolutist claims, such as "If you are an atheist, you can't be moral." A morally clear person would not be passing this kind of sweeping judgment. You may find a lot of atheists disparaging religion as a formal belief system, but they rarely, if ever, comment on moral corruption of all religious people (and, I believe, those who do are plainly wrong). I am sure Tryptofish can stand up for him/herself and his/her beliefs, when necessary, but, for my benefit, I suggest you leave such moralizing BS at home. Just to make the message clear, I am leaving a copy of it on your talk page as well. There should be no room for ad hominem attacks even on talk pages. --Alex.deWitte (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for a solid pointer. Alex.deWitte (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the kind words, both here and above! I was glad to help. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Cartoosh?

So if I'm reading the file permission of this file (File:20090211 thousand words-01 cropped.jpg) correctly, you are Cartoosh, is this correct? Herostratus (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not correct. There is an earlier version of the file that was created and uploaded by Cartoosh, with full free licensing. I made what I consider to be a "derivative work" derived from it simply by cropping it, and that's the file that you see. If you think that the file description page needs to be more clear about that, please just let me know and I'll be happy to revise it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

If you would. I'd do it myself, but I'm confused -- the file history only has your version (if I'm reading it right). It must be based on different file? So if you could just edit "own work" to something like "own work, based on file XYZ" this would clarify, thanks. 02:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. If anything is still unclear, please let me know. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Please be advised

Please take note of this issue.  I'm not sure, but it is probably better to not add anything to the talk page archive until it gets restored.  I was going to note the history of the move I made on the discussion page (Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/First sentence/Polls), which of course I can't do until this unintended side effect gets resolved.  Please let me know if you have questions.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I looked at it quickly, and I don't think it's a problem. It looks to me like there's a redirect that takes care of it. Thanks for the heads-up. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I contacted Jayjg earlier this week, he/she indicates looking at the problem within the next day here.  FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it will be fine, no problems. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This is finally fixed, sorry for the complication, and thanks for your patience.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Message

That suicide of Tyler Clementi is violating me so whoever is the admin needs to take a look at that ASAP thank you.(Helpthesouls (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC))Helpthesouls

Honestly, I do not know what you are talking about. Your use of a proposed deletion template on the article was contrary to policy, and I gave you a link on your talk page to how to find out why. I am not an administrator. Perhaps you can get the help you want at Wikipedia:Contact us. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Helpthesouls(Helpthesouls (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC))That does not help this site is a mess!

I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't think I can help you any more. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah its ok (Helpthesouls (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC))Helpthesouls

Brotherly Love (Biblical)

Many thanks for taking a look at this page for me. Rgds Obscurasky (talk) 08:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You are very welcome! I'm continuing to watch it, and will continue to see about how we might improve it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Question re starting a new page that is currently caught under a redirect/disambiguation??

Hi Tryptofish, I'm sorry in advance if this is not the right place to ask a question! I want to start a new page for a person not currently in Wiki, but I'm having trouble because their name (actually a derivative) "Michael McCullough" is being caught by a redirection to the pre-existing "Mike McCullough" disambiguation page. Could you advise how I can (1) get Wiki to let me create a new page (it currently redirects immediately so I don't get the offer to create a new page); and (2) prevent the redirect affecting this new page? Thanks in advance.Civeel (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'm happy to answer that. First, although you didn't ask, make sure the subject of your new article passes the notability requirements at WP:BIO, so that you don't get anyone coming along and wanting to delete your page. Then, what you should do is call your page "Michael McCullough (politician)", or "Michael McCullough (actor)", or "Michael McCullough (footballer)", or whatever he is. That way, the redirect won't interfere with your page name, and you need to leave the redirect where it is, going to the DAB page (if you change the redirect, editors of those other pages will object). Finally, edit the DAB page to include your new article as an entry (in this case "Michael", rather than "Mike"), which is how people who only know the person's name will find it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Michael McCullough (psychologist), most likely. And since he even calls himself Mike on his web page, Tryptofish's solution is undoubtedly the right one. Looie496 (talk) 00:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Looie, I'm starting to feel guilty that I don't watchlist your talk page! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, mine gets a lot less traffic than yours, so it wouldn't make much difference :-). Looie496 (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tryptofish! Great PROMPT answer. Thanks also Looie- you got it. Nice sleuthing too :-) Civeel (talk) 03:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond A. Watson (2nd nomination)

Hi Tryptofish. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond A. Watson, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond A. Watson (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for letting me know. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Suicides related to cyberbullying

Dear Tryptofish,

I agree with Your efforts for keeping the category on cyberbullying-related suicides (REDLINK IS VALID CONTAINING SOME ADMIN INFO). I just sent this message for thanking for Your protecting the category, I do not expect any work.

I think deletion was inapropriate: the category itself does exist in the "outer world", and already has a measurable impact (at least in real legislation debates like "Megan Meier laws", and also in child psychology researches).

Extended content

Calibrating "Occam's razor" argument As far as I could understand, the deletion was motivated largely by a kind of "Occam's razor" argument. I think, here this razor argument is an exaggeration: the category should not be "cut off" by Occam's razor entirely. If the suicider person has left a farewell letter, and describes explicitly cyberbullying as the direct/triggering cause of her suicide, than IMHO that can be regarded as a material object that can be the object of further research. (The cases should be checked, at least Hope Witsell has left some notes, although not elaborated that much in this point[2]) I'm done for sure now. I can feel it in my stomach. I'm going to try and strangle myself. I hope it works. I think Occam's razor does not force us to regard this category as empty, it is not without the possibility of any objective research. According to the main article, there are at least three proven cases, and in any case, cyberbullying has a huge neurotizing impact. I think this research object is a field of child psychology, and as such, has a place in an encyclopedia. Cyberbullying is not always done by single persons, there are also anonymous sites specialized for industrialized cyberbullying, at least in Hungary (in most case, they use sexting photos harvested industrially from on social networking sites). Site "Dailyshit" has the 30th traffic rank in Hungary, and it has a total penetration among teenagers of the country. Consequently, Hungarian cyberbullying attacks are usually industrialized, organized with professionalized sites, thus here cyberbullying cases are usually intertwined with direct and imminent real-life consequences in classrooms, this makes them similar to the Hope Witsell case in amplitude. Although no verified suicide case has been recorded in Hungary, this may be just a taboo shield, latency is high. Cyberbullying can be intertwined with other emergent features of the internet, and the anonymous spontaneous communities (anonymous cyberattacking communities against sites of organizations/publishers involved in Wikileaks/copyright debates). Either proven or not, the meme of "cyberbullying suicide" is existing, and has already an impact on legislation (several induced legislation steps issued after the result of the trial, "Megan Meier laws"). I think the category is existing in the "outer world", at least as a part of legislation debates and child psychology research, and has some - increasing - relevance for arranging information in the world. IMHO its relevance will increase the more as internet is extending. Calibrating "no cause-and-effect relatedness" argument Beating does not necessarily cause death - maybe the beaten person dies of heart attack, for which he has been susceptible genetically from birth. Still, it seems reasonable to label beating-related deaths like that. A person having beaten and dying soon afterwards reasonably dies related to that. Analogically, a massive cyberbullying case is reasonably related to a death IF the cyberattack effects in objectively measurable (or evident) neurotic symptoms, and they are large the death occurs soon and the death's "environment" is embedded into the same "context" (IMHO, the earlier linked Hope Witsell case fills my strange self-made terms with some real content). If the affected person leaves an "expressis verbis" farewell letter/note, then IMHO her self-attribution is a large attribution to the "objectification" of the relatedness. At least, it can augment other reasonings further. Of course, this does not mean that a cause-and effect relatedness is implied - the person may have emotional instabilities from earlier, and suicide can be cause of hidden childhood memories. But (following the beating and heart attack analogy), I think the "no direct cause-and-effect" argument goes to far, if it prohibits us from making reasonable structures in the classification of cases. Half-death-beaten persons die related to beating, that can be at least a usable classification for policemen and criminologists, and that can be a source of fruitful working hypothesis for later researches. Calibrating overclassification argument As far as I know, there are words for which our mind feels a natural relatedness. I mean "dog and bark", "love and warm". I read that a test for psychopathy contains a cuckoo's egg question: "love, warm, cold". Humans group "warm" and "love" together, and mark "cold" as the cuckoo's egg. Psychopaths mark "love" as the cuckoo's egg, and group warm and cold together. They have different-wired mind, maybe they are another taxon apart from humans. I mean, our brain may have some innate structures for seeing some relations among concepts. Some others may be learnt in childhood, and others in socialization, depending on the ambient culture. Which word can be the most direct "mental neighbor" of the world/notion "death"? I think "death"'s mental neighbor is "-Why?". We do not know much about our hunter-gatherer ancestors, but the present hunter-gatherer bands usually react to death by investigating the "cause". Elkin described how among Australian Aborigines the tomb is investigated, looking for holes, which are supposed to signify the direction the spirit left towards the supposed killer. The neighboring bands (pointed to by the hole) are accused with malevolent witchcraft, and feud expeditions can follow (even if the death was due a non-evident illness). Dreams are also used as tools for "investigation". Similar "cause attribution" is recorded among also Yanömami (witchcraft feuds, even if death was due to epidemics).[3] I do not know whether all this is innate, and whether this is rooted in our hunter-gatherer past, but I can imagine that. Leaving such considerations about developmental or evolutionary psychology, the word "suicide" surely is directly related to the world "why". The very first thought of our mind is "why", when hearing a concrete case of the suicide death of a familiar person!

Thus, I think, "Suicide related to ..." (in place of ... standing a cause hypothesis) such categories are "natural", maybe even innate, thus, IMHO this is not a direction to overcategorization.

More important, categorization of suicide related to "cause" can be valid working hypotheses in criminology, psychology and legislation. A working hypothesis can be a deep idea, as such, it can exist "in the outer world".

Thank You for Your work for protecting the category,

Best wishes,

Physis (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your thoughtful message. Yes, I too think that the category should have been kept, based very much on the existing sources. But I'm a big believer in accepting consensus, and the category is gone, and that's that. I think the best thing to spend effort on, going forward, is to improve the content of the pages that were previously in the category. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank You for Your answer and also for Your proposal. It seems to work on the long term, a gradual content-improving work already proved to be successful also on Hungarian sites. Thanks for the good suggestion, and best wishes, Physis (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

A Question

Hi I hope I'm doing this right.

I have an expert for the Cyberstalking page. She and her interns have some articles and information they want to add to the page (I have appropriate links for sources). None of us have experience working with Wikipedia on a locked page like that one, so I'm not sure how to go about adding this information.

Thanks so much for any guidance on this

Sarahtherebel (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me, and welcome to Wikipedia! I see from looking at the article talk page that you have already done exactly the right thing. Start by raising the questions in article talk, and getting replies from interested editors there. I'm traveling today, so my editing will be a bit brief, but I'll respond there myself soon. One issue I can suggest that you be attentive to is WP:COI, which suggests that anyone with a direct connection to a source should also try to seek consensus on the talk page, so as to avoid the appearance of "promoting" the views of that source. As you accumulate some more edits, your account will reach the point where you can also edit the page directly yourself. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

A small note of thanks!

I just saw your note at Administrator review, and wanted to drop a note of thanks for your kind words, as well as the constructive criticism. There's always room for improvement, and I welcome your well-put suggestions. So again, thanks so much! I'll take the advice to heart. I look forward to crossing paths again. And, if you're ever in need of a helping hand, feel free to let me know. Cheers! m.o.p 14:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome. It was a pleasure working with you. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

McCreight / Critchley

Hello there - I noticed that you previously added the text of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer McCreight into that for Emily Critchley. I've assumed it was a mistake and have undone the addition, but thought I should point it out in case I've misunderstood something, or you meant to place it somewhere else and where it now isn't but should be? Cheers. CouldBeAnybody (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that! I meant to add it to the academics listing, and made the mistake of editing what was then the top section, instead of the whole page. I added it back, so I think it is fixed now. Thanks for correcting it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you

Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, you can start by blocking me! Congrats! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks for daring

Thank you for daring to write a page on "receptors" which remains very helpful even if the field has proliferated to the extent of galaxies of knowledge. You need to enter this jungle at some point to learn about the many strange animals within. Well done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farmacol (talk • contribs) 19:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! That's very nice of you to say that! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW

I'm sure I've taken your advice at some point :).Griswaldo (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks! :-) As you can probably see, I'm none too happy with some of those editors myself. However, they are mostly a pain on the talk page, rather than in actual edits to the article, so I guess that's something. As far as I can see, you are in the right about the editorial content, so let's both hang in there! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I wont revert you btw. The section is fine without the British material, and if this is what it takes to appease certain editors then its a great decision.Griswaldo (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Good! It really does seem to me that this was an awful lot of distraction over something that will hardly be missed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Tryptofish

Thank you for including my article in your article. As you probably gathered the subject is something I care deeply about. I couldn't help making one edit that I felt crucial. The most crucial things to be recognized as abstractions are psychiatric diagnoses, symptoms (or as you put it medicalized symptoms) are a much lower level abstractions - damaging in that they presume an "illness", "chemical imbalance", etc. - not so much due to the fact that the are abstractions. All the best, Mike Walker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeltwalker (talk • contribs) 23:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure! And welcome again. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

So that was interesting...

Well, that was certainly an interesting AfD. I noticed bit of biting and a lack of faith by some of the other participants, which I found somewhat surprising. Have a picture of a nom, you earned it! :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I guess, but I should let you know that I am contesting the decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Neurorel

I realize the importance of WP:AGF, but the policy does not require that we also ignore the data in front of us. If we look at the entirety of Neurorel's contributions Special:Contributions/Neurorel, both on the Ramachandran page, and on other articles in wikipedia, what we see is a single-purpose account, which appears to be dedicated to adding material to articles about Ramachandran, scientific topics he has investigated, his books, etc. pretty much Ramachandran and anything connected to him. In particular, Neurorel's goal appears to be to minimize everything positive about Ramachandran (visiting lectures, professor positions, etc) possible, to add as much contradictory or negative information as possible. We can see this in his only edits on the Tell-Tale Brain page [4] [5], in the proprioception page [6], the minotaurasuarus page [7] and in the specific edits Neurorel has made elsewhere. Indeed, given the entire edit history, there appears to be a personal issue against Ramachandran.

The current issue on the Ramachandran page appears not to really be about synesthesia and being too technical, but is part of an overall (slow) strategy that appears to be to present Ramachandran as someone who makes big theoretical claims, proposes hypotheses and ideas, but does not use "proper" neuroscientific methods (i.e., imaging) unless in collaboration with others. Note the insistence on adding as much about Tony Yang as possible, the repeated removal of the material on imaging in synesthesia, and even Neurorel's somewhat conflicted reply to you on the talk page about the "low-tech" approach "For better or worse he has not relied on high-tech neural scanning technology. In some interviews he has stated that he believes his "Victorian" approach to science has provided important insights. Of course, most neuroscientists do rely on neural scanning technology,and there has been criticism of his methods. In her recent book (Braintrust, 2011) Patricia Churchland states that mu-wave suppression methodology (used by Ramachandran and his graduate students) is not a valid index for measuring mirror neuron systems." In certain places here, he seems to be trying to say it's a good thing, but in parts of this, the implication is that not using brain-scanning is a negative. Now, the repeated effort appears to be not to make the section less technical, but to remove all mention of any sort of brain imaging from the section on synesthesia.

Again, I understand WP:AGF, but with the entire edit history staring me in the face, I'm putting the focus on assume here. The policy does not say, "insist on believing someone is really after the good of the project, even in the face of the evidence." Edhubbard (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I am not personally all that interested in that page, and I have put a lot of time and effort into it largely at your request. I think that most uninvolved editors looking at this would say that you are at least somewhat acting in a WP:OWN manner with respect to the article. You were wrong to make that reversion the other day, in my opinion. Your subsequent edit to make a compromise version was very good, and I supported it. You are probably correct that the newest edits made it worse. It seems to me that there is less in the way of an evil agenda on the other editor's part, than a low level of writing skill. My advice to you is to accept what I said as one person's honest opinion, and to focus on the edits themselves, without taking anything the other editors do personally. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I take your point about the reversion; it was too hasty and I do appreciate that someone (anyone!) from the WP:Neuroscience project has taken some time out for this article. My issue with Neurorel is not really between him and I, but more a matter of his pattern of edits to Ramachandran related articles. I don't think he's doing this just to get a rise out of me. Public academics attract a certain number of POV pushing editors on wikipedia, and it still seems to me that Neurorel is one of those in relation to Ramachandran. I appreciate that you are more generous about this than I can bring myself to be. This is why I asked for input from people that I thought were likely to be knowledgeable and neutral. Thanks for keeping me (somewhat) in check. BTW, the newest version is probably too long, but I didn't see a way to preserve both parts without making the section grow. Edhubbard (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Good. Please keep your mind open to the possibility that it is well-intentioned but clumsy editing, rather than deliberate POV-pushing. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, if he gets any clumsier, he'll probably fall off a rooftop or something. Next up, I'm waiting for Edgeform/Pfstarrs to show and chime in. That user always seems to show after a debate like this. Edhubbard (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Kosher

While appreciate your consideration in removing FAWC from the section and of course won't challenge it, it would make me feel better to still persuade you that FAWC can't be considered critical of Judaism just because they criticized kosher and halal slaughter. I've had to back down from arguments where it was obvious to me my opponents didn't have a valid case just because they outnumbered me, and I don't want you to feel like that's the case here, that you're needing to compromise on a conviction of yours simply because of your opponents' stubbornness. If you're familiar with the fallacy of composition, that's the rule of logic that applies here. Namely, we can't say that because kosher slaughter is a component of Judaism and FAWC criticized kosher slaughter, then FAWC criticized Judaism. It's necessary to establish that FAWC criticized Judaism directly, otherwise we can't attribute to them criticism of things they never expressed any attitude toward and in all likelihood don't care about.—Biosketch (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The fallacy of composition does not apply. You are making the incorrect assumption that for something to be critical of Judaism it must be critical of all of Judaism. That leap goes against basic semantic conventions within English language use. If Person X makes y mistake and people start criticizing him/her for it, it is normal to refer to them as "critical of Person X" or to their criticism as "criticism of Person X," even though it is just one of the many things Person X has done in their lives and even though we might not be critical of anything else they've done. The fallacy of composition does apply if a certain practice were restricted to one form of Judaism, like let's say Reform Judaism, which is why I argued against including inter-Jewish criticisms between branches. That would be like saying that criticism of Person X (per above) is the same as criticism of Person X's family. Now, Tryptofish should of course form his own opinion on this matter, but I urge against agreeing with this mistaken logic.Griswaldo (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If people start criticizing Person X for his mistake, they're still criticizing Person X, because that's what the language of their criticism entails. But if they're careful to avoid criticizing Person X and restrict their criticism only to whatever property of Person X they have an issue with, then it can't be inferred that they're critical of Person X anymore. So the composition fallacy does apply, because in our case an organization never expressed any attitude toward Judaism and criticized only one feature of Judaism, which as far as they're concerned – because we have no reason to think otherwise – doesn't have anything to do with Judaism itself.—Biosketch (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Biosketch: Thank you very much for reaching out to me on my talk page, and for being sincerely concerned about my opinion. The short answer is that I sincerely think that you are wrong in what you say here, and that I have tried very hard to explain why I think that on the article talk page. I've listened carefully to your arguments, and I find them unconvincing. That doesn't mean that I think you are saying these things in bad faith. Quite to the contrary, I am sure that you have thought about this a lot and believe very strongly that you are correct. That's what happens sometimes in editorial disagreements.

Please do not worry that I somehow feel pressured into making a compromise. I'm actually quite happy to have made that edit, because I value collegiality on Wikipedia, and also, frankly, because I think the whole business about one animal welfare group is no big deal. If my edit created an opportunity for editors to move on, I'm very satisfied.

On the other hand, I am disappointed with your recent attitude towards me, and with the fact that you did not chose to comment on that here. When you identified alternative sources for that section of the page, I welcomed that information, complimented you on it, and tried to reach out to you to cooperate on improving that part of the page. In fact, I have, pretty much single handedly, done pretty much everything you asked for in my edits. You instead commented in the thread that Griswaldo opened at ORN that I was, in your words, trying to divide and conquer, and you subsequently ridiculed a good faith mistake I made, and said at the article talk page that I was penitent. I'm not the one who should be penitent. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's clear to me you think I'm wrong regard regarding FAWC, but the fallacy of composition should confirm to you the validity of my position. What is said about a part can't be projected onto the whole.

The divide-and-conquer analogy wasn't directed at anyone by name but rather at the general atmosphere being created by editors on the side of the dispute opposite to mine and a couple other editors'. The rhetoric on the Discussion page had become unpleasantly personal in nature and, while not crossing the threshold of WP:NPA, it was aggressive and counterproductive to the aims of the discussion. When at the same time you added that section without verifying the sources, which I didn't myself check because I'm not that interested personally in criticisms of Judaism on the purely theological level, it only complicated things and contributed to the bad-faith energy generated by the hostile comments made earlier.—Biosketch (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is clear to me that I am not able to convince you and you are not able to convince me. I do not see the situation as an "us versus them" one, which is why I unsuccessfully reached out to you about those sources. At this point, I do not much care what you think, but I feel confident that objective observers will be able to assess the situation. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting that in all the discussion of Kosher slaughter, no one has mentioned that all the same arguments apply to circumcision. No mention of circumcision is made on the Criticism of Judaism page. Perhaps it has already been purged. But there is a clear parallel between the two practices in that legislation for their abolition is inspired by antisemitism. When it comes to criticism of Judaism, the two practices go hand in hand (and, in that, they parallel Islam that has both ritual slaughter and circumcision). There is also a difference between criticism of a religious practice and attempts to ban it. The former may or may not be based on animosity toward practitioners of the religion, the latter almost certainly is. Both points should be mentioned when discussing the topic. It is also of note that Kosher slaughter has been banned in Switzerland for a long time and no one disputes that the original statute was antisemitic in origin. More recently, New Zealand banned Kosher slaughter and the Netherlands got to the point of considering the legislation (it did not pass). Although similar legislation has been proposed in other European countries (Germany, Norway), it was usually dismissed without debate, along with multitudes of other failed proposals. The recent flair up in California, where Santa Monica and San Francisco considered bans on circumcision, has generally been viewed as an outburst of antisemitism. As is the case with anti-Kosher-slaughter legislation, the anti-religious animus had been masked by "cruelty" arguments. It should also not be forgotten that both the proposed Dutch ban the proposed local California bans would significantly affect Muslims as well and may very well have been aimed as such, with Judaism practices being included by extension. In the discussion of Criticism of Judaism, it has been pointed out that such criticism need not be valid. This is undoubtedly true, but an encyclopedic article that mentions such criticism must also include the argument and evidence for invalidity. In general, "criticism" encompasses both sides of any debate on the criticized constructs. This is why we refer to "film critics", "restaurant critic" and "literary critics" even though a part of their duties is to praise some aspects of film or literature or restaurant food and service, as the "criticism" largely consists of evidence-based analysis rather than a subjective attack. This is something to keep in mind in such debates. Alex.deWitte (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed comment. Please let me suggest that this discussion should happen on the article talk page. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for continuing this here Tryptofish, but I have to point something out. Kosher slaughter is a practice that only happens in Judaism. However, most circumcisions are not happening within Judaism. Specific criticisms of the Jewish religious obligation to circumcise would, if sourced, fit into this entry. However, general critiques of circumcision clearly would not, and the important point here is that because the issues are so different, that fact has no baring on the kosher issue. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability

My comments were in response to North8000. And there is nothing inappropriate about them. An RfC is not a means for deciding changes to policy. You seem to be treating it as if it were some hybrid between an RfC concerning a user (in which case the RfC is closed by an uninvolved editor - in this case the discussion was not about a complaint about a user, so it doesn't matter whether anyone is involved or uninvolved) and a vote on policy, which it simply is not. When RfCs are on content, they are simply a way to solicit comments. They are usually closed thirty days after opened, or when consensus has been reached. It certainly is not up to anyone to make some kind of ruling, as if this is a process meant to make a firm decision.

If you want to treat it as part of a process for reaching a concensus on a proposed edit, then all editors have an equal right in participating in a discussion about how to proceed. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Please don't take it personally. I didn't mean it that way, and I don't think I said it that way. I wasn't at all commenting about what anyone should say in the RfC itself, only in the discussion about whether or not it was time to close it. The RfC is now closed, and it's time to move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I did not take it personally, and I am sorry if anything I wrote makes it seem that way. My understanding of policy is that RfCs like this are closed thirty days after they are opened or if a consensus emerges sooner, by the person who opened it (Blueboar). But if people want to close it another way, okay.

My only concern is with people using what is explicitly meant to be a light-handed way to move people in conflict towards resolution. It is in these cases that an uninvolved editor is supposed to close the RfC and voice a view. Nothing about RfCs make them decisive votes on the change of content, especially concerning a policy.

So while the RfC is closed, the discussion on improving the policy page is not. The RfC is part of a larger process. My concern is that the process continue, after the RfC has been closed. There is clearly considerable confusion and concern with key elements of the policy. I take that serously. I also don't see any consensus about how to handle it, although I do not wish to jettison Blueboar's efforts. If you think I should be making this point in a different section, well, okay, that is reasonable and we editors often refactor discussion. But your wording seemed to imply that we should not be discussing what to do next. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I should not have named you in my comment to KC. If you think that was inappropriate, I do apologize. My point was not to complan against you personally. KC has been around a long time and knows a lot about our procedures and I wished to express concern over the proper procedure for handling an RfC that is about a content proposal rather than the usual conflict between users. I am sorry for bringing you into that. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. I agree with you that discussion should, even must, continue. And I personally wouldn't mind rolling some of the changes back! Actually, I've seen lots of content RfCs closed in this way, though, and there was nothing wrong that I can see with either the timing, the process, or the substance of the closure. My advice would be to start a new discussion on the talk page, from the position of now that the RfC is over, this is what I think we should do next. And thanks also for your added comment about KC. I really don't think I did anything more than make a comment on the V talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)