User talk:Tryptofish

Retired, and not coming back. [6] [7]

I do want to say thank you for the kind words to the editors who posted here. But this is permanent. It makes no sense to donate volunteer time and effort if I am going to be treated with disrespect.--Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't pretend to understand the entire back story, but I'm very sorry to see this. I greatly enjoyed working with you, am proud of what we did, and know that this place will be the poorer for your absence. KJP1 (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. And again ditto. And thrice ditto, alas. A great loss to the project. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC) p.s. I don't pretend to actually understand any story, but never mind.[reply]

That would be such a loss. please reconsider.--Iztwoz (talk) 08:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish, I appreciate the contributions you have made to wikipedia over the years, and I think your ability to work in areas of conflict while avoiding personalization of disputes is a great asset to wikipedia. I encourage you to return when you feel ready.Dialectric (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Hey Tryptofish. Yah lately has sucked :-( Thank you for all your efforts over the years. I have truely enjoyed working with you and it is with great sadness to see you go. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll chime in here to say it will be tough to see you go. Dealing with stressful topics is already hard enough even though you've done it well (and it's helped make stressful topics I've edited slightly more manageable), but regardless of personal stuff going on, you deserve a break. Considering that personal stuff though, I won't speculate on if it's an acute short-term or a more serious long-term issue, but definitely don't feel like you owe more to Wikipedia to the point it draws you away from obviously more important things at this time. If your editing did indeed end yesterday, you've done more than plenty to be able to say all done. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was sorry to notice this. Thank you for all you did for Wikipedia and farewell, Tryptofish. I'll always be glad to see you around should you return. —PaleoNeonate – 10:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that, at some point in time, you will reconsider. Sorry to see you go. Best wishes, El_C 11:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We took a vote and it's been decided that you're not leaving. Wikipedia can't afford to lose you. Yeh, Wikipedia is badly and intractably screwed up in some areas and abuses it's best people. Just gotta avoid those and eventually try to fix them, which will take some fundamental fixes and that will need the top 1% best people like you. So please strike your post :-)

More seriously, you owe Wikipedia nothing (quite the reverse)and you deserve a good and pleasant life so do whatever you need to to have that. If we're lucky that will include you being here tomorrow or some day. May the wind be at your back.... North8000 (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedians also known as Le Poisson de Trypto requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because our readers cannot find useful information if there are empty user categories. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, C1 doesn't apply to categories that are populated. But once they delete the category, they'll also remove the red-link category from this talk page, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians also known as Le Poisson de Trypto, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To anyone who still watches this page: could you please keep an eye out for this kind of crap and see if you can do something about it? I'd like to be able to take a quick look at my talk page without being made to feel like my head is going to explode. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the background of what led you to leave; I assume from clues above that it was not this. But if it was, I'd understand. This place is becoming increasingly, relentlessly anti-human being. FWIW I commented at the CFD. But while I'm here, I just wanted to add my voice to the chorus. You'll be missed. You're good people, Tryp. Not quite as good as me, but damn close. Vaya con Dios. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There's a diff that I put at the top of this talk page, where another editor summarizes (with a few inaccuracies that are not related to what concerns me) what led me to this; interested editors can work back from that to get the details. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...partly because of a health issue and a little Doc-In-The-Box surgery, and now that I'm back on track, I came by to say "hi" only to find this sad news. It's not often that one finds me speechless but this is one of those times. 💔 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Atsme, and no worries. I do continue to look here from time to time, as I have every right to do, but I really am done donating volunteer effort to improve content or to try to help resolve disputes. But I do want to let you know that I heard the interview with you on Innovation Hub, and I knew that it was you right away. I really enjoyed that! (While I'm at it, I also hope the health stuff is fine for you now, as well as to let everyone know that the health stuff of my own that I mentioned just before leaving was utterly trivial and had nothing to do with my leaving, and that I'm just fine physically and mentally. Insert joke about "mentally" here.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know you're in good health and will be checking in from time to time. Thank you for letting me know about IH - I didn't know the interview was included on their website podcast. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been chasing diffs for 20 minutes now and I can't find any indication of what this is all about. EEng 20:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):My sincere apologies if anything is leaving you feeling frustrated. What's going on, as far as I'm concerned, is that I am through with donating effort to this project, and would be quite content to make no posts here whatsoever – but I feel that I have every right to simply read here about anything going on that refers to me, and to be offended when something is hostile to me. If nobody takes any shots at me, I'll be entirely silent. So all I want is to be left alone. I don't think that's asking very much. I know that's not what you asked, but I don't think that it would do anyone any good for me to put a detailed complaint here. The locus of it follows from the two diffs at the top, and if to some extent it doesn't make sense, that's because it doesn't make sense, and that's all I'm going to say. But, really, I do appreciate your concern. After ec: maybe what comes below explains it to some extent. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: start here, here, and here, for the context behind this, where Barkeep49 merely suggested both parties could get a fair hearing at AE.

Trypto, please decide if you are retired or not. Per this, no I did not notify you (you said you were not coming back) and no, I did not suggest administrator action against you,[8] any more than Barkeep49 did. I am sorry that you seem to find simple directives, asking people to walk back commentary or AGF, apparently offensive. I am sorry that you didn't tell us about your draft while you were working on it, only letting us know at the 11th hour, but we all did our best. Since, as a retired user, you want to be notified when you are mentioned, please consider that you are. I believe my good faith efforts, asking you to stop pushing toward an arbcase, are in plain view on your talk page before you blanked and retired. I continue to ask same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to go fix my sister-in-law's heat, but I'll just say quickly that implying Tfish is "high-maintenance" isn't going to get you very far with experienced users throughout the project. It may be true (I don't know) that in this particular situation he's asking for some unusual (for him) level of consideration, but he's built up a large reserve of capital he's entitled to draw on now.

Tfish, I'll try to untangle this when I get back (not that I have any hope of being the one to change your mind) but, y'know, [insert usual stuff about not burning bridges, saying anything you might think better of later, etc etc etc and so on and so forth]. EEng 21:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng:, in these particular discussions, it could be helpful for you to note who the "experienced users" are. IMO, the page I linked to describes editors who retire at the mere mention that their conduct (along with others) might be reviewed impartially at WP:AE (with no blame assigned in either direction), and then ... don't actually "retire" as stated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By experienced users I mean editors who have seen and worked with Tfish on many articles, policy discussions, and dispute resolutions over many years. EEng 01:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where I tend to use that term for editors who have been building top content for 15 years ... that's the crowd I am most associated with. As a group, we tend to hold WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:NOR, and WP:WEIGHT in high regard. YMMV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to add that I hope you realize (and I'm sure you do) that there are a substantial number of editors who have been building top content for far less than 15 years, and that those editors (as a group) also tend to hold WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:NOR, and WP:WEIGHT in high regard. To relate only to a specific group of editors' capability based on "tenure" rather than ability demonstrates to me how easily WP:CIR can be misconstrued, and why we should AGF before jumping to conclusions (although that may be the only exercise some actively engage in). I have 8 years invested in WP, and while Tryp has not always been on my side (to his fault ), I have always respected his input, mediation capabilities, and sincere desire to find resolution. No one is perfect but we all deserve a proper level of respect for our input, regardless of whether it fits within the realm of popular opinion. I think the long and short of it is that sitting on a high horse means you have a longer distance to fall if/when you get bucked off. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you find a "sincere desire to find resolution" in the diffs I provided? Or a desire to enact one RFC format, rejected by many editors for various reasons, which was worked on without telling anyone else until very late in the process, while repeatedly raising the issue of an arbcase? (I appreciate and respect your eight years of solid content work, I suspect I may have been on many more bucking horses in my life than you, and you might re-read the evolution of the "experienced users" commentary to distinguish use of the concept as it applies to these discussions.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

editors who have been building top content for 15 years ... that's the crowd I am most associated with – even if you do say so yourself, that is. Just so you know, I am substantially less impressed with the FA crowd's talents than are they themselves (though as a group, they exhibit powers of self-congratulation that are truly extraordinary). High horse (Atsme's words above) hardly does justice. EEng 06:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, I was wondering why you walked in to the "experienced users" issue here at all, considering the most "experienced users" in the discussions are in agreement about Wikipedia policies. From what I can gather, it appears you meant to say, "experienced friends of Tryptofish". Have you now had a chance to catch up on the discussions ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I brought up "experienced users" because you termed Tfish "high maintenance", and the fact is that editors with wide experience in article and project space would have a hard time seeing him that way. I'll add that many of the FA crew do not qualify as widely experienced, because long dainty teas during which every added or dropped comma is the subject of multiple posts, thank-yous, and ritual congratulations, instead of someone just doing it, doesn't get you what I would call wide experience in the project's many facets. EEng 22:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not term Trypto "high maintenance". I linked to a page that explains why one might ignore editors who left in a fit, as an explanation for why I didn't ping him. (Why are you so focused on FAs?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your link implicitly characterized him. I brought up FAs because you bragged about "building top content for 15 years"; if by that you didn't mean FAs then that's a relief, because there are plenty of FAs which ain't so great. EEng 22:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, back on topic after the odd reference to "experienced users" (there has only been one non-"experienced user" by any definition in the discussions to my knowledge, but curiously, Trypto quotes them in diffs at the top of this page).

Trypto, whether or not you are retired, I am asking you, again, the same thing I asked repeatedly before you put up the retirement post: please refrain from stirring the pot. It was unbecoming before, and is even more unbecoming now that you offer unfair criticism of Barkeep49's very moderate approach from the distance of "retirement", and it is not helpful towards efforts to a "sincere desire to find resolution". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Sandy, I'll be blunt (and I can generally only recall positive things from you when I've come across you before), but the tone of your comments here really does come across as stirring the pot to the point of badgering regardless of intent. Especially since Trypto has indicated they don't intend to really interact outside brief somewhat recent comments at this talk page anymore, it's probably better if folks just drop the stick on this particular section. EEng had a question, Trypto responded (also indicating they wanted to be left alone on this subject), and it's probably best for others not to "jump in" given the nature of what was lead to this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may have missed a piece: the fact that Trypto made an accusation aimed at me in his last post.[9] That's not "stirring the pot"; it's answering a direct accusation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, I think you'd really be better off leaving this discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think there was any point in writing something here because I saw the retired notices. But since you're reading occasionally I would just like to express how sad I am about your leaving. I am also regretful the actions I did that precipitated your choosing to step back. I hadn't realized how close to the breaking point you were and if I had I would have phrased some stuff differently. I don't think my going long there is likely to help things (but if it would let me know and I'll write more). So let me just conclude with the fact that I think Wikipedia is a better place with you as an active editor than you not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Thank you, sincerely, for that message, which I appreciate very much. I feel that I should give you a response, but with the caveat that I do not want it to precipitate a flurry of comments from other editors who want to take issue with anything that I say. First, it is entirely correct that I have been questioning whether or not to continue here for quite a few months now, starting around the time that MPants had his conflict and continuing through what happened to Ritchie (who I'm happy to see has returned) and through the Fram fiasco. That all happened before the present situation. But I do not see it as me being "close to the breaking point". It was an entirely rational decision on my part, and it's not like I owe Wikipedia anything or need to satisfy any sort of criterion in order to decide to stop being an active editor. I made a comparison of the pluses and minuses just after the comment you made about AE, and concluded that this had become a net negative. And I'm quite enjoying having a couple of hours each day being freed up that I am spending on other things, quite productively.

But, since you came here to comment, I'm going to give you two specific points of feedback, as to what went wrong. (And that will also spell it out for other editors who have been asking me what happened.) First, I had told you very clearly on your talk page that I would be able to refute each of the accusations that were made against me, but that my doing so would necessarily be lengthy. I did not want to do that unilaterally, because I knew it would trigger a rebuttal to my rebuttal, which would have made things worse instead of better. So instead I told you clearly that you should ask me for my side before reaching any conclusions in your role as an admin. But you expressly did not do that, and were even somewhat dismissive about it. The second point is that you expressed a clear, and incorrect, opinion as to what should happen if the AE complaint against me had been followed through on, and you most certainly did not (as portrayed in other comments above) state it as being a neutral place where both sides would be able to work out their differences. And that, in turn, would have set up a predetermined outcome against me if the other editor had chosen to follow through. That's what I think, so take it or leave it. And please understand that I do not want anyone to treat what I said as a reason for de-adminning. God no! It's just honest feedback, in case it helps in the future, and nothing more.

And the bottom line to all that is that I'm not seeing any reason for me to volunteer to subject myself to that kind of experience. I continue to watch with interest what is happening with that dispute, but I'm not going to be involved with it in any way. I'm also watching an ArbCom case that has implications for what bothers me about what happened to MPants.^[1] And who knows, maybe the time will come when I will think to myself "I told you so" about both of those things.^[2][3] --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I just remembered a third point. Although you made one comment to me about redacting one thing that I had said, you never really told me that you had any broader concerns. If you had, I would have listened. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. FWIW I did know you could produce diffs if requested and I did not presume what the outcome of an AE filing would be. In the end I didn't feel comfortable with levying any formal sanctions against you and choose not to. I wish I had made that point clearer at the time. Anyhow I really do appreciate the feedback and will definitely return here after I've processed it a bit more to read again and further consider how I can improve as an editor and sysop. Best, 22:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

		The Fishy Barnstar
		Thank you for all the work that you have put into aquarium fishes and aquascaping articles!  — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tryptofish,

I very much appreciate the hard work that you have put into aquarium fishes and aquascaping articles. Simply studying aquascaping, shrimp keeping and other related hobbies is very satisfying, rewarding and peaceful as I'm sure you know.

I believe that if you take some of the drama areas out of your watchlist, and focus on the fun and satisfaction of editing within the hobby, then you will have a more pleasurable experience. I also believe that you have much more to contribute and share with the readers who are the silent majority that never find their way to the talk pages to say "thank you". I think that you have had a greater impact for their benefit than you know and I hope that you will continue to do so.

Perhaps a bit selfish of me but I would like to see you upload photos of your tanks as well as the inhabitants in them. I would enjoy hearing about them. I surf Youtube quite a bit to see what others are doing in the hobby and I think that you might appreciate the experiments in this list. Among other things, he's had some success converting terrestrial grass and mosses into candidates for the aquarium. I also imagine that his sentiments about the hobby's community in his channel video linked above are apropos here. I believe that you have edited here for many of the same reasons that he does what he does.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A very fishy thank you very much for such a wonderful message! I appreciate it very much. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I see that the WMF servers crashed today. That's what happens: I go away and everything here falls apart! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping you’d notice. I crashed them in protest of your leaving. EEng 00:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that crash is the perfect excuse for them to change their name to Wikipedia Foundation. 😳 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Great work on Ora Nichols. I love the lighthearted topic and images. I only just saw the article today, so I'm a couple years behind. Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This pick-me-up for my wiki-mood came at just the right time. Yes, when I learned of Nichols, I knew that this would be a worthy article (maybe not quite as shocking as Jack Sumner, but a woman who needed to be changed from red to blue, for sure). Since I started it, another editor messed up a bit of sourcing, but it's still a good read. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is truly funny. I remember crushing a berry basket as a kid and being fascinated by the sound. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There's something about sound effects that can bring out the inner child in all of us. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick reminder incase you didn't know. You are special and I'm definitely a fan. A fan of your contributions to the encyclopedia and the community. I'm glad I can consider you a wiki(fish)friend. --ARoseWolf 17:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I, of course, am a fan of the wolf. Thanks so much for the kind words! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you, kind fish, for your words. I do cherish them like a favorite book by a warm fire on an artic winter's day. They are sunshine to my soul. --ARoseWolf 16:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments at the article. Obviously off-site stuff gets tricky, so I'm not going to provide any additional info on where exactly it was (and you don't provide email contact, so no one can claim I'm sharing it with you privately). I'll say though that I check in on off-wiki sites sometimes just to keep tabs on stalking issues because of my involvement in the GMO topic here, which used to be much worse. Unfortunately, I've known colleagues who had to have police involved due to internet stalking related to GMOs as well as some climate scientist friends who got denialist stalkers (not related to Wiki at least), so that stuff hits home a bit.

Just checking in on advice here mostly though. I'm more in the camp that it's probably better not to give the user attention, but do you think emailing ArbCom the only realistic next avenue here for what would have to be private evidence? That's not to say I'm intent on doing that at this moment, but I kind of struck me that it didn't seem like there was an obvious step below that than since ANI, etc. would be ruled out. Thanks. KoA (talk) 03:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My basic reaction is to do nothing unless the problem happens again. Let me say, delicately, that there are reasons that I avoid saying anything about the user we are probably both thinking of, so that may be a reason that I'm, personally, disinclined to act. I am satisfied that the editor who made the edit here did so in good faith, and as you know, I subsequently made an edit to change the content to something that is unlikely to be like the requested proxy, while also making our content up to date as it should be. Of course, if you really want to report it, emailing ArbCom is the way to go, and you should not post about it at any of our drama boards. But I really don't see much upside to acting on this, unless it keeps happening.

As for that risk of stalking by activists, I hear you. I know editors who have had that happen, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and yeah, I'd be more prone to wait until something like that happens again too, though it is a concern of it continuing when there's been off-site escalation to the point it resulted in something obvious like this. We'll see what happens going forward, but I don't have high expectations given what I've seen. KoA (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been commenting on it onsite, but I've been dealing with some significant health issues, centering on lumbar radiculopathy. More on that another time. But today, I developed swelling in my left leg, and my primary care doctor was concerned that it might be deep vein thrombosis, which could be a matter of life and death. I've just gotten home from spending several hours in the hospital, where they were able to determine that it was only superficial vein thrombosis, which turns out to be no big deal. So it turned out to be quite a scare, but with a happy ending. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear you are OK, but welcome to the DVT club. Have you had a chance to review the membership materials? Viriditas (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that you had DVT? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have hereditary thrombophilia, which means I have an increased risk for blood clots, and many of the people in my extended family tree have died of clots, so it's an expected outcome that I am aware of in my everyday life. I have a healthy diet and I live an active life; I run three times a week and I walk a lot in addition to running. I have had concerning symptoms in the past, such as paresthesia, and warm patches on my arms or legs, but it hasn't posed a problem. I monitor most of my vitals on a daily basis, maintain a healthy blood pressure and weight, and basically take good care of myself. Although my politics are somewhat different, my approach to medicine (as an amateur hypochondriac) is almost identical to that of Peter Attia. If you haven't read his book Outlive: The Science & Art of Longevity (2023), you really should. It's a somewhat easy read and shouldn't take you more than a day or two. Viriditas (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow, thanks for sharing that. I'm glad you do all those things to take good care of yourself. I try to do that too, and my vitals/blood pressure are very good for someone my age. In my case, the clot was caused by an adverse reaction to a steroid injection I had gotten for the radiculopathy, go figure. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Speaking of adverse reactions and clotting, erythritol has been in the news a lot for the last several months. See erythritol and cardiovascular events, and popular artificial sweetener erythritol linked to higher risk for blood clots. User:Zefr deleted this information from the Wikipedia article in June.[10] Viriditas (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I use stevia instead of sugar, and you just sent me on a very hurried look to make sure that it isn't erythritol (it isn't), whew. I agree with that revert by the way, per WP:MEDRS. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, products are not required to list erythritol on the label because it is classified by the FDA as GRAS, which means long-term safety studies aren't needed. But as of 2023, researchers are calling for long-term safety studies on erythritol. But such studies are not required by the FDA because erythritol is exempt as GRAS. This is pretzel logic. This reminds me of other well-known pretzel logic by the FDA, such as their claim that cannabis has no federally approved medical use for treatment in the US. Meanwhile, the FDA continues to approve cannabis-derived or synthetic cannabis-related medical products. It's really hard to take these industry-captured, regulatory agencies seriously. Viriditas (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stepping out of my editor role, and speaking as I am in real life, I very much share a lot of what you just said about the pretzel logic of the US health care system. There's an irony that the big industry carve-out regarding food safety extends to the big industry centered around health foods and herbal additives, which pretends to be just mom and pop but is anything but. As someone who has seen US biomedical science from the inside, I can tell you that, as insidious as the influence of money is, there is also an incredible amount of resistance to new ideas in the medical and science communities. Even though I agree with the concept that health care should not include stuff that hasn't been proven to be safe and effective, when it comes to cannabis and other Schedule 1 drugs, the slowness of progress stinks in my opinion.

I mentioned at the top that I've been dealing all summer with radiculopathy. In practice, that means a big part of it is pain control. I've had a very painful (pun intended) learning experience about how important it has been for me to be my own best advocate in getting the health care that I need. I have the education, communication skills, and personality to assert myself when I need more medicine, but I know that there must be many people who have the diagnosis that I have, or much worse, who cannot advocate for themselves, and that's appalling. I used to teach my students that no person should ever have to wish for death because they aren't getting enough medicine and cannot stand the pain. This summer, I've experienced what it feels like. I spent decades as a researcher into how the opioid drugs work, and I now know those drugs up close and personal. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I won't belabor the point, other than to say I'm happy you are doing better (...and that dentistry should be fully integrated back into medicine and healthcare delivery). Viriditas (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further information: User talk:Viriditas § Moving discussion here

Pleased to learn it’s nothing too serious. Take care. KJP1 (talk) 06:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both of you. Never before have I been so glad to be told that I'm just superficial. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear of your health issues, Trypto. I do wish you all the very best. At least it's not pushing and pulling? Ah yes, pretzel logic.... "Any minor world that breaks apart falls together again..." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [11][reply]

Good luck with your progress—it's never fun to deal with health problems. isaacl (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Martin and Isaac! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are anything but superficial but I too am glad for the diagnosis. Tryp, you are one of most valued friends here and I don't say that lightly. Just take care of yourself, please. I had to learn this the hard way. I was always giving and rarely would receive anything in return. I would emotionally invest in others even at my own expense. I still do to a degree but I was forced to focus on myself when my health become a serious issue. I have been focusing more on myself, if only a little. Just, please, do take care. Need you around to make my day brighter. --ARoseWolf 17:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! That's good advice. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is is. Very sorry to hear this. Put yourself first for a while. I know how hard that is. Doug Weller talk 19:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Doug. (Much as I think you have been doing, I'm doing some editing here, but picking and choosing what I will and what I will not spend time and energy on.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, I did become a card-carrying member of the DVT club, but I'm happy to say that, today, I got kicked out of it. Shortly after what I talked about above, my doctors decided I should have a follow-up ultrasound of my leg, just to be sure. Unfortunately, it revealed that my superficial vein thrombosis had turned into deep vein thrombosis, and I've been dealing with that for the past ~six weeks. I've been taking Xarelto, as a blood-thinner. Today, I had another ultrasound, and it showed that the DVT was cleared up and gone. Which is a nice reason for me to be thankful on Thanksgiving.

Because I am done with the blood thinner, that makes it safe for me to have spinal cord surgery, to deal with, once and for all, the lumbar radiculopathy. My surgery is scheduled for Dec. 12. I'm actually happy about doing it, even though it's definitely major surgery, because it will mean an end to the pain. I'll post more about that, closer to the time. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you a quick and pain-free recovery on your health journey. It's a journey we will all have to make in our own way, so we are all on this road together. Viriditas (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Typtofish we have a RfC Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#RFC on current consensus #18 that needs an uninvolved editor to close, as its been up for some time, I realize you may be busy, should you have the time to take a look I would be in your debt, Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going through a tough patch, and that looks like a lot of aggravation. I suggest you try Wikipedia:Closure requests. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok (I just read the above post, I apologize... I wasn't aware, I wish you the best and fastest recovery possible, Ozzie)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize. Thanks, Ozzie. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to tell you I posted Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#Suggestion_by Gråbergs_Gråa_Sång_(2023-10-11). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that, and thanks for letting me know. I'll be watching what happens. By the way, I'm OK with the result at the AfD, although I think that the closing statement suffered from virtue signaling. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement by Gtoffoletto. He really should have pinged you, but then he didn’t ping me either, just linked to my block of him. Doug Weller talk 20:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I definitely saw it, thanks. I'm not going to comment about it there, given that editors are discouraged from going back and forth at one another. I'm going to wait and see what the case scope is, and who the parties are (including whether or not I'm one), but I have all the evidence that I expect to need, already lined up in my mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just found out. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tryptofish,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Industrial agriculture. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Industrial agriculture/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 8, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hope you're doing well despite all "teh dramaz" and the sorry state of the world at large, and to the extent that my actions are collaterally inflicting a smoke cloud on the proceedings or reflecting on yourself, I apologize, because I do legitimately believe that the article needs a better title and not that I'm trying to tendentiously curtail it to tell a different story, and I don't want any of my bad acts to blow up in your face as they are. IMHO, the early Zionists were pretty racist and even some of the modern ones - I firmly believe that. Ironically, I'm a leftist, and my sympathies lie very much with the Palestinian refugees, as a descendant of Jewish refugees (just not Hamas), I oppose colonialism and Netanyahu and the settlers encroaching on the West Bank (in case our mutual friends on that side are reading this). But I also think the recent actions by Hamas are egregious crimes against humanity, and I don't believe Israel is engaging in genocide in any of the accepted meanings of that (but I would accept apartheid). Anyway, I don't think we chat too much or even agree that much usually, which is why the present scenario has a certain dark comic aspect to it, n'est-ce pas? Anyway, I was hoping to leave you a note on the following things, 1) I hope you don't take a "chilling effect" from the treatment you encountered at the last AE. One of the reasons I felt compelled to file this was because of the way that one ended up, and how unequivocal it is that some actors are practicing extreme ownership and hostility. Personally, I don't ever see an excuse or justification for certain hostile activities. 2) I know the person who made that apparently-antisemitic comment last time did it by accident. I'm sure they didn't really apologize suitably for it. It's a blind spot, but I know they didn't mean that. 3) Maybe you want me to close my RM so a fresh one can be reopened considering all that has transpired and archive the last 2 talk page topics. Hopefully, moving forward will be a better tenor. 4) Regarding reply threading, I use the reply tool on desktop, but I think it doesn't work well for people who read on mobile. An unrelated problem worth thinking about. Andre🚐 15:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughtful message. For (1), I'm disappointed in the AE admins, but I've been around so many Wikipedia disputes that I'm quite comfortable with how these things work. (2) I agree, and I don't hold a grudge about it. I just mentioned it at AE to illustrate how toxic the dispute is. (3) I've already replied about that, at the talk page. (4) You weren't the offender about that threading, which is a very minor issue in the context of everything else.

I don't want to discuss ARBPIA issues here, or comment about my own personal opinions, which aren't relevant anyway. I'll just say that what's happening in the real world is very tragic, and I wish for peace for everyone. As for what happens onsite, you know that I don't always agree with you on content issues, but I want you to know that I do appreciate, very much, how you remain civil and how you try hard to be constructive amid these discussions. I don't otherwise edit in that topic area, and I probably should have taken it off my watchlist a long time ago, but for better or worse it pisses me off to see bad faith actors drive reasonable editors out of a topic area, and I can be very stubborn. My guess is that the RM will end in no consensus, and that I'll probably let things drop after that. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. Best wishes. If you ever want to discuss anything else, you know where to find me. And I wasn't trying to solicit opinions from you, just volunteering them in the interest of transparency. I know you know that too. I'm putting stuff out in the open to clear the air. Thanks for playing along. Anything else, let me know. Cheers. Andre🚐 15:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All good, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you participated in the 2010 poll, you should remember the result, a merger. The poll has remained without the discussion closure marker. It should have been closed in 2010 with the {{discussion-top}} and {{discussion-bottom}} to indicate the talk section was completed as a merger. The merger was carried out by SlimVirgin in 2010 [12] [13] ; so whatever you think about the source article, People Eating Tasty Animals, it isn't a joke edit to indicate that the discussion is over (over a decade ago), and the merger was carried out (over a decade ago). -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 03:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my mistake, and I see you already reverted it back, so it's corrected. Thanks for correcting me. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tryptofish, I understand why you reverted my edit (I didn't see the note before), and I won't contest it. However, there are a number of medical doctors who advocate fasting listed here who don't belong in either the pseudoscientific category or the researchers category (usually they are well versed in the work of researchers and have the scientific background to support their interest). So I'm going to create another category for this specific group of doctors. I'm thinking of Medical Doctors who advocate fasting (or support fasting). It's long but specific. Then I will move the MDs there. Let me know what you think.-Classicfilms (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm thinking that otherwise it's potentially a WP:BLP issue.-Classicfilms (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding. (For watchers, we're talking about [14].) I'm going to ping Psychologist Guy, who created the category and pays close attention to the subject area. Basically, I agree with that approach. The only concern that I can think of is whether an MD who is not a researcher but who makes public pronouncements about the medical benefits of fasting is really not engaging in pseudoscience. There's a difference between reducing caloric intake and actually fasting. I appreciate the BLP issue, but if there is solid sourcing it's not necessarily a BLP violation. I'll also welcome any other of my talk page participants to offer their takes on this question. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. MDs read research on many subjects and apply it to to their clinical work. For example, if an MD recommends a vegetarian diet because the research indicates that it is healthy, is that pseudoscience? I appreciate that this is a subject open to debate, so perhaps what I will do is take the cat off of MDs in general which basically will solve the problem.-Classicfilms (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are MDs who make public recommendations when it's not what the research indicates. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True, but again this is the case in many areas related to health, so it feels a little like WP:OR if we apply this issue to one area of health and not another. Again I think we run into WP:BLP here. Though I get the basic issue that is being addressed.-Classicfilms (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not OR if there are reliable secondary sources that say that a particular MD is a quack. Since you've started off by asking me, I'd be more comfortable if you would wait and see if anyone else replies, before taking action with recategorization. I'm not that familiar with the topic area. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's fine. Or we can move this to the cat talk page. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I almost reverted the category, but since a discussion is taking place will address it here. Fasting, either a daily fast or a longer fast, is certainly not pseudoscience. I've known fasters, and those who advocate fasting, and since 1988 have done a 14-17 hour daily fast, etc. Highly recommended. I started doing that immediately upon learning something which may or may not be accurate (Swami Satchidananda wrote that a daily 14 hour fast gives seven hours of digestion followed by seven hours of the same organs working on toxic cleansing) but made sense. In any case, fasting works on several levels (and saves money on late night munchies). But pseudoscience? Doesn't seem an accurate descriptor, although some may disagree. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All the people in the fasting advocates category [15] were nearly all naturopaths and others promoting pseudoscientific views about fasting (it can cure all diseases etc), they were not research scientists. The fasting researchers category is for actual nutritional researchers, scientists and historians who have done basic research or clinical studies on fasting which is not pseudoscience [16]. There's obviously a big difference between someone like Francis Gano Benedict who was studying fasting in a laboratory and publishing under peer review than Wallace Wattles who was writing nonsense about fasting invoking mystical powers. It's best to keep the researchers and scientists in one category whilst all the people making pseudoscientific claims about fasting in another. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about those who advocate for fasting who are not professionals in the field. The before mentioned Swami Satchidananda for example, would he qualify or be lumped in with pseudoscience? A thin line? Randy Kryn (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Satchidananda had some sensible things to say about diet but he was also a believer in Mucoid plaque and believed in something similar to colon cleansing. I believe his views on fasting were pseudoscience although I could be wrong. I did a lot of research into historical fasting and all I found was that it was heavily associated with alternative medicine claims, there is a good historical paper about it [17]. I used to be interested in documenting alternative fringe diets but it doesn't really interest me anymore. If you want to remove any mention of pseudoscience from fasting advocates category, it wouldn't bother me. I guess you could just use the category to add anyone who is an advocate. Historically I have never come across a non-pseudoscientific fasting advocate, the problem with the topic is all the extreme claims that come with it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So to clarify, are we all in agreement to remove "pseudoscience" from the fasting advocates category? Or do you want to wait for more possible input from other editors? I'm fine to wait.-Classicfilms (talk) 14:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Psychologist Guy about this. A lot of these pages, though perhaps not all, are properly described as pseudoscience. I also think that this discussion has grown to something that should not be at my user talk page. The options are either the category talk page or WP:CSD, and in either case, I will want to have a neutral notice at WT:MED. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I just move the discussion to the Category talk page.-Classicfilms (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Category talk:Fasting advocates. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes: [18]. And I supported both their RfAs, although at least I'm in a lot of good company. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully goes for the sock-to-admin threepeat! Randy Kryn (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that last week and am honestly still digesting it. It's been brought up a little in some conversations we've both been involved in though. Everything else at hand aside, I think it's safe to say no one expected that. KoA (talk) 00:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah. I honestly had forgotten about it, but the folks at the website that dare not speak its name reminded me that I once said this: [19]. Now I feel better about my judgement about Lourdes. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On logging in today, I'm in a much better mood, because of something completely unrelated: this. Rather esoteric, but something that took up way too much of my editing time recently. And it came out the right way, despite the efforts of WP:OWNers and POV pushers. It should have come out that way, but I had no confidence that it would. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be away from Wikipedia November 10–16 while attending the Society for Neuroscience meeting in Washington, DC. (A much-needed break!) I'll respond to stuff here when I get back. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Safe travels. Looking forward to the debriefing. Viriditas (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need real "Gone fishin'" and telling us how that time by the water was for a real break. Much better if you didn't catch any. But wishing you the near-best thing on your conference.!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. So let's get right to it: how was the food? Viriditas (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Right now, I'm exhausted, so I'm focusing on whether there's anything urgent for me to respond to, but I'll have a non-brief debrief in the next few days, including a restaurant guide. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just finished my online follow-ups to the meeting materials (such as finding the things for the authors who didn't make it in person). Tomorrow, I'm going to send various emails to other people, then after that, I'll be able to turn my attention to whatever I'm going to say here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No biggie. Just mostly curious (as always) as to what personally caught your attention and what you see as significant progress and development towards greater understanding in the discipline in particular, but also in terms of interdisciplinary applications, connections, and synthesis with other disparate fields. I realize, of course, that specialization serves a necessary purpose, as there is far too much going on for any one person to understand or comprehend without narrowing focus and attention, but there's also a need to understand how these insights apply at higher levels of both abstraction and generality. I believe, for example, that these insights are not confined to one field, but at some level apply to all of them as an interconnected whole. Viriditas (talk) 09:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I finally got around to this. Briefly on food, when I go to DC I always get a hotel near Dupont Circle, because there are lots of good restaurants on Connecticut Avenue and on P Street. A long time favorite of mine is Bistro du Coin, where this year I had an excellent beef bourguignon. On P Street east of the circle I found a tiny hole-in-the-wall Thai restaurant called Bua Thai that was a real find. Oh, and near my hotel was the embassy from Kazakhstan, in front of which is a statue of a warrior that is Borat-worthy. Sort of looks like the woman in this, but supposed to be a young man as a warrior, complete with falcon, and riding a white tiger.

Now to the serious stuff. There wasn't as much this year that struck me as "breakthroughs" as in some previous years, but a couple of things in specialized topics were of interest to me personally. As I've long expected, phase precession (a page I started, and a subject in which our Looie496 made important research contributions) has turned out not to be limited to theta waves and not to be limited to the hippocampus and environs. Looks like it involves multiple kinds (frequencies) of waves, and happens throughout many regions of the cerebral cortex: [20], [21]. Also, the medial nucleus of the amygdala is coming to be recognized as an important brain region for things that "feel good"; for example: [22].

As I think about interesting things with interdisciplinary potential, there is starting to be serious interest in figuring out the neuroscience of consciousness. (Spoiler alert: no one has solved it yet, or gotten close to solving it, but people are thinking seriously about how to frame the question.) There was a symposium about this: [23]. Researchers are looking at things centered on whether there is some sort of minimum quantity of neurons firing that can give rise to consciousness. One approach is using brain imaging of people waking up from general anesthesia, to see what sorts of brain regions become active. Another is asking volunteers to look at a screen and indicate when they can discern an image on it. Typically, this means working with a photo of a human face as the image, and starting out with it very pixilated, then progressively bringing it into focus until it can be recognized as a face. An interesting early finding was discussed by Christof Koch: if you ask the study subject to indicate when the face comes into view by pressing a button, most of the brain regions that get activated are actually being activated by the decision to press the button and the process of doing so. Therefore, researchers are asking subjects just to watch the image come into view, but not to do anything, and studying the much more subtle brain activity changes that happen at the time the face becomes visible. It's a tricky business, being sure that one is measuring what one thinks one is measuring! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where to post this, so for the time being I'll post it here. While logged in, I briefly looked at a page at the Arabic Wikipedia. Nothing particularly fancy, just looking at how their page on something looks, in comparison to our page. Our page, in this case, is Osteopathy, so not a political subject (to my knowledge). Importantly, I did not make any edits, just looked briefly, then came back here. Within seconds, I got an automated welcome message at my talk page at Ar WP. I ran it through Google Translate, and it was a very vanilla-flavored welcome message like the ones we often give to new users.

But I hadn't made any edits. I just looked. I know that Wikimedia tracks the numbers of page views, but this had to have been a tracking of views by user. And that strikes me as very disconcerting. WTF? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the answer is fairly simple. Check out your global account info. You triggered the "attached on" log, which likely showed up on enhanced recent changes, either giving a patroller an opportunity to welcome a new user or also triggering an automatic welcome. Not sure exactly how "attached to" does this, but my guess is that happens when you login globally and visit the other wiki. Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that. Is there a way to turn that off in my user preferences? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the answer to my own question is "no". And I probably don't need to continue to be alarmed. This doesn't look like it was really tracking what I was looking it, but rather tracking the fact that I looked for the first time at that particular WP. Presumably, it does not track every subsequent view of any particular project. It still feels wrong to me that "attachment" occurs simply on viewing, without depending on making a first edit, however. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My memory is hazy, but there was a discussion about how this works when they first rolled out the unified login (SUL). There's notes from Brion Vibber about how it works here. Search for the string "attached" and read through each instance. You triggered it automatically when you logged in through the SUL and visited the Arabic wiki. Viriditas (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for finding all this helpful information. I'm rather amused by the facetious references to "evil plans" in the phabricator post. I can see that it's basically a matter of "login continues" as someone browses from one project to another, and I'm fine with that. I can see from my global account info that it correctly shows me as "attached", but with zero edits made there. I still think it's kind of creepy that simply viewing (aka "attaching") would have shown up on enhanced recent changes, because that's putting an awful lot of work onto "enhanced", since I never made a "recent change" in the sense of an edit. But I guess that I'm satisfied that this wasn't a matter of tracking and keeping a record of page views, so I'm not going to worry about it any further. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in meta:User:Krinkle/Tools/Global_SUL, a tool that automatically visits all wikis once so that future visits are not permanently recorded at Special:CentralAuth/Tryptofish. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I did it, and it just finished running, and I'm now "attached" to 828 wikis. If anyone else is thinking of doing it, you have to add the code to your global.js, not common.js. I've gotten a dozen welcoming emails (clearly bot-generated) in a plethora of languages and alphabets that I don't even recognize. Not sure if it was worth it, but certainly an interesting journey. Makes me appreciate what the Stewards have to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Tryptofish/ACE2023. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for quickly reverting my mis-click. I honestly hadn't realized I had done it, and usually I've got the easy revert links/buttons set to require a confirmation / edit summary of some type. Appreciate it! Ravensfire (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. As it happens, I was just then looking to read that comment, couldn't find it, and looked at the edit history. Believe me, we all make mistakes. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's the primary reason I requested to have my rollback right removed. I was misclicking at least once a day, and in many cases, I wasn't even aware of it. It was also far more common on mobile while viewing desktop-style through Safari. Now without the right, it never happens. Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In a couple of days, on Dec. 12, I'll be going into the hospital for surgery, so starting then, I'll be away from editing for an undetermined amount of time. This is for the lumbar radiculopathy, aka pinched nerve in my lower back, that I mentioned above, in #Health scare, and was delayed by the deep vein thrombosis I talked about there, but can be done now. It feels good to me to describe it in some detail here, and I think it might be interesting to some talk page participants.

Trigger warning for people who are uncomfortable with descriptions of surgery.

I've had an MRI and some other testing, all of which shows that my lowest lumbar (L5) and top sacral (S1) vertebrae have gotten pressed too tightly together on the left side, creating pressure on the nerve that leaves the spinal cord between them. The pinching of that nerve has been causing a lot of pain in my left leg and left thigh, and conservative treatments (things other than surgery) have all been exhausted. (That's putting it mildly. I'm really fed up with this.) The surgery will be designed to fix that, and should provide a permanent cure.

This is major surgery, and the process is kind of scary, but I'm feeling good about it and looking forward to having it done, because I really want and need that cure. I'll be in a major US teaching hospital, one whose name people in the US would readily recognize. My surgeon is the chief of neurosurgery in the spine medicine department, and I feel good about my interactions with him over multiple meetings. Amazingly, if everything goes as expected, it's going to be outpatient surgery, so that I will go home the same day.

They are going to start by injecting me with midazolam, which is my favorite (most enjoyable) iv drug. Then they will put me under general anesthesia. After that, they are going to put me on a breathing tube, and inject me with a paralyzing drug, that will stop my breathing and any other movements. The breathing tube will breath for me. The idea is that I can't be moving because the surgery is going to be so delicate.

I'll be lying face-down, and the surgeon will make a small incision on my back, a little more than one inch, where the nerve is being pinched. After that, the surgery will take place under an operating microscope, something I find amazing. The surgeon will expose the backbone where those two bones are, and locate the nerve. He will then perform a microscopic laminotomy, to make a small hole through the back of one of the vertebrae and see inside the backbone. He will then perform a discectomy, or more precisely, a microdiscectomy through that opening. The idea there is to remove the parts of the spinal disc that are pressing on the nerve. He will also perform a foraminotomy to remove a little bit of each bone on the left side, where the bones are touching the nerve.

That's it! The surgeon told me that this operation gives immediate relief from the kind of pain I've been having, and he is confident that it will work. So I'll be editing here through the 11th, and I'll get back here some unknown number of days after that, when I'm sure that I'm feeling better. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating! I hope that everything goes as smooth as silk, and that your recovery is quick and complete. Cullen328 (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cullen! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

happened to see this, so I'm wishing you good luck and a swift recovery. Andre🚐 00:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Andrevan! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck to you and the whole care team. Hope to see you back soon! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anything like this I find scary. But I've had two friends recently go through seriously complex procedures I'd never heard of, one experimental, with successful total remission of cancers, and are symptom free. They really are making progress in the medical field -- nearly sciencefictiony. Thank you for sharing this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yes, it really has the potential to be scary, what with being paralyzed during the operation and "breathing" artificially, and with one small slip and my left leg could get paralyzed. But I very much feel confident that nothing bad will happen, and I can't wait to be done with the pain. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's hoping for a smooth and flawless procedure and a quick recovery. Viriditas (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Viriditas! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very best wishes, Trypto. I'm sure all will go well. I've been fishing around for an amusing link, but I can't find one. Kind regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Martin! I'll find that link, when I get back. (Cue link to this!) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sure thing, dude: [24] Martinevans123 (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Speaking of backs, I've been thinking. Neurosurgery is commonly referred to as "brain surgery". Since this is going to be getting down into my sacrum, perhaps that means that my brain is in my rear end. I know that there is no shortage of editors who would agree with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I resemble that remark! Wishing you the best - I am confident this procedure will work out fabulously. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 11:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JoJo! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes Trypto! In bocca al lupo {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gtoffoletto, and crepi il lupo! Much as I said to Leyo, below, I appreciate this very much, under the circumstances. That's very kind of you. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wish you the best on that. Come back soon! North8000 (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, North! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All will be well, I think and hope. Take care. KJP1 (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, KJP1! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you good luck and a quick recovery. I will have surgery a few days later. --Leyo 21:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for saying that, Leyo, especially under the circumstances of the ongoing ArbCom case. It's a wonderful thing about Wikipedia, that editors can set aside their differences, to recognize that we are all real people. And I wish you, in turn, the very best of outcomes in your own surgery, and a rapid and happy return here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words! I'm not so sure about the "return here" part. --Leyo 21:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you luck and a painless (well, as painless as this one can get) recovery. My dad went through major back disorder and related issues for decades, and he still commented pretty often on how he wishes he had his surgery done earlier. Hopefully you end up being able to say the same thing in the coming weeks/months. KoA (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, KoA, and may whatever happens here at Wikipedia be as painless as possible for you! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hope all goes well and that you're (ahem) 'back' here soon. Bon courage (talk) 07:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, BC, and my back thanks you as well! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck and best of health. I can't think of anything particularly elegant to say here, so I will cheat and echo everyone above (and below) me. HouseBlaster^talk 00:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I'm back. The surgery seems to have been a success, and I'm starting to feel better. I've waited until now to post here, because it's taken a while for all the medications to wear off, and I don't want to post anything here until I'm thinking clearly again (yes, I know some editors believe I've never thought clearly, wink, wink). I'll still want to ease back into things here, but I do want to let people watching here know that I'm alright. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And there you go! Now if only there was a surgical intervention for effecting painless editing on Wikipedia... JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure a lobotomy would do that. But no need for surgery. The drugs that have been inside my body for the past two days (truly a pharmacopaeia (or however one spells that)) would make anything painless, although edits made under their influence might well have consequences that would eventually be painful. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you're doing better. Are you a Stranger Things fan? There's a fascinating depiction of the use of shock therapy in the series (the procedure itself is supposed to take place in the early 1970s) that is used to essentially lobotomize one of the characters. One wonders how accurate it is or if such a result is purely fiction. Viriditas (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can highly recommend a lobotomy. I even tried "Wiki Cold Turkey" for a year. But just like you, I came back. Alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC) pass those tissues, "sob"...[reply]

There's the problem - you should have used this turkey. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 08:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see I've come back to the same Wikipedia I left a few days earlier, wink, wink. Viriditas, you should know me well enough by now to know that I'm not a Stranger Things fan, although I'm a fan of plenty of things that are strange. Lobotomy is simply pseudoscience, often used to advance bigoted beliefs, not unlike forced sterilization. As for shock therapy, the neuroscientist here will shock you by saying that I bet (warning, what follows is OR and citation needed) that psychedelics work the same way that shock therapy does, just a bit less crudely. Ever unplug an electronic device, wait a few seconds, and plug it back in, and the device appears "fixed"? (No pun on forced sterilization intended.) In this case, the electronic device is just the human brain.

Now as for the rest of you wild turkeys, I'll have you know that I've been doing oxycodone straight up, none of that weak stuff fer me. But I'm done with it, no more post-operative pain. One of the, well, stranger things, on the day after surgery was that I kept getting "zaps" of pain – I'm talking about lightening bolts going down my left leg – lasting only a second or less, the apparent result of the nerve continuing to be irritated for a while after the surgery. And I kid you not about this: they closed the incision with Dermabond. I dare you to see what that redirects to! I dare you! It's crazy! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Omg really?? More sticky than Rudy Giuliani's hair colour! I was in hospital last week. I asked the nurse if I could do my own stitches. She said "suture self". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My doctor told me I had to stop masturbating. I asked him why. He said, so he could examine me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This explains a lot. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All you guys keep me in stitches. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that the surgeon's job?--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but these WP editors look like they could stand to earn some extra cash. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Psychedelics aren't like shock therapy AFAIK; classical psychedelics activate the 5HT2A receptor. My theory is that it's similar to dreaming, or being a child. It's related to serotonin. The psilocybin studies that I've read say that it helps form connections and neuroplasticity, not necessarily by zapping, but by turning off filters and letting more data in. There are some interesting evolutionary theories that visual acuity is increased, it adaptive for hunter-gathering, leading to the development of culture/mythology. In a world without artificial light and not a lot of food, sleep, you start to hallucinate more often.

Anyway, speaking of which, glad your surgery was uneventful, when I read the description, I realized I could not bring myself to do it if I needed it. Also, do you know the one about the doctor who was testifying about an autopsy. The lawyer asked him, did you check for a pulse first, he said no. Then how did you know the patient was dead. Well, his brain was in a jar on my desk. But is it possible he could have been alive? Yes, the patient might still be alive, and maybe practicing law somewhere. Andre🚐 23:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good wishes. (Actually, it was a little eventful, but only in terms of them making me wait a long time before it began. And don't get me started on getting that oxycodone Rx filled. F—k the war on drugs, as well as medical insurance in the U.S of A.)

But, now, now, now, young editor, don't argue with Dr. Tryptofish about neuropharmacology. Believe me, I know about serotonin. And I know about those studies. In fact, you can turn off those filters by what I described, about unplugging. (What I said about zapping, was something else, and nothing therapeutic about that!) The popular writer Andrew Solomon wrote an excellent book about depression, in which he likens depression to a demon. (What I've been talking about here is the use of psychedelics for depression, not for the lulz. And I know about depression, too.) I would liken that demon to a microphone hog, who keeps telling the depressive brain that things are hopeless, while not letting rational rebuttals (as in cognitive therapy) get a word in edgewise. Conventional antidepressants work by slowing the demon down, so good thoughts get heard. Neural oscillations are very sticky, like what Martin said about Rudy's hair gel. Once they become "habits of thought", they are hard to unlearn. But if you briefly unplug the oscillator, then plug it back in, that's a way to leave the noonday demon stuttering. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about what you said, about "when I read the description, I realized I could not bring myself to do it if I needed it." After a fashion, that makes two of us! On one level, what was I thinking, agreeing to let them stop my breathing? However, I have a good understanding of how that stuff works, as a scientist, and I know that there is an excellent success rate. (Here's a scary thought: one has a better likelihood of emerging unharmed from the surgery that I had, than from driving an automobile every day for a year.) A significant consideration for me was that I am fortunate to be able to have had the surgery at a world-class hospital. I probably would not have agreed to it at a smaller, less prominent hospital.

But here's the real thing: pain. Unless you've lived with the kind of pain I had, you cannot know how motivating it becomes to make it go away. They do this thing in health care, where they ask you to rate the pain on a scale from 1 to 10. Often for me, it was 10. And it was always worst in the evening and at night, when I was trying to go to sleep. The symptoms started in June, and followed a pattern of getting worse over time. So picture going more than 6 months with very bad sleep, and pain going from terrible to even worse. (Oddly, I could also go for extended periods during the day with no pain, before it would hit. If anyone's wondering, that's when I would edit here.) From June to August, I couldn't get anyone to take it sufficiently seriously, because it's very common for people to get a so-called "slipped disc" that just goes away with time, with minimal treatment. During August, they had begun to run out of minimal treatments, and they began to believe me when I kept telling them that this didn't feel like something minor that would just go away. So they had me get an MRI, and woops! I had been telling them the truth all along. (I'll omit, here, a lengthy listing of all the things that didn't work.) Percocet worked, but I quickly became tolerant to it. An epidural steroid injection worked for a while, but then wore off. By September, I had gotten a referral to the neurosurgeon who would eventually operate on me. He wanted to try every possible alternative before putting me through surgery, so he convinced me to have one more epidural injection. That one worked better than the first, but it also (apparently) gave me deep vein thrombosis, which could have killed me. They put me on Xarelto, which cured the DVT, but forced the surgery to be put off until this past week (because one cannot have this kind of surgery while taking a blood thinner). So after all that, I was far beyond desperate to have the surgery. And as of now, I'm very glad that I did.

By the way, I found out from reading my post-op medical records that they also had a radiologist in the operating room, which I didn't know ahead of time. They apparently had an X-ray machine in/under/beside? the operating table, and were using real-time X-ray images to decide where to make the incision. I remember that just before I went under from the anesthesia, that I saw a big screen on the wall with what looked like a full-torso X-ray of a backbone, and thinking, "I wonder if that's my backbone?" --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a pretty impressive set-up. But did they have the machine that goes "ping"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [25][reply]

Dunno, probably. Would you like me to upload my X-rays to Commons? My gown was open in the back. (Martin runs screaming in terror from the room.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trypto, please tell us if you really are in a jar (and possibly practicing law somewhere) and if so, which brain we should be listening to. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course I'm in a jar. On the Internet, nobody knows if you're a dog, a fish, or in a jar. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out there, dude. That's a big relief. Was afraid for a moment you had regained human form or, worse still, had become a real lawyer. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you compare me to an invertebrate! I'll have you know that I have a backbone, and I've even had somebody drill a hole in it! sniff, sniff --Tryptofish (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

that's quite a story. I'm glad it all worked out for the best. Andre🚐 20:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Although off-topic for this thread, I'm eye-rolling to see that someone I told to eff off of my talk the other day advised you and another editor in a toxic topic area to have a Gentleman's Agreement. Tin ear alert. (But I'm glad that you and that other editor seem to have worked things out.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas, you should know me well enough by now to know that I'm not a Stranger Things fan

You're right, but I think you should be. You would love the show, especially its foray into weird science. Reminds me a lot of what Fringe tried to do in the 2000s, and in some ways, it covers the same themes, with the only difference being its setting in the 1980s, which is brilliantly done. The thing is, I don't watch a lot of television (very little actually), so I try to make the most of it when I do. Viriditas (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Myself, I'm very into old movies. As it happens, alas, I've just made an urgent MD appointment, because the swelling in my leg suddenly came back, suggesting that I'm back in the DVT club. Gotta go now. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you well. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! After several hours in the hospital, I just got home. Back on Xarelto, sure enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How are you feeling? Looking at the page for Rivaroxaban, it says it will be available as a generic in 2024. Question: what does the current research on moderate alcohol intake say? When you do a google search for it, it's somewhat funny. It says alcohol in moderation may thin the blood, and just under that it say alcohol in moderation may cause clotting. Have they made up their mind yet? Viriditas (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for asking! I got home from the hospital very late last night, and didn't get much sleep, but overall, I feel OK-ish, under the circumstances. Getting back on that med is really all I need to feel safe from the kinds of things that could go very, very badly, so I'm currently not worried. Being in a hospital ER (different hospital than the one I recently had surgery in) is certainly a weird experience. Shortly before I left, a woman with a child who was clearly in terrible pain arrived, and the howling in pain is still giving me the creeps. (And for the 1 AM taxi ride home, my taxi driver loudly talked at me about the weirdest Q-anon kinds of stuff. Told me the secret to good health is to never take medicine. And me an emeritus professor of pharmacology. But I behaved myself, and the driver acted like he was my best friend for life when I got out of the cab.) Anyway, about alcohol and clotting, I'd have to do a literature search to answer that. When these things are contradictory from one source to the next, they probably mean that the effects are not very dramatic to begin with. Myself, I use alcohol in moderation, and don't intend to change that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to hear you are in good spirits and are feeling good (a great, uplifting song that you may enjoy listening to at your leisure). I know exactly what you mean about the sound of howling pain. Sometimes those sounds can be "sticky". As you are likely aware, there is brain circuitry that allows sounds to act as triggers. The sound of a child crying, for example, in a lactating mother is thought to release oxytocin leading to the production of breast milk. My guess is that there are a lot of these kinds of triggers going on that we aren't aware of at all. As for the taxi driver and the QAnon stuff, I'm sure you weren't in the mood for it, but it's sometimes fun to ask them questions and see where the pretzel logic goes. I've found, however, that they don't like that, and tend to get upset when forced to self-reflect on their own ideas, so it's probably a good thing that you didn't do that. I hope you enjoy the weekend. Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and yes it's shockingly expensive, because it's still on patent, but fortunately, I have excellent insurance. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• All the best for your recovery! Johnbod (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, Johnbod! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow - my head is spinning. I'm sorry you had to go through that, I'm glad it went well, I'm amazed that you could be home so quickly and that what used to be extensive surgery is now so minutely focussed, and I'm grateful that you took the time to talk us all through the process. Mostly I am optimistic, looking forward to a full recovery and relief from those years of pain and restriction. What a New Year it will be!--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, Gronk Oz! Yes, it's really amazing how they did that procedure. Thanks for the good wishes. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the updates, glad to hear it went well and you're recovering nicely. Things can get a bit heated in this place sometimes and it's important to for us all to be reminded now and again that there is a "person behind the keyboard." Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, Pawnkingthree! That's so very true what you say, about the importance of remembering that we are all real people (or fish!). --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wonderful news! Atsme 💬 📧 13:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, Atsme! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I had a follow-up appointment with my surgeon today, and I'm doing very well. I asked him to tell me details of what happened during the surgery, and found out something interesting (if a little ugly). He found (under the microscope) that a fragment of a ligament had gotten where it should not have been, and had become calcified, making it bone-hard. And it had gotten positioned where it was scraping against the nerve. Obviously, he removed it. No wonder I had so much pain! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow (Friday), I'll be going back to that same hospital, for another procedure. Since a few months ago, I've had some ongoing problems with blood clots in my left leg, and I've agreed with my doctors that we should do something to deal with it, for good. It's a much less major surgery than the one I had on my spinal cord, and I'll just be there a few hours before going home. The anesthesia will be much, much less than last time. It will just be local anesthesia, along with a mild sedative that I expect to enjoy (woo-hoo!). They will inject me with an anti-clotting medication, and a vascular surgeon will make a very small incision near my ankle. He will thread a long, narrow, tube-like instrument into my great saphenous vein, using ultrasound to visualize where the probe goes. As he moves it up the vein, towards the knee, he will eject more local anesthetic as it goes along. When he gets to the location where the small veins that branch off from it, and where the clots have been forming due to too-slow blood flow, he will use radiofrequency thermal ablation to close-off those small veins. Not a big deal, but I'll probably take a bit of time off from editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the procedure goes well and you emerge healthier and happier post-surgery. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tryp, you are already in my songs of healing and wholeness but I will send them your way more often at least until your return. I will see you then, and make sure to get plenty of rest. --ARoseWolf 15:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes for a speedy and healthy recovery. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 22:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all, very, very much. (And Buster7, that was a superb edit summary!) I'm back, just checking in quickly, and everything went well. And yes, I need some rest now. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck on the recovery and hopefully good prognosis afterwards. KoA (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm feeling much better today. The bandages are off, and it looks like a success. (By the way, I kind of like writing about the procedural details of these things, and I want to correct an anatomical detail. I said above that the surgeon would make the incision near the ankle. He actually ended up making it just below the knee, and worked on things upward from there.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And, earlier today, I had the follow-up imaging, which revealed that the procedure was a complete success. I now have no restrictions, and I can put it behind me. Yay! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear. Are you heading to Disneyland? Viriditas (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I'm missing the joke? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linked to it above. It's a famous ad campaign. When famous people are successful at something, Disney asks them "Where are you going next?" They then reply, "I'm going to Disneyland!" Viriditas (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. rimshot^ⓘ --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try the veal! Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What a tryp you've been on! Your health journey has been a bit scary. I haven't read every word above, but some of it is in my specialty area as a PT (and also PA). I understand most of that stuff, even though I've been away from it for a number of years. I wrote the spinal disc herniation article, which has grown substantially. Was there ever talk of trying a spinal fusion on your lower back? In some cases, that's a good option. Getting older sucks, but think of the alternative. We can complain about being old, but getting older is sort of a good thing, unless one lives with chronic pain that defies treatment. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my case, there was almost no disc herniation, which is what delayed the correct diagnosis. Spinal fusion wouldn't have worked in my case. It was a matter of removing a calcified ligament that was scraping against the L5-S1 nerve, and doing a foraminotomy. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure your surgeon made the right decisions. It's very touchy stuff, and great skill is used. I really admire those surgeons. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy Holidays
		Hello, I wanted to be the first to wish you the very best during the holidays. I hope all goes well with your upcoming surgery. I have come to respect you and your advice. You are a valued editor and your opinion matters to me. I hope we get to work together for a long time. Lightburst (talk) 02:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Lightburst, I appreciate that very much, and I wish you happy holidays, too. By the way, I already had the surgery, and I'm back now (and even my back is back now). --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind your neutral. I don't think people should be afraid to share what they think and you did it politely, so I really don't mind. RfAs are ultimately about trust, afterall. I do hope that I'm able to remedy whatever you find concerning about me sometime in the future but if I don't, that's all right. People are entitled to their feelings and shouldn't be ashamed to have them. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth a lot. And I appreciate your being gracious, both here at my talk page and at the RfA. There's probably nothing that you need to do by way of remedy. On the very small chance that my hunch was on to something, then there's nothing for you to do, and on the far greater chance that I was reading something into nothing, then the only needed remedy is my apology to you. Thanks again for being so understanding and reasonable. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[26]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Martin. And to be serious for once, it's great to have you back around. May you find plenty of vowels in the New Year! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"O fy Nuw ffycin!" As if! lol Ysgythysgymlngwchgwch Bryggy, maybe? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think Martin just told me to fuck off in Welsh...^[FBDB] --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FBDB... "Festive Bollocks - Damned Bastard" Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [reply]

That's very likely but it appears he did in a festive way. It's okay as long as it's jolly right? --ARoseWolf 20:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's him, Jolly Saint Nick Marty! Wait, what was that, about a festival of buttocks? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did see something about buttocks in there but I just figured I read that wrong and he was talking the butt. --ARoseWolf 12:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"God Save the Queen"! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you brought up pistols maybe we can call Ms. Daisy and get a Red Ryder BB Gun.--ARoseWolf 12:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. That might drive her to distraction. (Is there a place called Distraction, Alaska? If not there should be.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what it would take to name our makeshift community Distraction? I would definitely be mayor of that town, not because I am a distraction or cause a distraction, well, maybe, as long as I avoid bathing in streams and bush pilots I am okay. --ARoseWolf 13:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I didn't get where I am today by bathing in bush pilots!" Martinevans123 (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [27][reply]

Close. I'd go back and edit what I said to better reflect what I meant if what I meant would make it seem more scandalous than it already does. --ARoseWolf 17:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I remember that anecdote! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Now that's Northern Exposure! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About sums me up. They should do a remake with me as the lead character. I wouldn't even have to act just be myself. Better wait until after the thaw though. We could get several hundred episodes by reliving my life here easily. --ARoseWolf 12:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could definitely see you as the Janine Turner character. (Don't dissuade me if I'm wrong!) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will not try to not ruin this image for you in the slightest, in fact my mama (aunt) gave all of the girls debutante style lessons and she very much came from an aristocratic Italian family in Firenze, or Florence as English speaking folk call it. I am not a bush pilot though I am a dog musher which is kind of similar, and I fly a lot with our bush pilot. Might be too revealing but our luck with men is sort of a parallel too. Though none have met with unfortunate accidents, yet. Oh, there was that very regrettable incident between one boyfriend and a bear trap but I was hundreds of miles away at the time. I have been married once, and divorced, on my birthday, which is Valentines day. That sounds even worse typing it back. It wasn't official on my birthday, that is just when I had the paperwork delivered to me. So, yeah, but we are reluctantly on semi-decent terms now. Hope these truths don't dissuade your perception too much. --ARoseWolf 16:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Actually, quite interesting, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awwwwwww. In case I find myself otherwise engaged on Feb 14... here's a little surprise in advance!! Martinevans123 (talk) 23:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely Fabulous, dahling! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you a very safe holiday season and blessings for the new year, Tryp. You are appreciated as an editor, a member of this community and someone I consider a friend. I literally could write pages of reasons why I value you so much. You have had and continue to have a positive impact on me, personally, and I've seen the same in your interactions with others. Keep singing your Song. I have seen each note it is beautiful to my ears. --ARoseWolf 14:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for saying that! It means a lot to me. And all the best wishes to you, as well! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December: story · music · places

Today, I have a special story to tell, of the works of a musician born 300 years ago. - I wish you a good festive season and a peaceful New Year! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gerda! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! The Nativity scene on the Pulpit in the Pisa Baptistery by Nicola Pisano is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Johnbod! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tryptofish! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Chris Troutman (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Chris! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2024 and every year thereafter!! 🎉🥳🎊🎈🙌🏻🥂🍾🎆🎇 Atsme 💬 📧 20:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And to you, too! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It got lost in the shuffle, but my "serious distortion" comment in the EEng ANI thread was an error. I had taken "prefers the indef over a civility restriction that puts a target on his back" to be an accurate paraphrase of his statement, but it was not. I didn't see your objection to the distortion comment until ater the mess had closed. While "self-requesting an indef" wasn't an entirely accurate summary of the original statement either, it wasn't a "serious distortion", just oversimplification of a nuanced statement (suggesting that a block he'd appeal later would be better than continued community time wasted debating about him), and closer to the original than "prefers the indef over a civility restriction that puts a target on his back".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and no worries! I appreciate your message, and I'm not at all bothered over it. As you say, the discussion had become a mess. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recently came across this category [28]. It was created by a user who runs a podcast on Sentientism. The problem is there is a lack of sourcing describing Sentientists and how to define this term. Brian Greene is in the category but there is no mention of sentientism on his article, nor most of the others. We do have an article on Sentiocentrism. The article is not well sourced and most of the sources on the article do not use the term sentientism. Per WP:OR I think the category might have to be removed. It is rare to come across any modern academic literature defining someone as a "sentientist". I was thinking about taking it to afd but wanted to ask for some advice about this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not sure what to say. I'm unfamiliar with the term, which of course says more about me than about it. Have you looked to see whether it's discussed on the animal rights page? As I see it, the worst that would happen if you take it to WP:CfD (not Afd, since it's a category) would be that consensus would go towards keeping it. My suggestion is that you make sure you've done enough WP:BEFORE, and then go ahead with the CfD nom, and also leave a note about the CfD at Talk:Sentiocentrism (where I see there has been past discussion about whether or not these are two different things. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I've seen your post at the Newkirk talk page, but didn't reply. A lot of the idiosyncrasies of these pages comes from edits from a long time ago, by editors who are no longer here. (You can see my scars from such discussions in talk page archives circa 2009–12.) A fair amount of this is stuff where I think you can feel free to be WP:BOLD. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are references for Sentiocentrism I will re-write the article at some point, that term is used in animal ethics literature. Unfortunately the category Sentientists is entirely WP:OR because no references describe any of the people in the category with that term. I will probably take it to afd.

Based on what I have seen, about 15-16 years ago Gary Francione was heavily inserted into animal rights articles from a bad POV. It needs to be made clear his position is a fringe one. Many articles like Tom Regan that were created a long time ago have no criticism. Any random newbie to the subject will be under the false impression that Francione's or Regan's ideas have been accepted. The animal rights article has a small "critics" section but it is mostly outdated. There are many critics of animal rights, I expanded this category [29]. In the future I will be working in this area. WP:WPAR has many members but I am the only user who has been willing to add criticisms of animal rights. I believe this is one area that needs to be expanded for neutrality purposes. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this. When I first started editing, undoing the POV in that topic area was a major concern for me, and the problem was especially bad. If you take a look at this: [30], you can get an idea of what I was dealing with. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I had little communication with SlimVirgin but I have scanned some of these articles and this user around 2009 was editing a lot of animal rights articles. They were actually active editing animal rights content as early as 2005 as seen on the Tom Regan article. It's probably a case that this user had emotional interest in the topic and did not want certain critical coverage on Wikipedia. I did actually email SlimVirgin once and asked them if they wanted to join WP:VAV, they never replied me. In the past I confused that user with another user Flyer22. 3 days before Flyer22 passed on she sent me an email reply telling me she wasn't joining WP:VAV because she is leaving Wikipedia but she hopes I continue to work on the WikiProject. It's quite hard to find neutral users in this topic area. I mostly edit historical articles that are non-controversial. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely two different editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

--Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the Main page: the person who made the pictured festival possible --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Yesterday was a friend's birthday, with related music. - I'm on vacation - see places. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, as serendipity would have it, I recently heard this criticism on an episode of Sean Carroll's podcast,[31] but I don't think it was from a neuroscientist. IIRC, it was from someone outside that field. Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for that edit summary is that the content is a criticism of artificial neural networks, not of the biological type. I have no opinion about whether or not it's an issue with artificial networks. (I made that edit in the context of a multi-editor effort that is trying to separate out the content of biological and artificial neural networks, so I was just removing a little more after another editor had, appropriately, removed a lot.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I just thought it was a weird coincidence that I recently heard it and saw your edit. Viriditas (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you don't listen to Sean Carroll's podcast, take a look at the episodes and see if any might interest you. It's particularly fun when he strikes a groove with a guest and they get into rapid-fire banter back and forth, as if they are old friends at a cocktail party. Viriditas (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a section on "Neuroscience" to Sun in an Empty Room, but I would appreciate your eyes on this. In addition to this, Livingstone writes, "It is not only our perceptions of lightness and color that are local and opponent; virtually every sensory experience we have is computed by local opponent mechanisms. That is because the basic circuit of every part of our brains is the same and uses the same local inhibitory feedback mechanisms. You might think that by definition the three-dimensional, or spatial, organization of a scene would be a global property of that scene. But actually the computations about depth begin in early visual areas with small local receptive fields. You are probably aware that illuminated objects cast shadows, but if you look at a lot of paintings from different centuries, in Eastern art nobody seems to have noticed shadows until quite recently, and in Western art, Leonardo da Vinci seems to have been the first to make a systematic study of how shadows really look. For centuries artists have ignored the laws of physics, and our visual systems don’t much care. Because computations about depth from shading and illumination of objects begin with local computations, images do not have to be globally consistent in order to generate a satisfactory sensation of depth and shadow. Our visual systems do not bother to ascertain whether the laws of physics are being obeyed, because it is generally a safe assumption that they are, and even if they weren’t being obeyed there is not much use in knowing about it. So, despite the current enthusiasm for veridical light rays bouncing Newtonianly off various objects, artists can safely ignore the laws of physics, sometimes with odd consequences. If you look mindfully at medieval paintings, you are likely to find shadows that make no sense, even though they adequately fulfill their purpose of suggesting a light source and a solid body." I wasn't sure how to add or represent this part in the section I have. If you think you can add any of this to what I already have, please do so. Viriditas (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: if you want to get credit for a DYK, feel free to formulate an ALT and add it to Template:Did you know nominations/Sun in an Empty Room. Viriditas (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the wording of what you wrote is fine from a neuroscience perspective. I've added some links that I think will help (and I also think that more scientific detail would be undue). I like the DYK hook that you wrote. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hopper is one of my favorite artists, by the way. Also, when I was an undergrad, Livingstone was a grad student, and was my TA in a course that I took. I remember her being rude to me, but I'm pretty sure she's mellowed since then. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The connections between Hopper and filmmaking are quite interesting. He was not just a fan of the cinema, but it seems that his frequent attendance at the movies also influenced his style (haven't seen anything written about this) which led his paintings in turn to influence film directors and others (lots about his influence on Hitchcock, for example). What do you make of the controversy on Livingstone's biography page? Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about that until now. I'd have to know more about the details of the specific monkey studies, to have an opinion on the ethics of that particular research. Hubel and Weisel, with whom she trained, did very important research, with real health benefits, using similar methods. I'm a defender of animal research, so long as it's done according to the law, and with proper oversight (see Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember if we discussed this before or not, but I recall, several years ago, reading about how a lot of traditional animal testing could be replicated using computer models, but it's been too long for me to remember the details. Have you heard anything about this, or do you think it's still mostly science fiction? Viriditas (talk) 08:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Computational biology is definitely something useful. But a computer can only tell you about whatever has been inputted into it (even true for advanced AI, which just gets a lot more input). "Garbage in, garbage out", so to speak. So if you want to find out what actually happens in living systems, you have to examine living systems, and often this means testing in a living system. One of my earliest (and most trying) content disputes during my wiki-career was over trying to make the animal testing versus animal rights content here NPOV. (Some further details about that in #Sentientists, a short way above.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the link to Edward Hopper in the hook due to several discussions we've had about this on the DYK talk page. Basically, what happens is, whenever the link to the primary article hook comes after a preceding link, the preceding link steals views away from the hook, which defeats the purpose of the hook in the first place. The point of DYK is to increase views to the linked hook, not to the other links. Viriditas (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to the original discussion. Linking to a preceding link resulted in what can conceivably be the worst possible result—nobody visited the article I wrote. So, I learned my lesson. Viriditas (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I didn't know about this new rule. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the blame rests on my construction of the hook. If I had put more thought into it, I could have linked Edward Hopper after the article link, but the seven day deadline was rapidly approaching and I didn't have any ALTs. If you're interested, I will ask for your help creating a new Hopper hook in the next week or two, and this time create a buffer for more lead time so that there's no rush. That way, we can link to Hopper in the next hook. Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No big deal, as far as I'm concerned. What is more important is that you made a fine new article, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to put something together later tonight. Stay on your toes! Viriditas (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I can barely stand upright! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided on Intermission (Hopper). Whenever you have time to come up with a hook, please do so. Otherwise, I will prod you for ideas after the article is created. Of course you are free to start or contribute. Viriditas (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you have a minute, I would appreciate it if you look into what Hopper meant when he called the woman in the painting an "egghead". This kind of slang is before my time and I'm not sure what he meant by it. My guess, based on what I've seen in terms of definitions online, is this was an old term for what we might call a "nerd" today, but I'm not sure. I think it has more academic or professorial connotations, I really don't know. I think the other reason I'm confused is because Hopper's wife said other things about the woman that make me think "egghead" means something else. It's actually a bit confusing. My guess, based on what I've read, is that he meant she was more of a bookworm, but I'm just throwing that out there. Trying to figure out what Hopper meant is not a light task. Viriditas (talk) 08:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like according to egghead, Hopper might have been deriding her as a liberal? Viriditas (talk) 08:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I found a source that I think helps answer the "egghead" question (or at least gives an RS for an opinion about it): [32]. It's annoying to scroll through, but an interesting read. It's a transcript of a radio discussion between Studs Terkel and Gail Levin (art historian), about Hopper's works. You have to scroll pretty far towards the end before coming to Intermission, but they talk about the meaning of "egghead" there. You can read for yourself what they say, but I think it goes much more towards "nerd", with a bit of "bookworm" or "absent-minded professor", than towards anything about politics. The idea they have is that the theater is a place with many people, but this one person stayed behind, deep in thought, while everyone else had gone out to the lobby. (Levin speculates that it is Hopper's wife Josephine, waiting for him to come back or pausing before joining him in the lobby.) It's sort of like a lonely figure who thinks deeply and is disconnected from the rest of the crowd that were in the theater. Other sources like this: [33], quote Josephine as describing the woman as not being the type to take her shoes off, which similarly sound to me like someone a bit awkward. I also think it's interesting that Edward and Josephine named the woman "Nora".

Another thing: it looked odd to me that the image of Solitary Figure isn't the standard "thumb" format. I assume you used "gallery" because you intend to add more images? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeppers. Nice work. I started adding a bit here. Viriditas (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried coming with some hooks? The clock is ticking on this. Also, please feel free to add some of the material up above that you found. Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I'm very limited for time, so you shouldn't wait for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe: DYK... that the woman in the 1963 painting Intermission was described by Edward Hopper as an egghead? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's one. Can you come up with a few others? Viriditas (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on time. Don't count on me for it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we have another couple days. Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have another couple days. As the old joke goes, I've stopped buying green bananas. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny how idioms can be regionally specific. I try to always buy green bananas in Hawaii, otherwise the bananas will go bad very fast. Not true in cooler climates, I believe. Viriditas (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Template:Did you know nominations/Intermission (Hopper) to your watchlist. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)The intermission. Gosh, I vaguely remember that. The usher would get her brief starring-role, with a little tray of choc-ices and fruit lollies. While the big screen tempted you to the wonderfully exotic world of Kia-Ora orange drink, Butterkist popcorn, and Wrestler's Hot Dogs. I really miss Pearl & Dean. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Double entendres duly noted. If I weren't such a dignified fish, I'd tell your wrestlers what to do with their buns. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ooooh, "hark at her!" I'll have you know, ButtKiss was a real brand! Norman Buttkiss 123 (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like someone needs an intermission! --Norman Conquest (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All joking aside, intermissions should return to the cinema, not just because films are much longer these days, but because slow movement has so many benefits for society. This idea that everything needs to be fast, efficient, monetized, and in and out, is destroying civilization. The promise of technology is that it was supposed to free humanity from labor and monotonous work and deliver increased leisure time for people to pursue not just entertainment, but contemplation. This idea has been completely lost. An intermission forces the audience to reflect upon a work of art and think about it. It's the opposite of something like binge-watching which makes reflection and contemplation impossible. Viriditas (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How very true. People get so tense, after three hours, they start planning armageddon.... Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have that solved. I watch films on my TV, On Demand, and take bathroom breaks whenever I want to. (Whether that makes me a châtelain, I leave to others.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly do not understand how anyone could sit for three hours in a single sitting. I really do like Nolan, but he's wrong on this one. He could have easily designed bathroom breaks into the film, but given how wrong he was about Tenet and his decision to place the value of the visuals and action above the audience hearing the dialogue (he's surprisingly on record about this, which is even more damning), I think he's lost touch with what audiences expect. Viriditas (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't seen that one yet. But I'll admit to having loved watching Barbie. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh! Is that Miss?? Yummy! Martinevans123 (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No comment. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And in this week's thrilling Dancing with the Stars, the lovely leggy "Tuxi" performs a stunning Cuban two-step, with the equally lovely and hated war criminal Vlad, to the rousing sound of the Trump Civil Fraud Anthem? Ah, bless. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not just leggy: [34]. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, how very revealing. If I were you, I'd refuse to pay! Martinevans123 (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And he's not as foxy as he used to be. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

better not to cite a scientist as opposed to an art critic as a source for popularity

Sorry it came off that way, but Goldstein is a famous art essayist. Check out his biography for the details (at the bottom). He probably knows art better than most art critics. I will defer to your judgment, of course. Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[35]. Oh, not a matter of how it came off. And I don't dispute that; it's a pretty erudite essay. But looking at it from the perspective of a general reader, it doesn't sound like he's an art expert, and I saw this as a way of avoiding that concern while also tightening up the sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See! [36]. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should add a DYK ALT for the Covid content? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the content is strong enough for a good hook just yet. There's an enormous amount of sources, so maybe I will find one soon. Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. If you find a source that you like for it, maybe it could be something like "... that the 1963 painting Intermission became part of a meme about the COVID-19 pandemic?" --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking only for myself, I'm looking for three things in a hook: hookiness, interestingness, and tight, solid, unambiguous sourcing. I wouldn't add "1963 painting" because we want people to be curious about what Intermission is or isn't. For example, there's a little bit of mystery involved when you read "Intermission can be viewed as a metaphor for the world as theater". I think that's one way of leaving the reader wanting to know more. Is it a painting or an actual intermission? Will it encourage readers to click the article? Does the reader need the context that it's a painting? There are different styles of hooks. Some of the best hooks are forms of double entendres or somewhat open ended; some are straightforward, no nonsense retelling of historical facts. There isn't one kind of hook. The sourcing that I'm looking at regarding the meme could be used for a hook, but I would personally wait until something better comes up. Feel free to look around and find one you like. I don't have access to Wikipedia Library, but if you do, that might be the place to look. Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For me too, those same three things are important. And I often feel like I don't care that much about "rules" for hooks. In this particular case, I feel like just saying "Intermission" is too mysterious, in a way that conflicts with being encyclopedic (although, again, I don't feel strongly about it). It might make me not care to click through, instead of being curious. (For that matter, I don't really agree with the idea that there shouldn't be any blue links before the main one.) But none of this is a hill that I would want to die on. I think it's something that can be settled by whoever ends up reviewing it. Actually, there is also a middle ground, between "that Illumination" and "that the 1963 painting Illumination": "that the painting Illumination". Saying what it is, is more useful than specifying the year (although, in the case of a Covid hook, the year provides information about the foreshadowing aspect). Whatever. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is one of the few places where you can submit short, somewhat ambiguous hooks that draw interest and views. I wouldn’t describe it as "unencyclopedic", it’s more of a style for creating clickbait and driving readers to your article. In any case, I just found a new source to expand other sections of the article.[37]. If you feel like taking a look, have at it, as there’s some good stuff we can use and you might find a hook there as well. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it, and it's a good read about the Hoppers overall, but there's only a brief, passing mention of Intermission, unless I missed something else. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but the interesting part is the quotes from O'Doherty. You can find the full interview beginning here. That's what the NYT cites. Viriditas (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I've got to say, I really enjoy the way O'Doherty writes. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why and I can’t undo it and as I’m on my iPad won’t try to fix it? If there wasn’t a good reason I’m tempted to block. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need to block. It looks like one of those wiki-glitches that keep happening with edit conflicts at ANI. They posted a good faith edit, but in so doing reverted my edit and an edit by someone else. And tracking that down froze my computer. Sheesh! (But thanks for checking with me!) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. I think others, including me, are having a freezing problem.Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Editing of large page times out repeatedly and won't finish loading Doug Weller talk 19:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI edits are all fixed now, I think. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear that. Doug Weller talk 20:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A promising treatment? Atsme 💬 📧 12:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^{( Buttinsky)} It seems to have been promising for a few years now, and the cynic in me would say that 'shows promise' is journal-speak for 'doesn't work'. Bon courage (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I forgot what we were talking about... OK, more seriously, I agree with BC. Very unlikely to have lasting benefits. Good for diagnosing the blood clots in my leg (ultrasound, that is), but amyloid plaques aren't kidney stones (so to speak). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Putting that another way, breaking up plaques won't reestablish disrupted synapses. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, when it comes to neuroscience, I'm apparently not constructive: [38] (but [39]). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gratifying. Bon courage (talk) 06:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tryptofish. Just wanted to stop by and let you know that I have no hard feelings towards you over our recent disagreements. I am glad we have avoided personalizing the dispute, and I look forward to collaborating with you in the future! HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and – of course! – I have no hard feelings to you, either. For those watching here, we are talking about Wikipedia talk:Banning policy#Semantic markup. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You persistently remain able to disagree with fellow editors while embracing kindness and patience. A few weeks of less than kind comments had worn me down. You and another editor disagreeing with me kindly did wonders for me feeling better about the project. Thank you. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And you are very welcome. (This is about: [40].) I'm sorry that you felt worn down, but I certainly know from personal experience how that feels. I guess saying what I said there is a big part of what I see me doing in this project. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are great at so much more than just being kind but I do see that as a major part of your contributions to this encyclopedia community. You have always been kind and understanding even the few times we disagreed. You even managed to get me to see your points and adjust my wiki-philosophy about somethings. Keeping the heat down in discussions will almost always yield the same results for the discussion without the necessary drama associated with raised tempers and hurt feelings. I've always seen you as somewhat of a "smoother", whether it's high points or low points, you bring everything level. We are here ultimately to build and improve on this encyclopedia. However, any one who thinks that building the community in the process is not equally important is foolish and the only way to do that is through civil interactions. It's not what you accomplish in life but how you accomplished what you did. You, my friend, are a big part of why I am here. So, I celebrate you with Pbritti. --ARoseWolf 11:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And you just made my day! Thanks so much for that! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Even when what I said doesn't work: [41]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Every editor is a human being. We don't have to always be in agreement but we can always operate with understanding. There are so many ways to get our point across without being mean. We shouldn't need a policy to tell us to be nice and respectful in our interactions. --ARoseWolf 12:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. And after a bit of time for it to sink in, I really appreciate your description of "smoothing". I had never thought about it that way before, but now that you pointed it out to me, I like it very much, and feel honored that you would say it about me. It also occurs to me to say that I often see the queries from new and confused editors on your talk page. Myself, I'm not particularly wired to explain things patiently to people who are confused about such basic stuff, but I really do recognize the value of what you do in helping those editors get on track. Well done! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But you do know that you are always welcome, as is any editor that watches my talk page, to comment if you have thoughts to contribute. If you didn't know that you do now. You have been a steadfast support for me when I needed advice and you've been a valued friend when I needed words of encouragement or a quick laugh. Even when we disagreed I have always taken your words to heart and evaluated my position because I am confident in your advice and trust it. You are a true gem. Thank you for all you do. --ARoseWolf 15:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 7,819 views (651.6 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of March 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Viriditas (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And to you, too! You started the page, and I just came along for the ride. (We are now both officially eggheads.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just read something funny in Kandel's Principles of Neural Science (Sixth Edition): "Caffeine can produce mild physical dependence but does not result in compulsive use." Have the authors ever visited a Starbucks at 7 in the morning? Viriditas (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or me, at any time of the morning before I have my cup! Definitely should be Schedule 1! (Not to name drop, but I met Kandel, and he's a lovely person. Pseudo-related, but I added an image to our page on George Aghajanian.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, that's a nice image. I'm reading about how "BMIs can restore lost brain processing capabilities". Couldn't this also be used to augment the problem-solving process in healthy brains? For example, could you give ten practicing climate scientists BMI "caps" that would allow them to come up with better solutions for stabilizing the temperature of the Earth within a shorter time-frame (decades instead of centuries)? Or is this just a science fiction short story that I'm working on? Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. (I'm taking BMI to mean brain-machine interface.) In theory, this should be possible. Of course, it's way too early in the experimental process to do this now (especially for a noninvasive cap that one could put on and then take off, as opposed to inserting stuff through someone's skull), and there are immense ethical considerations. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, c'mon Trypto. Wikipedia needs volunteers!! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out, Viriditas, Martin has a bridge he wants to sell us. On the other hand, Bill Maher says that, if necessary, he's going to vote for Biden's head in a jar of blue liquid if the alternative is Trump, which is pretty much how I feel. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Um, would it improve his memory at all?) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. I thought Maher's memory was pretty good already. /deliberate evasion of the question. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. "You want bridges? We got bridges! A little tuck, a little seam... you'll look great!" .... I'll bid 4 billion No Trumps! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bridges? We don't need no stinkin' bridges! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Trypto, for making me laugh out loud. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I think of the upcoming US election, I think we all need a bit of cheering up. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry... you're not alone there. I'm personally interested in psychedelics, too. But responsibly-farmed beaver just doesn't look good on me... **sob** Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, don't feel too bad. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But if you are looking.... there's a handy replacement in stock? Only £5M, and you get a free peerage thrown in! Apply: R Sunak (Downing Street Deals Ltd.) 12:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See! He is trying to sell us a bridge! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for those brain caps, if you put "transcranial" into our search box, numerous results come up for technologies that exist so far. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I guess what I'm getting at is what does it really mean to augment problem-solving? We were just talking about caffeine, which is known to help some people with focus and attention, but when you talk to people who have given it up, one begins to wonder if that is true across the board, instead of just in specific circumstances and individuals. We have many examples of people like Paul Erdős, who were known to take stimulants to help them work on math problems, but this might just be another example similar to people who drink coffee, albeit a bit more extreme. So, beyond simple so-called nootropics and cognitive enhancers, could a BMI, at the end of the day, really help with problem-solving, and how could it conceivably work in theory? I ask, because when I read about people who have worked on difficult ideas, one thing that always seems to come up is this idea that you have to go out of your mind (not in terms of mental illness, but the notion of getting outside of your own head) to find the solution. Some people have characterized this as thinking outside of the box, while others have said that they had to set aside their training in one discipline to see it anew from afar, such as thinking about the problem from another discipline altogether, even one they weren't trained in. Then they could take those insights and apply them to their own work. This reminds me of what researchers found in study subjects who took LSD, that "disparate regions in the brain communicate with each other when they don't normally do so", although trying to apply these results to creativity research isn't really recognized by most scientists. Viriditas (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are very interesting questions, I think. A lot of it comes down to scale or focus. What I mean is that we aren't going to augment problem-solving by stimulating or modulating the brain as a whole, or even a larger-than-microscopic portion of it. It probably requires getting to the scale of single neurons. For one thing, we don't know which ones. And for another, we can just recently do that by inserting electrodes surgically, but we are years away from being able to triangulate magnetic fields or electrical currents with that kind of resolution. And it's not even a matter of getting out of accustomed patterns of thought, but of doing that in a way that actually draws upon some high-level reasoning or database, as opposed to just feeling "stimulated" or "uninhibited". As I've said in the past, I'm personally interested in psychedelics. But I've also recently become concerned about ethical and methodological issues that have been reported about the earlier studies ([42]). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I have this discussion, I'm always drawn back to the neuroscience of sleep and sleep and creativity. Results are still accumulating.[43] Viriditas (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has it really been another year gone by? [44]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of time, when I first heard the Bangles cover Simon & Garfunkel’s 1966 song "A Hazy Shade of Winter" in 1987, I knew it was going to be a classic. I’m happy to say that the song has made a resurgence in recent years, in small part due to Stranger Things, the best show you’ve never seen! Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the good old days, we would have renamed WP:Talk page guidelines as WP:Toilet paper guidelines. In a nutshell: Over, not under. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recall you are very good at distilling ideas and concepts into smaller, bite-size chunks. You frequently do this, for example, to avoid undue weight. I need your kind of expertise to help do this with content about Babe Ruth. I have posted a brief comment over at Talk:Babe Ruth#Tobacco. There is a link in that discussion to sources and content. No hurry on this. I hope we can continue this on the Babe Ruth talk page. Viriditas (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked, and I'm not sure what exactly you want me to do. I can see that it's about adding some additional content about his cause of death, either at the bio page, or at the page about his death and funeral, and the latter is under GA review. It sounds like you'd like me to look at a proposed passage somewhere, and see if I can copyedit it to make it more succinct, but I don't know where to find it. I'd be happy to do it, once I know what to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What, you can't read minds? Viriditas (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already knew that you would say that. (joke) When you have something specific, just let me know. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will briefly summarize the issue: our featured article on Babe Ruth doesn't mention anything about Ruth's lifelong use of tobacco, which may have contributed to his death from nasopharyngeal cancer. This is not surprising since Ruth died in 1948, and the topic about Ruth and tobacco didn't enter the literature until much later, after 1987. (The larger background context of this health discussion starting from 1964 until 2014 is covered by the CDC in "The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General", so if you want to refer back to that I have linked it for you.)

It looks like the precipitating event for bringing Ruth into this discussion started the year previously, when in 1986, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop published The Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking, the first official report to detail the "harmful effects of secondhand smoke". My understanding is that this was the clarion call for the beginning of smoking bans and smoke-free spaces, and one can plainly see a steady decline in smoking from 1986 levels until today. Late in 1987, Randal J. Thomas and John D. Cantwell, both of the Georgia Baptist Medical Center in Atlanta, sent a signed letter to JAMA (v258i15) which was quite ingenious in its scope.

As you know, these letters to JAMA often highlight patient case studies that physicians bring to the attention of the wider community for discussion. Thomas & Cantwell structured their 1987 letter in this format, using language such as "A case in point is that of a 53-year-old man with an 18-month history of progressive dysphonia and dysphagia, accompanied by weight loss and easy fatigability. He had had no significant prior medical problems." You can see where this is going. "Significant health risk factors included the heavy use of chewing tobacco and alcohol for nearly 45 of his 53 years, along with smoking approximately 30 cigars daily for about 30 years". Nothing out of the ordinary, right?

By the end of the letter we are surprised to discover that the writers aren't discussing their patient at all, but rather "In life, his markers were towering home runs and all-night parties; in death, his marker read simply "George Herman 'Babe' Ruth." So, this was a brilliant way of reopening the Babe Ruth case file, particularly during a new era of tobacco health research. From this initial letter came more, and from those, many new sources about Babe Ruth's death.

Nadim B. Bikhazi eventually got permission from Ruth's family to study the autopsy files in this regard. Bikhazi's article, "'Babe' Ruth's Illness and Its Impact on Medical History" was published in The Laryngoscope in 1999,[45], with Maloney et. al publishing similar material in 2008 ("A comprehensive analysis of Babe Ruth's head and neck cancer").[46] Although you may find relevant material in those links, I have also summarized the proposed content over here.

Basically, we want to come up with one or two sentences that summarize Ruth's lifelong use of tobacco and its potential risk which may have contributed to his cancer. In this regard, the NYT reported, "While there is no evidence that tobacco killed him, Dr. Bikhazi said it probably played a part."[47] Viriditas (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I did see what you said in the GA review. So the bottom line is to come up with an additional sentence or two about this, and how to word that. Would this be for both the bio page and the death and funeral page, or would it differ between the two pages? I'll give this some further thought, but one thing that stands out to me on a quick look is that we need to avoid any SYNTH, and base it only on the sources that actually are about Ruth (not those that are about health effects in general). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, it would be for both pages. I acknowledge your concern about SYNTH; I only provided the extraneous material to show how and why the interest in Ruth's death and tobacco arose in the 1980s. Viriditas (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll think on it, and propose some language at Talk:Babe Ruth#Tobacco. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Like I said, there's no hurry, so take as much time as you want. Viriditas (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. "Why couldn’t I have thought of that?" Viriditas (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure if this will help the "vibes" feeling you expressed at my RfA, but I'm pictured in this photograph. This is from when I attended Wikipedia Day a few months ago in Toronto. I'm in the green. Umm... maybe this isn't quite the reassurance you were looking for and you still have whatever you saw in me that concerned you. If that's the case, I do hope that maybe I can alleviate that concern someday. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Clovermoss! I'm actually quite flattered that you (or anyone, for that matter) would care enough about my opinion to still be thinking of what I said then. But to whatever degree my opinion at that time has caused you any discomfort, please let me very sincerely apologize to you for that.

Since you've brought this up, I'm going to try to explain where my concern came from, without disclosing anything that I cannot disclose publicly. A long time ago, I happened to see you post a comment on a talk page, that reminded me of someone who is banned from Wikipedia. It sounded to me like something they would have said, and they are known to be a prolific and skillful socker. That said, it's 90% likely that the similarity was just a random coincidence, in which case my suspicion would just be an injustice to you. That's why I only went "neutral" and no further: I wanted to see if what I did post would ring a bell with anyone else, without posting anything that would be explicitly unfounded and a personal attack. Nobody else shared my concern, and I think in hindsight that I should not have even posted what I did. Sorry.

For reasons that I cannot post, I have a hunch that I know who the sockmaster is, and what they look like. (It's not, to my knowledge, a view held by others, and it rests on some questionable evidence, not enough for me to forward to functionaries.) I've just been looking very closely at your photo, and some photos of them. And I hate to say this, but there's a resemblance, just enough that I don't feel comfortable saying outright that I was wrong. It's not quite an exact resemblance, so I was probably wrong. That's where I'm at: I'm probably wrong.

I know that's terribly unfair to you, if as is probable, I'm insinuating something that isn't at all your fault. But I want to be honest in what I post in this reply.

But here's what's more important than any of that. As far as I'm aware, you've been doing an excellent job as an admin, and as a member of the community. For Wikipedia purposes, that's what matters. Not some fish's idiosyncratic hunch. Keep up the good work, and know that you have nothing to worry about from me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to try and put your mind at ease since obviously something about me bothered you. And I've always been relatively open about myself so sharing a photo didn't seem like a big deal since I've attended events. I admit to being a bit disappointed that it isn't enough and that you apparently see a resemblance. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sincerely sorry that I ended up leaving you feeling disappointed. Please don't let this make you feel bad. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only other thing I can think of would be this? That's me at WCNA. It's a bit more than a photograph and you can hear my voice (it's before I cut my hair a few months ago, it used to be quite long). I think it's human nature to find situations like this disheartening. I've spent a lot of time thinking about how I could prove that I am exactly who I say I am, but I've come to the conclusion that it's likely going to be impossible to convince you 100%. I know you've said that you think I'm a good admin but it's kind of hard not to focus on the you think I resemble a banned editor part. I think my reaction to that is quite reasonable, all things considered. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't matter what I think. After all, as I often say here, it's only a website. And for that matter, I'm only some random person on the Internet. I recognize that it's true that it's only human nature for this to keep tugging at you, but I really wish that it didn't. I'm 68 years old, and I can certainly think of many times during my own life when someone's criticism of me stuck in my mind much more than someone else's compliments, and much more than, by rights, I should have let it. But I can also give you my sincere advice to just let this one go. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The video didn't do it then? I can move on, I was just hoping that (like the photo), it might be enough. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The video actually looks even more like that person. Alas, probably just a coincidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Jaguar padding by... I'm only some random person on the Internet And we all thought you were only some random fish in the net. And apparently an old experienced one at that! JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I figured you were a disease, which shows how little I know. But no sugar-coating it, I'm old. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to have to try much harder if you want to be the 2024 candidate for the Curmudgeon of the Year award. Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If nominated, I will not run, and if elected, I will not serve. Now, get off my lawn. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[48]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the article on information overload:

It would be impossible for an individual to read all the academic papers published in a narrow speciality, even if they spent all their time reading. A response to this is the publishing of systematic reviews such as the Cochrane Reviews. Richard Smith argues that it would be impossible for a general practitioner to read all the literature relevant to every individual patient they consult with and suggests one solution would be an expert system for use of doctors while consulting.

This would be fascinating to continue in a separate article about this subject. However, I have no idea what the topic would be called. It's not quite information overload in medicine but more of a subject about how experts can keep in touch with the latest studies. Anyway, I'm a bit overextended as I'm working on two different articles (one offline) at the moment. But I'm curious if you have any input as to what this kind of article would be called. It would probably fall under psychology, but I'm just guessing. BTW, these so-called expert systems have been around as startups forever. Not sure if they ever got off the ground as I was only familiar with their development in the 1990s, which is like a century ago in internet time. Viriditas (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like one could call it the story of my life. I can attest, from personal experience, that it's a thing, and has been for decades, doubtlessly only getting worse with time. I'm sure it's true for clinical medical practice, and I know it's true for medical research, but I'd also say that it's true for science in general, and very well may apply to other academic disciplines. It's an adverse side-effect of "publish or perish". My gut reaction is that it probably belongs where we have it now, as a section of the information overload page, rather than spinning it out into a standalone page. Probably could be expanded, there. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, agreed. What I'm getting at though, is an entirely different topic. It may already exist, I don't know. Something having to do with "the ability to keep current in your field". Viriditas (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so more like becoming "dead wood", becoming a patient safety issue. I don't have any suggestions at the moment, but you might get some ideas by looking through Category:Health care quality. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, kind sir! Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kind^{[citation needed]} sir^{[citation needed]}. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pit bull attacks are often perceived as taking place "without warning"

Just a note, this recently happened to me. I was very lucky because the dog was young and small (female, less than a year old). It went for my right hand first, and then my groin, with no advance warning, and wouldn't let go. Normally, I'm very good with dogs and have no issues, but I suspect the young owner was the problem and didn't know what they were doing. I immediately relaxed every muscle in my body and went completely limp, and the owner was able to get them to let go. Although most people recommend other drastic self-defense measures, I think you have to use the ones that come most naturally in the moment based on the circumstances. I immediately judged that the age of immaturity of the dog did not demand an aggressive defense posture. By relaxing and going completely limp, my skin and flesh was less taut, less rigid, and more malleable, and aside from redness and bruising, that was the worst of it. I think if I had tried to resist and pull away, there could have been major tissue damage. I would say "good times", but it really wasn't. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You displayed impressive control. I have fortunately avoided dog attacks such as you describe. But my default (and unquestionably faulty) response, for which I have prepared to a certain extent, would be to eliminate the attacker with extreme prejudice. I am glad your approach proved to be a good one. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 09:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My guess, and I could be wrong, is that given its age, the dog was at the very end of the teething phase. Viriditas (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I almost forgot to mention the second failed attack that happened back in January. I was on a nature walk late at night to stargaze in my neighborhood, when one of the neighbor's pits got loose and was running the streets looking for trouble. As I was crossing the street to make my way back to my place, this dog comes literally out of nowhere and starts barking, staring me down. To keep my wits, I remembered to show no fear; I was trying not to laugh at the absurdity of the situation because if I did laugh it could make the dog angrier than it already was. At first I thought the poor dog must be rabid, because it was in the middle of the street doing this with a weird look on its face. I thought I could hear whistling in the distance, perhaps it was Ennio Morricone? I must have imagined it. Now I could hear flamenco clapping, straight out of Santa Esmeralda. We stared each other down. Was that tumbleweed rolling by? We stood in place like it was a gunfight at the O.K. Corral. It was then that I realized that the dog was scared and slightly lost and couldn't get back home, but at the same time, it was overly aggressive and wouldn't let me get close enough to read its tag and help it. As luck would have it, a bicyclist showed up out of nowhere and saw the scene unfolding. The dog immediately got distracted and turned its head from me to them and was prepared to switch gears and go after them instead. Lucky me. The bicyclist slowed down; I quickly explained what was happening and asked them to slow even further down and go in the opposite direction as that would allow me to walk away from the dog as its Homer Simpson-like attention span quickly forgot about me and decided to pursue another moving target, albeit one that was faster than them. And that's how I made my way back home. Viriditas (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Flamenco clapping is possibly not recommended as a distraction strategy for pit bulls. You could try Filipino? Or maybe you really need to just use one hand (the one without the dog teeth embedded...) Martinevans123 (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bride vs. O-Ren Ishii Viriditas (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I make a few cleanup edits to a page that Atsme asked me to watch ([49]), and when I log in the next day, I have 15 new messages. Rolls eyes. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme's bark is much worse that her bite, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many little bits does it take to make one bite? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly more than one dog year. Viriditas (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I for one, feel a bit dog-eared. Seems like it's all been going for donkey's years. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of dogs - I received a Common's notice: "Shamoople‬ left a message on your talk page." Based on recent experiences from there, I am hesitant to go. I've learned that stalkers derive some sort of pleasure using the element of surprise. Would you or another brave colleague let me know if it's safe? I don't know any user named Shmoople, and I doubt that it's going to be a pleasant message on Commons (which is usually an image when on Commons). Atsme 💬 📧 22:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All I see there are friendly messages about things like choosing good images. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the message was deleted by an admin on March 23.[50] It must have been pretty bad. Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's pretty bad alright.[51] It's still up on Wikidata. Wikidata admin needed! (Do not click that link...unless you want to.) Viriditas (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted.[52] Viriditas (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be clicking it. Thank you, Viriditas. I figured it might be that sick-o stalker. *sigh* Atsme 💬 📧 23:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me, the more I think about it, that this kind of thing really reflects the age of the person doing it. At my age, I would be far more upset at an image of a toenail with fungus or someone sticking their hands in a restaurant buffet. I suppose this is partly why profilers can generally give an accurate yet restricted age range to most crimes. In other words, your stalker must be very young. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So glad that neither of those gentlemen had toenail fungus or had hands in a restaurant buffet. Shucks, I thought it might be something cute... alas no. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am partial to a Doxle (Beagle x Dachshund). Cute little fellers. Viriditas (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't occur to me to check the talk page history until after I had logged out. Anyway, 'nuff said. Thanks for reverting it, Viriditas. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot to be said for that cross between the Dunker and the Ruski, affectionately known as the Du-Rex. Very protective, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm partial to the Du-Ron. But don't tell anyone about this. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, the flightless bald eagle crossed with that other famous lame duck? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's extremely rude to make fun of DeSantis' utter and abject failure to make an impact as a presidential candidate.

You should make fun of his gender-affirming care, instead. But only because he's so opposed to anyone else getting gender affirming care. MPantsTempAccount (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Temp Account! As always, so happy to see you here! As far as I'm concerned, if Radical Ron weren't governor, Hurricane Ian wouldn't have happened. And I have documents to prove it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"He made a mess of my dress and my heart stood still. Somebody told me that his name was Bill" etc. etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears I missed all the fun. You need a few more reliable sources before I can review this and move it to mainspace, Tryp. Do you have a COI with the subject? Something smells. --ARoseWolf 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'm utterly corrupt. But don't anyone mess with my Feathered Article! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be suggested as a separate statement? It seems an obvious idea, but defining it now looks like an idea that could help avoid issues in the future. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with that. And,  Done: [53]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Tryptofish! You don't have email enabled, which maybe means you don't want to interact via email, but if you're willing to, could you email me? Valereee (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Valereee. I generally don't like to conduct Wikipedia business via email, largely for privacy reasons. I'm also making a guess that you are contacting me about the current drama involving someone who is upset. That's something that I really do not want to discuss anymore. But if it's about something else, please drop a hint here, and I'll reconsider. Of course, I'm always happy to talk with you, so please don't feel like I'm brushing you off. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, and I totally understand. Tangentially related, although not in the way you're probably thinking of. Valereee (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Today's TFA, Felix M. Warburg House, was written by Vami_IV and Epicgenius, introduced: "This article is about another of the great houses that once lined Fifth Avenue in New York. Specifically, this is the mansion of Felix M. Warburg, a Jewish financier who ignored fears of anti-Semitic reprisal to his decided to build himself a big Gothic manor in the middle of New York City. Although the Warburgs no longer remain, their legacy does: the museum is now the home of the Jewish Museum (Manhattan) and the building largely survives as they left it. It's a beautiful building and I hope you will all enjoy it."! - in memory -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

today's story has a pic of a woman holding her cat, a DYK of 5 years ago - the recent pics show 2 orange tip butterflies --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today's story mentions a concert I loved to hear and a piece I loved to sing in choir, 150 years old OTD. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me why you reverted my edit on Doug Weller's page? How did that impact you in any way? MarydaleEd (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't impact me, per se. I did it because of WP:TPO and WP:REDACT. If you want to withdraw something you've posted, you can strike through it, as in: <s>strike through</s>. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now improved into a perfect article Nano-ayurvedic medicine and the sources are now accurate, so turning it into an article is better. 120.56.170.208 (talk) 08:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Let's just say you have an idiosyncratic understanding of the word "perfect". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FTN#Nano-ayurvedic medicine, again. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish, out of curiousity, have you ever met, sat down, and talked with someone who practices ayurvedic medicine? I have. What surprised me the most was the realization that they were practicing "medicine" from the 1st century BC. While on the one hand it boggled my mind, since it is, after all, 2024 right now, on the other hand, this isn't so strange when you think about all the old beliefs people have. Why do you think people continue to harbor old beliefs about reality when the new ones tend to explain the world, for the most part, in a much better way? Well, I asked the ayurvedic practitioner this very question. Their response? A perfectly, well-formed appeal to tradition. Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to give two answers, one as an editor, and the other as my offsite self.

My answer as an editor is that this content fails WP:MEDRS, and is beyond fixing. Full stop, and I don't want to discuss that any further, outside of the AfD discussion that is going on now. And I don't want to encourage this IP.

My answer as a scientist is also that I don't want to encourage this IP. In this particular case, the idea of doing ayurveda by way of nanoparticles is very much what another editor at the AfD rightly called "bollocks". More generally, I'm friendly to the idea that cultural traditions have, over long periods of time, discovered ways of providing health care that can turn out to be very real, and that should be made use of, rather than dismissed out of hand. The way that I try to distinguish between useful insights and bollocks is by seeing if there is a scientifically rational way to explain how the proposed treatment may work. As often happens, the nano-bollocks theory fails this criterion. As for why people find it so easy to harbor old beliefs even when evidence is right in front of their eyes, well, I'll answer that with another facepalm and a quick mention of MAGA. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have entirely misinterpreted what I wrote, but that doesn't matter, as I still enjoyed your answer. What I was getting at was experientially trying to figure these people out, not in any way encouraging them or legitimizing their behavior or ideas, but understanding their motivations and beliefs face to face, not on Wikipedia. The reason I raised this issue is because I live in Hawaii, and for whatever reason we have a large number of people who believe in this stuff. When COVID-19 first started, ayurvedic practitioners were the vanguard of COVID-19 denial. At the time, partly due to the lockdowns and with everyone being out and about in the sunshine, I got to talk to these people, in gonzo fashion. I took photographs, interviewed people involved in the protests, etc. The ayurvedic people I interviewed were part of what eventually became known as the early conspirituality movement, and they were really unusual. The gist of their argument was that modern medicine was lying to everyone, and worse, trying to "kill" them, so "logically" (in their mind, of course), they went back to the roots of medicine to see what worked in the past. When I politely brought up that humoral theory used by the Ancient Greeks was long past its due date and didn't seem to help anyone, their answer would always default to some form of an appeal to tradition. Just wanted to share what I learned firsthand, in the field, so to speak. Oh, and speaking of MAGA, there's a guy who goes to MAGA protests and films interviews with people in a similar manner on YouTube. They are considered some of the greatest videos of all time on the internet. He basically just asks them a very simple question about what they believe and then lets the wheels turn in their head and have their say. It's some of the most enlightening interviews on the subject available. That's kind of what I was going for and getting at. One thing I learned about the MAGA videos is that they don't really believe anything at all. It's some kind of received "wisdom", an eclectic nihilism, a smorgasbord of things they heard on Fox News. I suspect that's also true for the lower-level ayurvedic believers, but the ones who are actually in that field are probably engaged in some aspect of con artistry, but that's just my opinion. Viriditas (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm laughing at the combined facts that I misunderstood you, and I was still entertaining. I think I'm a bit stuck on two semi-related things: feeling annoyed at the IP, and feeling annoyed at the state of things in US politics. Anyway, I think it's relevant that your interviewees said that they thought modern (aka Western) medicine was not only lying, but trying to kill them. On the one hand, they were responding to something real: the American descendants of Europeans do have a history of, literally, exterminating native peoples. That's real, and it's something that needs to be taken seriously. But on the other hand, there's a phenomenon of people developing a sense of "self" based on their life experiences, even when there are cultural aspects of those life experiences that are not based on rational thought, and then seeing something that is merely rational and valid as being a fundamental threat to that sense of "self". And that becomes an existential threat, that must be fought back against. In turn, that gets folded into the human sense of us-them, something that got hard-wired when humans were nomadic hunter-gatherers. I think those kinds of things were going on in those discussions you had. I also think those kinds of thing play a role in people who believe that Trump's guilty verdicts were an attack on them, or believe that what I said about the extermination of native peoples needs to be purged from public school education. And if I'm going to be honest about myself, it may be something that contributed to my getting stuck on the things I just got stuck on. (Note: edit conflict with the additions you made to your comment.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Just FYI... I thought the guy who was an expert on interviewing MAGA was Jordan Klepper, but I think it was someone else. On that note, Klepper argues along the same lines as you do, but he attributes the problem to "identity", and MAGA has a hard time changing or discarding what they hold so dear, or as you put it, their sense of self. Viriditas (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found it! Don't know his name though: "TheUrglyTrue". This is the guy I was talking about, not Klepper. Viriditas (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His name is Jason Selvig and he's part of The Good Liars comedy duo. Viriditas (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits to Wikipedia:Banning policy.

Yeah, Labeled Section Transclusion is very weird. There might be a way to fix it so that people can directly edit those sections. I did something similar for the "edits on behalf of banned and blocked editors" thing. I could probably do something similar here. Awesome Aasim 20:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note about this. I'm not sufficiently tech-savvy to know the fix, but the font really looked bizarre to me. I'm glad you don't mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just created Barbara's Rhubarb Bar (can't figure out a way to relate it to Barbenheimer). My wonderful talk page participants are welcome to expand and improve it! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great work. I only see four things that could do with some expansion:

• More should be said about the backstory to the tongue twister. I can’t recall the exact details, but maybe it started out as a combination of nursery rhymes or teaching German language, I don’t know.
• More should be said about the technical compounding (iteration), perhaps how it differs from English or other languages. For example, the main difference is that there is no space between subsequent compound words, unlike English.
• More can be said about the most notable viral videos and succession of videos by internet celebrities, particularly the most unusual ones (the English version is particularly hilarious, as it tries to recreate it by closely translating it)
• More can be said about the German people and culture involved. There’s some weird tangential discussions about the origin of the word "barbarian" and what it originally meant, etc.

Again, great job. Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the very helpful feedback. I'll work on those things before going to DYK (which I think this page is tailor-made for). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Post is now deprecated on Wikipedia, so you’ll want to replace that source with another before nominating for DYK. See WP:RSP. Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Damn! I wondered about that, and checked WP:DEPS, where it isn't listed, so I thought it was OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you’re correct. It’s not technically deprecated, just "generally unreliable". This is because historical use of that source prior to 1976 is still acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been reading over the various discussions and RfCs linked from RSP, and there seems to be some sentiment that its reliability depends on what is being sourced to it. For example, it would not be reliable for politics, crime, or celebrity gossip. I'm kinda thinking the things I sourced to it might fall in the area of not-a-problem, but it's also not a hill I would want to die on. I'm going to sleep on it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not concerned, but I’m concerned others might be concerned, hence the preventative discussion. Personally, I would tend to agree with you, but that hasn’t stopped other crusading editors from removing dozens of sources from articles I wrote. Viriditas (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention WP:O. You'll want to add incoming links from other articles. Viriditas (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, all of this is helpful to me, and I appreciate it. (Also thanks for the most recent notes in the talk section above.) I find "preventative discussion" very helpful. I've got a couple of days within the DYK time deadline, so I just need to think things through. Initially, I wanted to source the page to independent news accounts, rather than to website commentary, on the theory that this would better demonstrate notability. Some things I'm trying to figure out are: can I source what I sourced to the Post to another source already on the page, and if not, would some website be better or worse? I'll ponder all of this. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for the orphan situation, start by linking to the song here: "Barbaras Rhabarberbar", a German tongue-twister, made popular on TikTok in 2024." You'll either want to create a redirect or use that title, it's your choice. Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BradPatrick: in the event he has an opinion about the article title and sources. Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found a source that can help fill in the gaps above. It's classified as "generally reliable" at WP:RSP. Viriditas (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that one came up on my search, and I now don't know why I skipped over it. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's more. Rheinische Post, which is a good RS, has an article about the song. But it's behind a paywall. You can request a copy at WP:RX. Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your help with this. I really appreciate the thought and effort you've put into it. I've decided to remove the Post source. What pushed me to a final decision was finding out that Marjorie Taylor Greene used a bogus headline from the Post in the hearing with Anthony Fauci. Not an RS, and I don't need it. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a good idea to take a look at Draft:Barbaras Rhabarberbar and merge what you can into your article, giving User:BradPatrick a credit in the edit summary. Viriditas (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, damn. It didn't occur to me that someone would start an article using the German name instead of the English one. I'm going to put a note on the draft talk page now. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any hook ideas yet? Sorry to be pushy... Given the wide availability of free images of Bodo Wartke[54] (and Marti Fischer[55]), you could get the first position in the DYK slot by adding images of them to the article (or just focusing on Wartke, it's your choice) and writing the hook around Wartke and Fischer. Not ideal of course, but something to consider to get the best showing for your hook. Viriditas (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't occur to me to look for images of those two on Commons (probably because we don't have BLPs about them here, although that's dumb, because I think they do a de-wiki). So I'm going to add images to the page right now. As for DYK, I don't care about being the first in the list, so I'm thinking instead of something jokey and hooky, like "... that barbarians go to Barbara's Rhubarb Bar?" I'm considering various alternatives to "go to", such as "love". The one thing I'm still stuck on, on the page, is the sourcing for the lyrics/plot, partly because I'm not sure about some user-generated sources, and partly because I don't want any arguments about whatever verb I use in the hook not being well-sourced. (Alas, the Post had a particularly good translation of the lyrics.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to rethink the hook, because DYK disallows hooks that are entirely "in universe" for a fictional story. I'm thinking that if I bring "cake, not pie" into it, I can still use some of the plot. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that took me a while to learn but really helped me with hooks is to not focus on just one, but to come up with like six, and then try to narrow them down to one that works for you. In other words, brainstorming at a wider level may be more productive than narrowing down in the beginning. Reversing the process (going from general to particular) helps with coming up with hooks at first. One of the things I find slightly scary about hook creation is that the sky is the limit. I'm not apeirophobic (quite the opposite, actually), but when it comes to hooks, I find that the notion makes me slightly anxious. Viriditas (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you aren't trypophobic! Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, any word yet on hook ideas? I love the shared etymology idea, but it would have to be reworked for a hook. Viriditas (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phew. Was worried that you had disappeared. Glad you see you submitted it. Cake vs. pie. Brilliant. Viriditas (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I was just busy working on it, and I figured that would answer your question. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about WP:DYKFICTION. Even though cake and pie are real, I don’t think the hook passes that criterion. This is a common problem. What you might do, is just straight out ask on the DYK talk page, and see what answer you get. Could save a lot of time. Also, get in the habit of creating multiple hooks. Viriditas (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm continually training myself to get in the habit of crossing that bridge when I come to it. I already gave it a lot of thought, and studied numerous past discussions of that rule, and I'm personally satisfied that the cake-pie part satisfies the requirement. And I already have workarounds in mind if a reviewer has an issue about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're an intriguing person. I tip my hat to you, sir. Viriditas (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a fish, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recall seeing reliably sourced articles about the lyrics two days ago. Will have another look when I get home. Viriditas (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peruvian news and entertainment source Mag. has an article with lyrics.[56] Viriditas (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. (Talk about going to the ends of the earth! ) I decided against using it, because it means taking a German-to-Spanish translation, and then translating that into English. After more thought than it's worth, I decided to go with what I've got, and I think the page is probably ready for prime time. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! Good to you see you getting into the swing of things. Viriditas (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read your article and laughed. I've enjoyed introducing friends to that youtube video for years (video).

I tend to really enjoy wordplay and punnistry : )

And I have a King's Singers recording called A Tribute to the Comedian Harmonists, in which they sing Veronika. So I immediately had that song going through my head. I blame you - lol.

Anyway, added that wikilink about the song to your article.

I hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 21:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And you, too! I'm glad you enjoyed the article, and I'm happy to take the blame. Yes, indeed, "bababababa!" Thanks for adding that to the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help : )

Note that Veronika was popular in the 20s too. I started to try to redo the sentence, but didn't want to get afowl of the person being quoted, so I just removed that phrase. Not sure the best way to make the line include the quote while maintaining accuracy.

I also am looking at the quotes of the recent song's makers. Even though the top of the article does note the toungue twister's been around for years, they make it sound like they invented Barbara, etc. Just a suggestion, but I think the tone there probably should get a bit of neutral shifting.

Anyway, minor details. Thanks for the smile of the day : ) - jc37 22:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, and I'm happy to focus on minor details. I revised the lead according to what you pointed out. As for Veronika's popularity, I'm going to go with what the source quotes the person as saying, but saying that it was popular in the 30s doesn't rule out it being popular the decade before. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Maslin Nir places the craze over the video in the context of rhubarb's place in springtime seasonal cusine in Germany. Rhubarb, along with strawberries and white asparagus, are treated as cause for merriment.

This reminded me of the "Rhubarb pie" song segment from A Prairie Home Companion. Interestingly, there is nothing about rhubarb in the cuisine of Minnesota article, but the Rhubarb pie article provides additional context explaining how it became popular in parts of Minnesota. It's interesting from a cultural perspective how it is associated with Germany in this way, because Rhubarb needs a cold climate to flourish. I wish more could be said about the relation of the plant to the culture, but that's likely going to be difficult to do. My overall point is that the Germans are growing and singing about it for good reason: they have the climate for it. Viriditas (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but don't eat the green parts of the leaves. For me, Marti Fischer in some of the videos reminds me of Borat. Anyway... I very much appreciate all the help you've given me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's you who has helped me. I'm very interested in watching article development in real time. The process is so incredibly messy, I've always wondered if there's way to improve it. Maybe we can talk about that later on down the line. Viriditas (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you are interested in how I got the idea for the page, in the first place, it was because I saw the first page (first page, no less!) article in The New York Times, and thought this is hilarious and this is notable for our purposes. That's a typical way for me to get ideas about starting pages. For Jack Sumner, I heard an interview on NPR with John F. Ross (author) about his biography of John Wesley Powell, and he briefly mentioned that someone in Powell's crew mutilated himself, and I thought that this was worth following up on. As you can see from my (surprisingly) meager DYK stats, I don't start new pages very often. I'm personally more interested in improving existing pages or solving problems, so I have to convince myself that a new topic is something special, before starting a new page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand why he castrated himself. Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's such a remarkable story, isn't it? I cite two historians' theories on why, but who really knows. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait. I just remembered something. There's a small body of literature that describes the phenomenon of drug-induced psychosis and the practice of self-mutilation. Given that Sumner was prone to bouts of heavy drinking, I wonder if that explains it. Viriditas (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds plausible, but I haven't seen any sourcing for that, in Sumner's case. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, it's just something I think about when I read crime reports from a so-called "Florida man" in the news. Very often, there's some kind of unusual self-mutilation involved and it is something that always stuck out to me. What is it about drug-induced psychosis that makes someone think it's a good idea? Viriditas (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now, now, let's leave Mar-A-Lago out of this. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Facts. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the page views, and... wow! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Did you know nominations/Barbara's Rhubarb Bar. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Nice work. Still too bad you couldn't come up with an image for the main slot, even though you don't care. Viriditas (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  True, I don't care. I've got no shortage of page views, even before appearing on the Main Page. Edit Wikipedia, show up on Google searches. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  BTW, in my lifetime, I've only had "rhabarber-streusel-kuchen" once, but for the life of me, I can't remember where! I think it was in San Francisco. Viriditas (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't forget about the QPQs. I could donate a bunch to you, but they tend to frown on that. Viriditas (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No worries, I'll get to it tomorrow. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Cool, cool, cool. Viriditas (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly 2,500 page views, and it hasn't even yet passed thru DYK. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And it has now passed DYK, with a lovely review from an experienced editor. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to follow it closely as it goes from queue to queue for preparation. It can get removed (or altered in weird ways) at any point in that process, and I've had to track down a few nominations (not my own) that were removed like this without anyone saying anything. Viriditas (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. (You know, I have done this before?) I'm already watching the one I qpq'ed as it moves through. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to brush your teeth tonight. Viriditas (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

--Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now over 3,250 views! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simpsons did it first! There's a Wikipedian somewhere, working remotely from home, using a drinking bird to hit F5 every few seconds. Viriditas (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The response to her popular article about epigenetic memory is unusually controversial. I wasn’t aware of the study on mice.[58] Not sure why she is receiving so much pushback on this from skeptics on Hacker News, but I found her article entirely reasonable. Viriditas (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a long day, and I'm finally getting around to a reply. I might be able to do more later, but here is what I have now. I tried to do a quick search for that Hacker News criticism, but didn't find it, so I don't know what it was. But these kinds of multi-generational studies in lab animals that attribute behaviors to epigenetics are tricky, and it's very easy to "see what you want to see". Actual genetic changes are straightforward to document, because you can sequence the DNA, and see if it changed. But epigenetic changes – where did the change, at the molecular level, happen? For something to be passed along through generations, it can be a bit like homeopathy, does it get so diluted that it isn't "real" anymore? I've taken a quick look at the full version of that paper, [59], and I'm glad to see that the behavioral measurements were done double-blind. That's important here. I need some sleep, and I'll look more closely at the epigenetics and anatomy. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, looking at the mouse study in detail, I find it pretty impressive overall, with the kinds of controls I would want to see in such a study. So maybe there's something there. The short version of what the authors think is that when the mice developed a fear of the smells, there would be less DNA methylation of the gene for the protein (called M71) that acts as a receptor for the odorants in neurons in the olfactory bulb, leading to changes in that neural pathway. They show that there is less such methylation of that gene in the sperm of the mice, and that it is associated with changes in nerve anatomy and behavior, and they do a lot of very good controls. If I want to play devil's advocate, how does that methylation decrease get passed along from generation to generation? If there were a change in the DNA sequence of the M71 gene, that would be easy to understand. But this is a decrease in the activity of an enzyme (a protein, coming from a different gene) that methylates DNA in many genes (not just M71), and there's no evidence about changes in the DNA for the gene of that enzyme. So how does that enzyme "know", in the cells of the offspring, that it should be less active at that particular gene, as it had been in the parental sperm cell? (Parenthetically, it could also be an enzyme that removes the methylation, and becomes more active, but the idea is the same.) I'm not saying it can't happen, but it's an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.

As for the Guardian piece by Chritchlow, I don't know anything more. I note that she relates these ideas to trauma passed down by human survivors of the Holocaust, and that's such a fraught subject that I can certainly imagine some people reacting negatively to claims that what happens in mice might also happen in humans. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the critical read. Is it really such a fraught subject? I was under the impression that there was loads of evidence that trauma is passed down in our genes. Viriditas (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that the Holocaust is fraught. If it's passed down epigenetically, then it's not passed down "in our genes". There's certainly loads of evidence of trauma having physical, organic effects on the human body, but much less evidence of it being passed along genetically. Note that children can observe trauma in their parents and acquire their own behaviors from that, but that's experiential, not genetic. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we have an article on the subject: transgenerational trauma. As for genetic changes, I was referring to the fetal programming theory. Viriditas (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's useful to note how the TT page says (correctly) that a lot of it is due to children learning behaviors from their parents or their environment. The FP page struck me as an odd topic, and maybe a coatrack. I see that it was started by student editors as part of a class project. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! I had no idea we even had an article on the subject. Maybe we could improve the topic area? Viriditas (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea that it was a subject. I personally have zero interest in working on it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to followup with you on your comments about the gulag. Hope you had a chance to see Chip Roy's latest comments. Althought the biography doesn't include the full quote, here it is: "Tell you what - I do want to 'ethnic cleanse' by deporting white progressive Democrats - with a special bonus for rich ones with an Ivy League degree. I really do not like 'those people.'"[60] Viriditas (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The feelings are reciprocal. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got your gulag survival kit packed yet? Still deciding on what to put in my mine... Viriditas (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just my membership card in the cabal. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next April 1, I'm going to propose merging Category:Biden family with Category:Bidens. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC) See Bidens hyperborea for the cause of his difficulty speaking during the debate. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's cute that you think there's going to be a "next" April. Viriditas (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Insert joke about not buying green bananas. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish, if you do end up in the gulag, I will slip you a secret cracker from my hidden pocket. I've got you fam. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll refrain from making a joke about the epithet meaning of "cracker". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar. Viriditas (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And a mushroom is just a mushroom. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are entirely too predictable. If I was evil, I could have fun with that. But sadly, I'm Chaotic Good, so I'll just sit back and laugh. Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I should have said that April is the cruelest month. But re #6 in the list below, true story, after the 2016 election I went around wearing a "Don't blame me, I voted for Hillary" button, and I got yelled at on the street by a guy who said I should have voted for Jill Stein. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this, I'd like to think I have Big Fish Energy. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I knew you were going to go there. I just knew it. Viriditas (talk) 02:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have fallen into my trap. Now I can control your mind. You are getting sleepy, very sleepy. Now send my all your money. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fascinating. Looking at all the interlocking parts makes for some interesting reading. I'm no expert, but didn't Jill Stein contribute to Clinton's defeat in the same way that Nader stole votes from Gore and led to Bush's win, which helped turn the Supreme Court to the right? What's fascinating is how this connects with the Powell memo, as Powell (and others) originally named and blamed Nader for forcing their hand and creating the right-wing political movement that eventually led to Trump five decades later. Unintended consequences are a wild thing. I appreciate the work Nader did in the 1960s (Unsafe at Any Speed, 1965. We are also seeing a resurgence of these same concerns with Boeing in the modern era), but there's some evidence that Nader received GOP money in 2004 to siphon votes from John Kerry, but who knows if that was also true in 2000, when he did take away votes from Gore and likely led to Bush winning. Also, I think there's evidence that Jill Stein received significant help from Russian state actors on social media, and there are accusations she parroted Kremlin talking points. I think all of this could be prevented or even tamped down a bit if we had a stronger system of electoral regulation, removed dark money from politics, and limited campaigning like they do in other countries, but that ship sailed a long time ago. I just don't see how America is going to survive as a nation under all of these threats, foreign and domestic. The honest truth, is that my loyalty to the US is mostly because of how well it treated my ancestors; I feel like that deserves some kind of respect, however begrudgingly, because if my ancestors weren't allowed to come here and thrive, I would not have been born here. I'm not a nationalist, but given the safe harbor my ancestors were given, it only makes sense that I try to repay that in some way. I also think that American values, like the kind John Dewey wrote about in regards to pluralism and democracy, are a Good Thing, so I feel like I owe a debt of some kind, although it isn't clear how it can be repaid. With that said, the barbarians are not only at the gates, they are running for president and fill the state capitals. History is a harsh mistress, but we've seen this kind of thing again and again. I don't see any way forward. Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those are excellent comments, and I agree with you very much. As it happens, just before logging in today, I was on the phone with my psychiatrist, talking with her about my depression over that exact same sense of not seeing any way forward for this country, and not feeling like there's anything I can do about it. (By the way, I've been getting some help from chewing coca leaves.) W. B. Yeats wrote that "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity", and that seems just as true in 2024 as it was in 1919. I guess I can try to cheer myself by thinking of those other barbarians, the ones who went to that bar. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we aren't going to the Gulag, after all. ;) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Build Viriditas' personal gulag go bag!

1. Tryptofish's Official Cabal card
2. "Trump" branded travel toothbrush
3. Bespoke, monogrammed orange jumpsuit with secret pocket sewn in
4. A copy of "How to Survive a Prison Labor Camp on $1 per Day!"
5. Signed copy of Hillbilly Elegy
6. One pair of black underwear that says "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!" on the rear

We haven't spoken for months (a year maybe?) Tryptofish? I was really inexperienced then. Ah well, I think I've reached the disillusionment phase of my wikicareer, perhaps years prematurely. There are so many things that I wish I could do, but when you look at the and toxicity that appears, continuing onward is a painstaking thing. I kind of miss the eagerness that came with being a fresher and younger contributor, and I'd never though I'd reach that point, but now after being bitterly disillusioned, my mood is kind of ebbing and flowing. I don't know how you stick with this for 15+ years and continue to be lighthearted. I kind of envy that. But yeah it's incredibly hard to not be jaded and cynical, especially when you've made a personal commitment to be nicer to others. Hope you're feeling alright :) The Night Watch (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words, and I'm sorry that you're going through these feelings now.

I'm definitely not lighthearted all the time (but I'm probably very stubborn!). I find it's always a good idea to just step away from editing whenever it feels unrewarding, and there's no deadline for when to come back. I also think it's important to remember that, as I'm fond of saying, it's only a website. None of us owe it any effort, and the world is not any the worse if we ever decide to blow it off. Over time, I've gotten to know quite a few wiki-friends, and that's a good way to lift one's spirits. I also find that doing content work on something that isn't contentious can be enjoyable, and if I don't feel like doing anything major, just making some gnomish fixes here and there is pretty easy. And maybe your voluntarily stopping being an admin will make it easier for you to stay away from the toxic stuff. I hope those thoughts will help. I'd be glad if you find it works for you to become more active again, whenever that feels right for you, but please know that you don't owe it to anyone here to do that. You owe it to yourself to find whatever path makes you happy.

I can say that, for 15+ years, there has always been some community toxicity in one form or another. It's inevitable for a project that says that "anyone can edit". I've been thinking for a pretty long time about rolling my user-page back to what it was before I pseudo-quit, and just haven't yet felt the desire to do it, although I've been getting closer. If I try to put my finger on what the main problems here might be over the past year or so, one thing I'm noticing is that there is a very obvious changing of generations here. That's certainly not a problem in itself, and there are a lot of good things about newer editors and admins who have become active here in the past year. But it's definitely a largely new "cast of characters". If I focus on just the negative things, one that I can identify is that there is more of a culture of what happens at other internet sites, more of a social media kind of culture here. (That played a role in my writing WP:KNIT.) Another is that we have more editors who see things in terms of The Rules, rather than caring about the nuances of human interactions. (WP:MALVOLIO.) We've always had a significant number of such editors, but now, it feels increasingly like they are a constituency who support one another in discussions. That reminds me, that you had commented on a related point during a recent RfA, and another editor suggested at your talk that it was a more general subject, and I had been meaning to follow up with you about it. Here, I want to be very clear that what I'm going to say next isn't about anyone in particular, but is a general observation. It's worth taking a look at WP:HONEYPOT (which I did not write), because Wikipedia really is a "honeypot" for editors on the spectrum. Perhaps there are a lot of editors who like rules, and don't get nuance, for that reason. I don't have a good idea for how to improve things in that regard, other than that it should come from a position of mutual respect and listening, but I think it's worth discussing. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto to what Tryp said. I've been involved with quite a few contentious discussions lately and it has been so nice to step away and finish an old small article I started years ago (Wild River (Alaska)). I find it peaceful to write about lakes and rivers. There is some old "magic" in these ancient waters. It brings a smile to my face even now discussing it. I feel those vibrations. Hopefully I can expand on the articles one day, maybe if I publish a book myself someone else can enjoy these waters by expanding the article. I love to read our articles about them too. I may never fully understand the special connection between humans and the elements, like water, but I can feel it all the same, that tug on me, and it brings me comfort. That's my happy place, my honeypot. --ARoseWolf 12:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. What a lovely river, and what a lovely name for a river. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while @ARoseWolf. Do you remember me? But anyway, yeah a lot of mutual respect for our fellow editors is good. I've been thinking a lot of my role in that, and the role of others. I mean, I can't claim to have always been nice, and always played well with others when I should have. Or even listened as well as I should have. I think a friend of mine had a good way to describe this: "We need collegiality, not civility… civility is a fucking low bar". Something along those lines anyway. We all could be doing more to care about others.

I've noticed that a handful of people here have a penchant to poke at flaws in others instead of self-reflecting. That's kind of what social media is about right? And also the focus on the rules. I thought your knitting essay was insightful Trytofish. But I think it's unfair when we have so many editors on the spectrum that have trouble expressing themselves and learning boundaries and ways to communicate. I'm not on the spectrum, but I do have some form of social anxiety and perfectionist personality traits, which color how I interact with others. Yes, you can laugh at me all you want for the theatrics I got into. I don't mind :)

Anyway I've been taking a similar approach with wikifriends, there are a few who I've tried to warm up to privately. I'm hoping to start working in a new area after some thoughtful time reading and going for nice hikes, so hopefully that'll be a positive change. Both of you take care, The Night Watch (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Night Watch, could anyone forget your colors? They are so beautiful. I didn't know you had a guestbook but I did correct the fact that my signature was not on it. I liked your old user name. I believe we have a lot more we share in common than we are different. It's so unfortunate in this world that humans tend to focus on the differences.

Tryp, I can't take credit for the name but I do take quite a bit of pleasure out of the fact it shares that similarity to myself, the lake as its headwaters, and the surrounding land we both traverse. I continue to sing songs of peace and love over my Wikifriends here. --ARoseWolf 13:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ARoseWolf Aw I'm glad that you like the colors. I've changed so much since when I had my old username, some for the better, some for the worse. I thought we didn’t have much in common when we first met, but I think my values have changed to align a lot with yours. Recently I've been thinking about maybe changing my username to something else, to figuratively turn a new leaf once I get through this phase. My current one was inspired by a painting that my dad liked, but now I feel like I should choose something more true to myself. Hope you're doing well up in Alaska, I really need to visit there someday. The Night Watch (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both of you, excellent comments. Yes, going for hikes (or really any form of getting outdoors and moving around) is something I like to do, too. Best wishes, all around. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! Viriditas (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand how you got away with WP:DYKFICTION here! Viriditas (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, although I can hardly recognize the page after all the changes that accompanied the Main Page appearance. (I have a feeling I should just leave it to other editors for a day or so, and then go in and clean up the mess of WP:OR.)

As for DYKFICTION, it's because I based the hook on the real-world distinction between cake and pie. And also my membership in The Cabal. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I was just ribbing you, you old fish. Viriditas (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Get off my lawn! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of lawns, historically, in the 1970s in Northern California, particularly after the drought of 1976-77, instead of lawns, homeowners experimented with all sorts of creative ideas to give the front of their houses a certain je ne sais quoi that made it inviting and interesting. I personally knew a family who put in an entire, fully operational Japanese garden, complete with aquatic garden features that went from the front all the way into their backyard and circled back around the perimeter of the house. As you can imagine, the property owners had no idea how much work was involved and there it sat, unused for the next 20 years. But you have to admire the effort. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK day pageviews: 12,535 (522/hour), ranking #12 for the month so far. [61]. Almost 20,000 views total since page creation. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rather amusing: One of the people at the website-that-dare-not-speak-its-name is criticizing the hook on the basis that the tongue twister isn't really an RS for what kinds of desserts real historical barbarians ate. Talk about DYK fiction! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tryptofish! Re. your edit to the Pinxton Castle IB, just offering a tip, in case you come across one again—the feature doesn’t seem often used—that the cWidth & cHeight parameters set only the size of the picture’s frame or window, having no effect on the image scale. In this case reducing those alone cut off a bit of the site at the bottom. To preserve the framing when resizing an image formatted with {{CSS image crop}}, multiply all the dimensional parameters by a constant (which would have been 0.88 here).—Odysseus1479 02:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it. I had commented on the talk page that I wasn't sure how to do it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took your mention of “the map” to refer only to the Derbysire locator map—I guess I think of the Lidar scan as a kind of photo. (In my ES I offered a tongue-in-cheek suggestion for dealing with the former.) Changing the tall map’s scale by a given amount will have a larger effect on the depth of the IB than would the same change to the square imaage.—Odysseus1479 20:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were right. I was referring more specifically to the Derbyshire locator. But when I tried to change the size of it (and I also looked unsuccessfully for an alternative locator image), the edit that I made was all I was able to come up with. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Among the guests was a rescue dog called Kratu from Transylvania, which the King could not resist stroking." Good to know Kratu is doing well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, I thought you were nominating me for a knighthood. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Knights of the Fish. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! That made my (k)day! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will likely jettison myself soon, but you should stick around. You have a voice of reason. Lightburst (talk) 05:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst, I'm so sorry you've had so many problems. I've always enjoyed interacting with you, even when we disagree. It's so interesting how different personalities clash while others manage to get along just fine. It's a dynamic I find fascinating. I think it might have something to do with our shared interest in music, but I can't say for sure. Viriditas (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst, I see from your page that, for now, you're going to take a break, which is always a good choice when one is feeling stressed by this place. I'm glad you are there now, rather than retiring right away. I've gone through tough patches myself, but yes, I currently plan to stick around. As I said at ANI, I think you are being treated unfairly there. (There's a reason it's called a "cesspit".)

I find it interesting that Lightburst and Viriditas are the two people together in this talk thread on my page. As each of you will, separately, remember, at various times in the past I have sharply criticized each of you. But there is probably nothing that makes me happier, and prouder, on Wikipedia than finding, over time, that wiki-adversaries can become wiki-friends. It's really a wonderful thing, isn't it? If that makes anyone see me as "a voice of reason", well, that's what I aspire to, and if I occasionally accomplish it, so much the better. Remember, it's only a website, and people, real people, matter much, much more. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that; it feels pretty real, and I've met several people in RL from here. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Completely unrelated, but I just had to link to this! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]

• I like Tryp. We don't agree on everything, namely Arbcom on Wiki, but as with everyone I have had experiences and discussions with here we happen to agree on more than we disagree. That's a foundation for some beautiful interactions which I believe we have had. There is enough hate and injustice in the world. I don't have time for it in my life. I would rather focus on the awe-inspiring positives I encounter daily on my journey. --ARoseWolf 15:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And rest assured that I like you, too. It's so much more important to value one another as people, than to agree on whatever might be the wiki-drama of the day. Today, I just saw that Pinxton Castle made the DYK section, which pleases me very much because I helped the editor who made it a personal project get there. When there's so much ugliness in the world, this is the sort of thing that makes for something very happy. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to stay relatively quiet until I hear from the Ombuds about my MT report. I do not want what happened to me to happen to any other editor.

I am glad for the evolution of relationships on here. I once had loads of friction with Tryp, Levivich, Serial Number, Dronebogus and others... but for the most part we have all done our best to squash it. I think we all see in each other, at least some measure of value to the project. Some relationships I have here are still strained, but it is not because I do not respect those editors. I also respect many of the editors who were trying to bury me last week. I am not sure what the future holds, but I am glad that Tryp and I have seen value in each other. No matter who is consistently donating their time here has importance and value. Good to see you here Viriditas and ARoseWolf. Lightburst (talk) 02:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Ombuds finally got back to me and said "not my department". MT did not abuse the tools he just made erroneous conclusions and assumptions. So I am probably going to be participating much less, but sometimes there is an article so wrong on here... Anyway hello Tryp. Lightburst (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Please don't let it get you down. (Things don't always work the way one wants them to do around here. Just yesterday, a DYK reviewer objected to a hook that I thought of and felt was very good. But I figured "whatever", and gave him another hook, and the DYK went through.) Anyway, I saw the other day that you posted a thoughtful support comment at the RfA – so much for the stereotype that you only oppose there. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am relatively happy with my scaled back involvement here. The RfA candidate looked like a good one and I could see no reason to oppose. I scaled back my involvement with DYK or I could have helped. TLC is an admin there and I think I made a big mistake supporting them at RFA - it is a note to myself to be more careful about candidates. DYK is generally a very cool place and involving yourself there definitely helps you become a better editor. Lots of eyes and opinions. And when your article runs it gets tuned up by many proficient editors. Right now I have started an ANI which is primarily about leftover animosity from the last ANI. Regarding MT and the Ombud report. The mechanisms where a person can be fairly heard are few and most are biased. So I have to be ok with the scarlet letter MT gave me. So have a great weekend. Lightburst (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being THE voice of reason. I don't mind if people don't like the topic, and I understand why Trump fans might object, but I'm not doing anything unusual. Articles are created by experienced users in their userspace all the time. I have done everything I can to NOT draw attention to it, to NOT misuse my space to promote or advance a POV. Yet this started with a blatant assumption of bad faith. It's weird.

Thanks for bringing focus back to PAG and what is allowed in the article creation process. BTW, have you read those DKY? I wrote? The topic is barely scratched at Steele dossier. This is not about the "dossier golden showers video", this is about the original rumor that Trump knew about right after it began circulation. The one that got him to send Cohen on a search and destroy mission for several years. It's a pretty big story about kompromat and national security issues. The Senate Intelligence Committee took it seriously and went much further than the Mueller Report. Cohen's 2019 testimony is the real clincher. He spilled so many beans.

It's fascinating how those who chased the 2013 alleged tapes and those who chased the 2016 dossier's alleged tapes, ended up, as declared by Judge Cooper, finding they were chasing "one and the same" tapes. He tied them together, in court. There is really only one very real rumor about one alleged event, and it started in 2013. Steele's sources just repeated that 2013 rumor to him in 2016. Trump succeeded in squashing the rumor until Steele's sources resurrected it. That really pissed him off, and then he made the mistake of telling very specific, and easily debunked, lies about it to Comey and others. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're very welcome, and thank you so much for the kind words. (For those who are watching here, this is about an MfD of something in Valjean's user space, where I have advocated for keep.) I don't really want to get into the subject matter that much, but I know an inappropriate use of the deletion process when I see it. (I'm not sure what DYKs you are referring to. Oh, yes I have read that.) I've also seen and I appreciate the other things you have said about how you feel about this, on other pages. (In particular, I had no idea about your diagnosis until you disclosed it. I've never noticed any problems with how you communicate.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have always lived with the disadvantages of my Aspergers, but only learned about it after our son was diagnosed in first grade. Our daughter is fine. At the time, it was a "new" thing. It's painful for me to admit, and I have tried to avoid "coming out" with it here, but it's a simple fact that should be factored into "who I am". I don't expect to receive special treatment, but if it helps people understand me better, maybe that's a good thing. My son has it bad enough that he cannot hold a job or finish an education, so he was "retired" with a full pension at 18 years old. Even though females are much less likely to be affected, his female cousin is much worse off, and she is even going through sexual transition. Her life has been chaotic. There are several family members, primarily on my wife's side of the family, who are on the spectrum, some who function fairly well, and others who do not. I'm "only" slightly affected. It could be much worse, but it's still a daily irritation. The genetic factor is huge, and my wife's ancestry from an island society with a very small population meant that inbreeding occurred, hence the concentration of victims in the family. Otherwise, the incidence rate there is pretty much like other countries. There is nothing like that on my side of the family, so we don't know why it affects me and a couple others of my family members. Being a bit different meant I was a loner and somewhat socially awkward in school, so I found solace by excelling academically. Such is life. I carry on. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing this, and please know that, although some people on the spectrum have distinctive features of how they communicate, that can give-away their status, I've never noticed that with you, and only know about this because you chose to post about it. I mean that as a compliment. You have my best wishes with that MfD. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your kindness is much appreciated, especially at a time when kindness is rare. I don't expect or want you to be partisan or less than neutral in all of this. I'd rather hear honesty, but you seem to be able to pack it in a nice package, something I often fail to do. I have never been accused of being tactful. Any good advice is welcome. I note the complaints about BLP issues. I wish I understood exactly what they mean. BLP applies to "unsourced" negative information, not negative information. NPOV means we document what RS say, without the imposition of editorial POV, and objections to "negative" content seem just like partisan "I don't like it", protectionism, and whitewashing to me. Maybe you can parse it for me. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Here is how I would parse the BLP issues. To some degree, editors are misusing the BLP policy to address issues that are really the NPOV policy. I think the biggest concern is that it sounds like a content fork with a negative POV. The whole "pee tape" business is widely perceived by sources, and by partisans, as something that is "negative" about Trump. Your draft comes across as "here is all the evidence that the pee tape accusations might not be a hoax". I just checked, and Pee tape is a red link, while Trump pee tape is a redirect to Steele dossier. I don't want to read that page, but I'm going to guess that it presents evidence for and against the pee tape actually existing, and gives primary weight to the evidence that the tape never existed. You've assembled sources (largely independent of the Steele dossier), that point toward a different conclusion. Editors are seeing that, with good reason, as a fork of the Steel dossier page, that focuses on sources that are negative about Trump. Strictly speaking, that's a POV problem, rather than a BLP problem, but it's still a problem, and BLP has a sort of emotive heft that makes it an easy go-to for editors who want to sound like they are making an important criticism (see also WP:CRYBLP). So my suggestion for how to fix the problem is to (1) look for any sources that might fail WP:RS (I haven't looked, so I don't know whether or not there are any), and remove any if you find them, and (2) expand the page with sources that disagree with the existence of a scandal, that would present a counterpoint to the argument that the scandal is real. And, with that, write the page without taking a side (in Wikipedia's voice) as to which "side" is "correct". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the first public knowledge of the pee tape rumor came from the dossier on January 10, 2017, and is mentioned in the Steele dossier article, that is a very misleading story, if one stops there. That article cannot discuss aspects of the rumor that are not named in the dossier, so it only mentions a small part of the full story. After the dossier made people aware of the rumor, sources began to dig, and then investigations started, and what came forth changes the story completely.

The rumor started in 2013, right after Trump left Moscow, and Steele's sources just repeated the rumor to him. Cohen really spilled the beans with his testimony, from the inside, that revealed he learned of the rumor then, immediately told Trump, and then began a years long hunt for the source of the rumor and location of the tapes, if they existed. So we're dealing with a big coverup and catch and kill operation, with a web of secrecy among Cohen and his cohorts who tried to find and suppress the tape(s). Legal cases, and witnesses, shed even more light on what happened. Trump's many lies, very specific and easily debunked, make it even more interesting, and make him look guilty, even if he might not be. Why does he act guilty? Why did he order a hunt for tapes that did not exist? Why did he lie about the exact and only time the incident could have occurred, when no one had mentioned that time yet? Only he would know that. Comey changed from a skeptic to a maybe peeliever. So how do we tell that story without it being negative about Trump? We always include denials with allegations, per NPOV and BLP. But whe the denial is a huge lie, what then? Do we leave it out, even though documented in the most impeccable sources? Negative content that is properly sourced is allowed and does not violate our BLP and NPOV rules, sometimes even when it is the largest portion of the article. We have rules that expressly allow articles of that type, because articles on some topics cannot be other than negative. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier, I don't want to get tangled up in the content, but my advice that I gave just above is how I think one can avoid the BLP criticisms. The alternative is to hunker down and keep arguing that you think you are right, but that way lies more drama. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hunkering down wouldn't be good. Unfortunately, I still am at a loss to understand the problem without mention of the specific contents considered a problem. Maybe I should explain the "fork" issue. This article is like an article about one "bird" with lots of info and the full context. The dossier article just mentions the "bird" in passing, and only partially and misleadingly out of context. Both articles are legitimate. (Once this article is established, the Steele dossier article's content about the pee tape and rumor will need to be tweaked a little bit so it's at least accurate.)

The Steele dossier article isn't an article about the pee tape. That is not the primary topic. That is only one of many allegations, so it gets very little attention, and only in the context of the way the dossier mentions it. This is about the 2013 pee tape rumor as a whole (only secondarily, but necessarily, about the alleged tape), and kompromat, as those are the real issues. This is about the whole story, and the Steele dossier#Kompromat and "golden showers" allegations section would link to this as the "main" article for the topic. Nearly everything else here is not mentioned there.

This is about an FSB operation to compromise Trump with a honey trap inspired by Trump's own revealing actions at a Las Vegas nightclub, and he appears to be a willing "victim". He also did some other, very public, sexually embarrassing things while in Moscow, and they have been publicized before the dossier was written. They are not mentioned anywhere at Wikipedia. He physically accosted two different girls and propositioned them, all in public. He claimed to be very careful, but he wasn't. He was also involved in a loud row with hotel security. A group of prostitutes wanted to come up to his room without signing in, and Trump was with them and defending them. He was also seen in an elevator with a group of prostitutes. This is all what witnesses said.

Sources draw a narrative of him being set up by the FSB and his Russian acquaintances, who had close ties to the FSG and Putin, then trying to suppress and cover it up, and after the dossier repeated the old rumor, lying about it to Comey and others. Then his own lawyer testified and revealed the whole story, right from the beginning in 2013, and testified about how "many" people knew of the rumor and were involved in trying to suppress it. Cohen revealed the dossier didn't originate the rumor.

It's hard to tell the facts about Trump's lying, as described in many RS, in a positive manner, as that would be dishonest and violate NPOV. The RS describe those lies as a negative fact that demonstrates his consciousness of guilt. How can anyone claim that's a BLP or NPOV issue? Maybe they're referring to something else? I wish they'd tell me. Discussing this in hypotheticals doesn't work. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, I don't want to get tangled up in the content issues. I'd prefer that you not continue to post summaries of what the draft page says, here on my talk page. As an alternative, you can ask me to look at such-and-such a section of the draft page, to make the same point. That said, I do understand that you are trying to use specifics, rather than general principles (hypotheticals, as you refer to them), to get a clear understanding of what I'm trying to say, and I do want to cooperate with you on that.

(Before I get into the details, I just looked at the MfD page, and I see that you left a talk page message to the editor who most recently commented delete. I want to suggest that replying to every delete comment can look to uninvolved editors like bludgeoning, and I also want to say that it's a waste of time trying to reason with that particular editor, who is a notorious POV-pusher. My guess is that the MfD is headed towards a "no consensus" close, which is functionally the same as "keep".)

Now getting back to the matter at hand, I took another look at the draft page, and I'll try to name here some specific things that I saw, that I would regard as significant POV problems. Something I noticed very quickly were the draft section headings. Some of them are: "Trump's lies to Comey", "Trump's phony alibi and excuses", "List of repeated and unforced lies to Comey", "Attempted cover-ups, evasion, and attempts to find the tapes", "Trump's behavior makes him vulnerable to blackmail", and "Trump as national security risk". And that's only a partial list. (And my head is reeling, just typing it here, even though I'm absolutely no defender of the guy.) When you said above that "It's hard to tell the facts about Trump's lying, as described in many RS, in a positive manner, as that would be dishonest and violate NPOV", you misunderstand NPOV, and I want to explain why I consider it a misunderstanding. Every one of those section titles violates the NPOV policy, and does so rather badly. Maybe there are RS that substantiate each of the assertions in those headers (I haven't checked, and I don't know). But those assertions need to be attributed to those sources, not stated in Wikipedia's voice (whether in section headers or in the paragraph text). The existence of such sources does not make it honest to word those headers in those ways. Here are my suggestions for some possible better ways to write each of the headers I quoted: "Trump's statements to Comey", "Trump's explanations", "List of disputed statements to Comey", "Problems in attempts to find the tapes", "Vulnerability to blackmail", and "National security risks". (There are doubtless other ways to write those, but that's what I came up with.) I ask that you look at each header, as I quoted it from your draft, and as I revised it here, and compare them side-by-side. I hope that you can see the differences, and how my revisions are actually the right way to be NPOV. If that's unclear to you, please ask me.

I won't list further examples for now, hoping that this has provided an explanation that you can extrapolate to the rest of the draft. I'll also suggest that you review WP:RGW, because Wikipedia articles cannot correct problems in what the media are reporting. Wikipedia can only report what the sources say, without taking sides. When editors look at your draft page, the same things stand out to them, that stood out to me. Editors come away with the impression that "this is a lot of stuff attacking Trump", and they make a mental jump from that, to "BLP violation". Even if they are being imprecise about what the BLP policy actually says, that's the thought process. If I may say so, you should want neurotypical editors to look at the draft page, and think to themselves "this is presenting facts about what happened", rather than "this is a lot of stuff that is all negative". I can see now that I agree with you that this isn't really a content fork, but when something comes across the way your draft currently does, even I had a subjective reaction that it was a content fork.

I hope that's clearer. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I love it! You are very clear. It's interesting that before you wrote the above, I had tried to look at the headings with different "glasses", and I had been working on changing exactly those headings, but my versions may be different than yours. I'll go back and probably use yours, as they are much likely to be better. Thanks for being so patient. It's much appreciated. I also agree about that editor. NOTHERE comes to mind, but sometimes they do make good edits. It's just any topic related to TFG that is a problem for them. I'll move the message to their talk page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

--Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have heeded your excellent suggestions and revised those, and other, headings. Are there any left that are borderline or dubious? What about the title? I wonder if I've tried to cover too much territory, since this is a national security issue. One could split it into two articles, one about pee tape rumor and another about Trump as a national security risk. There is a lot of stuff about that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting development. They were willing to come here and abuse the MfD process, but not defend themself or be collaborative and collegial. Hmmm.... I really wonder who they are. I have suspicions, but... -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The header changes I suggested were examples, and only skimmed the surface. I just made, and then self-reverted, a more comprehensive revision of the section headers. You can look at the version where I changed them, and see what you think about that. I think it's important for me to point out that it will be necessary to significantly change the text itself. The section headers are just a beginning of that.

It's true that the page covers a lot of stuff. It would probably be best to NPOV it first, and then evaluate what to do about page scope. I think there might be sections that could be combined.

Yes, I saw that retirement statement. Probably best not to comment about it until the people with advanced permissions make a determination. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like those changes and will give you permission to make such changes. As it's in my userspace, such permission is necessary, unlike a draft in draftspace. I'll add a note to that effect. We can discuss any changes that are of consequence. You may want to do it on my talk, or just continue here. It's up to you. If there are any sources that aren't the best (it's all on a case-by-case basis), we can also discuss that. I might be able to find better sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thanks for giving me "permission to edit" (which, strictly speaking, I do not need). But I really do not want to do that work for you. It would become very time consuming for me, and it's just not something I want to get tangled up in. I'm happy to give advice, but you are going to have to do this yourself. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, that's an important difference between userspace and draftspace, and it's not absolute. There are exceptions, but they have to be good ones. I understand and respect your reticence. Just offer the help you feel comfortable with. I'll be grateful for anything. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is no policy basis for saying that other editors need your permission to edit something in your userspace. That's a misunderstanding on your part. There's a matter of courtesy in avoiding editing someone else's userspace content, but it's not a policy violation. I can see at least one good-faith editor at the MfD who is holding it against you, that you discourage other editors from editing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I posted there. The "exception" I mention is indeed about courtesy. It's not absolute. In that you're right.

Relevant guidelines for this MfD'

Different "namespaces" here at Wikipedia are governed by different rules, and that includes the rules for MfDs. Valjean's work here is governed by personal "userspace drafts", not Wikipedia:Drafts (which governs drafts in "draftspace"). Unlike a "personal userspace draft",

"Articles in the Wikipedia:Draft namespace can be edited and moved into the main encyclopedia by anyone. So you can create the draft in your personal userspace, move it to the draft namespace to be edited by anyone, and later move it to the main encyclopedia."(Source: Help:Userspace draft)

This implies that a user has nearly full control of a draft in their "personal userspace", both creation and publication, but not their work in draftspace. (That "nearly" implies that control is not absolute, as with all things at Wikipedia. There are exceptions to every rule.) If I'm wrong, please enlighten us. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As we seem to agree, this is primarily a matter of courtesy. The distinction I would make comes down to the fact that no policy says that you can demand that courtesy. If some editor, not me, to whom you never offered an invitation to edit the draft page, were to make such an edit, they would not be doing something that is intrinsically against policy, intrinsically disruptive. If the edit improved the draft page, it would be an acceptable edit, permission or not. When you make it sound like you want other editors to get your permission before they can edit the draft page, it sounds to other editors like you are claiming something more than courtesy, claiming something more like full control, and they are understandably reacting negatively to that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get my understanding from this wording: "Articles in the Wikipedia:Draft namespace can be edited and moved into the main encyclopedia by anyone. So you can create the draft in your personal userspace, move it to the draft namespace to be edited by anyone,..."

So an "article in the Wikipedia:Draft namespace can be edited and moved ... by anyone". When it's in "personal userspace", that can't happen. (That's where "you can create the draft in your personal userspace"). It's created/edited by you in your own "personal userspace". When you later "move it to the draft namespace", it can "be edited by anyone".

I'm not a lawyer, but my parsing has been used by a judge to decide a case without even calling witnesses. The judge just wrote their decision and quoted almost word for word from my statement, and threw out the case, thus saving over 30 people and entities from a trial.

Maybe my parsing is wrong here, but it appears to me like there is a difference between "personal userspace" and "draft namespace". If there isn't a difference, what's the point of having them?

I know they are "reacting negatively", but that's because they are approaching this draft as if it was in "draft namespace", when it isn't. There's a difference. Am I totally off my rocker? The guideline could be changed to eliminate the difference, thus preventing my apparent "misunderstanding", but I think it would be better to protect editors from harassment by making the difference even more clear, and thus prevent this abuse of MfD. Removing editor protections would lessen the incentive to write articles, especially controversial ones. What editor wants to go through what I'm going through? POV warriors would just harass them while they are trying to create an article. These POV warriors don't care about GNG. They want to prevent full and accurate NPOV coverage of their favorite topics. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before answering here, I looked at the MfD page, and was happy to see that no new drama happened since I logged off yesterday.

Anyway, you are definitely not "off your rocker". But I'm starting to notice some things as we discuss this, that I hadn't noticed before, that perhaps may reflect differences in the ways that neurotypical and divergent editors interpret some things. It's true that the language says explicitly that content in draft space can be edited by anyone. But there is no policy that explicitly says that content in user space cannot be edited by anyone. To the contrary, WP:OWN is a policy, and you can find the answer in the section WP:OWN#User pages. Please read what it says there, and I think it's self-explanatory. The policy language there trumps (no pun intended) what you have inferred from something that the other language, about user space, leaves out. (I suspect it leaves it out because of that issue of courtesy that we discussed earlier.)

I hope that's clear enough. I agree with you that some editors at the MfD are motivated by pro-Trump POV-pushing, although there are others who have sincere beliefs about the BLP policy. I've been attempting to point out the flaws in their arguments (and I have a lot of experience in navigating POV disputes, so I know what works and what backfires). But one has to contend with such editors nonetheless, and they can make things difficult when you are trying to save a page from deletion. And I can give you my very strong advice that the best defense is to fix the numerous and significant POV problems at your draft page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP arguments at MfD are dubious. We do not delete an article or a draft just because a BLP violation exists somewhere in it. We fix that specific content, and if they point to such a spot, I'll fix it. I am not saying that such an actual BLP issue exists here. Everything is sourced. There is only one source we don't normally use (Medium), and in this case it's for a totally neutral, non-BLP, matter, from a Pulitzer Prize winning NYTimes reporter. On a case-by-case basis, it passes muster for this specific use.

Without them pointing it out, I'd guess it's more likely potential NPOV issues they are seeing, as I am not making "unsourced" negative claims. That would be a BLP issue. So far, they are just making evidence-free claims, and they are offensive aspersions, IOW NPA violations. They need to stop it. They have likely not even read the content, just seen the word "lies" and assumed it's a BLP violation. Well, it isn't if it's backed by RS. (We have a whole article about his lies!) Even if true and properly-sourced, phrasing can be an NPOV matter, that I'll admit, but it's not a BLP matter. Sometimes, choosing the right synonym makes all the difference. As Trump is a public figure, the bar for BLP inclusion of negative content is pretty low, but I still use good sources.

I appreciate your honest and good-faith attempts to guide this in the right direction. You are one of the few who is AGF here. There are lots of IDONTLIKEIT arguments. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm trying to do what's right. Suggestion: save a copy (maybe in a word processing program) on your computer, just in case. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm increasingly getting the sense that the MfD is going to end in "delete", so I increasingly think that saving a copy off-site is in your best interest. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have some more specific suggestions on improving the draft. (I'm saying this without having looked at any of the sources, by the way.) Please start by reviewing these two pages: WP:DEPS and WP:RSP, and particularly their lists of sources that are either deprecated, or considered questionable. Then go through every source that you cite on the draft, and identify any citations from sources that are listed at either of those two pages. If you have any citations that are listed as deprecated or unreliable, delete them from the draft. If there are any sources that are listed as sometimes reliable, but possibly questionable for politics, current events, and the like, delete them too. If there are any sources where you see it as a matter of opinion whether they are OK or not, delete those as well, even if you personally feel like that is overkill. The goal is to remove any source that other editors might find a reason to question.

Then look over the remaining citations for any sources that could be characterized as "self-published", as defined at WP:SPS. Anything fitting that description, delete that too.

Then look critically at all the remaining citations, and ask yourself very honestly whether there are any where you have used the source to cite something that the source only mentions in passing, but where it is not the main point of the source. Delete those, too.

At this point, look back over the text of the draft page. There will potentially be content that no longer has sourcing cited to support it. Delete all of that material. I don't know how much material that will be, because I haven't checked it myself. I'm sure this is something that you can do, on your own. It's possible that a significant amount of the draft will be removed. But once you have done that, you will have gone a significant way towards fixing POV problems, and fixing perceptions of BLP problems. Check back with me after you have completed that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no deprecated sources or sources not approved at WP:RSP. I have regularly double-checked. What you're asking goes far beyond our PAG for sourcing and verifiability, but I understand your suggestion is out of an abundance of caution. What I have done is my usual practice of using sources on a case-by-case basis, recognizing that no source is always reliable, and some sources are reliable in certain instances, but not in others. Opinions are usually attributed and/or in quotation marks. Maybe you should take the time to read the draft. It won't take long. Treat it like you would an article in The New Yorker or Washington Monthly. (Yes, I know we have other rules here. Unlike them, I cite all my sources. )

Maybe I'll end up having to only tell part of the story (but which part?), IOW bow to whitewashing demands. The question is which RS to ignore, and how to do it without violating our goal of documenting the sum of all human knowledge (about this topic) as it's told in RS. Anything less is unwikipedian, but those are the demands of some editors who don't want any of this at Wikipedia even though it easily passes GNG.

Did you see my talk page thread there? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about one citation from a source I mentioned above. That is Medium, which is normally not used, per WP:RSP: "should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert". The author is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist for the New York Times, and the content is totally neutral and not problematic in a BLP sense. I believe that on a case-by-case basis, it passes muster for this specific use. I don't usually use it, but it contains a nice timeline (with its sources) that harmonizes with what other RS say. It's compiled by lawyer and journalist Abbie VanSickle at NYTimes. "Abbie VanSickle is a lecturer at the journalism school and a reporter for The Marshall Project, where she covers criminal justice in California. She has also worked as a reporter for the UC Berkeley Investigative Reporting Program, the Center for Investigative Reporting and the Tampa Bay Times."[62] Abbie VanSickle ’11 Key Part of Team Awarded Pulitzer Prize in National Reporting -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the person you need to convince. You are, of course, free to take responsibility for the draft in whatever form you think is best. I do wonder, however, why my careful following of the "mainstream media" has never led me to coverage about the pee tape allegations being true. I think that good-faith editors who are not POV-pushers might look at the draft and think "why is this page emphasizing things that I thought mainstream sources had dismissed as a hoax?" Again, you don't need to answer that for me – and I don't want you to – but rather, to improve the draft page so it doesn't come across that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I'll add a neurotypical suggestion that making some concessions on page content, even if you feel those concessions are unnecessary, can be a way to win over editors who are skeptical. It's like a gesture of good faith. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The premise of RS is that the allegation first publicly appeared in the Steele dossier, and that pretty much all coverage occurred on and after January 10, 2017, and focused only on Steele and the dossier, as if that was the origin and creator of an unproven salacious allegation about Trump. Most coverage happened then, and as there were no investigations, testimony from Cohen and others, etc. at that time, it was immediately rejected as a preposterous, salacious, and ridiculous allegation, a hoax, and lots of other accusations against Steele based on zero evidence. That, for many, is their unchanged image of the story. They don't know that much more came to light later, but, because it's an icky topic, it was largely ignored. It's as if journalists were afraid to touch it. But many still did their work and learned a lot more. You just have to find and read the sources. That's what I have done, and it's all in RS. I have done a lot of work. Contrary stories exist, with denials, but they are in unreliable sources, ergo they do not have due weight for mention here.

If you want NPOV "balance", and we do, RS do provide it. The counter balancing story to the "maybe the pee tape" does exist is Trump's denials and lies about it, and that doesn't help him. There is no "good" way out of this for him. He closed that door by repeatedly lying about it, and in the most childish way possible, telling lies about the timing that only a perpetrator could know. Those lies were like a traile of bread crumbs for Comey and journalists, leading to a number of RS alleging a certain time period where the incident might have happened. "MIGHT HAVE"!!! Not DID happen. We don't know for sure. When one looks at the timeline for Trump's weekend in Moscow, a very welll-documented timeline, there is really only one time period where it could have happened, and Trump claimed, without prompting, that he wasn't even in Moscow at that time. Well, his own bodyguard, pageant host, social media, his own tweets, flight records, etc. proved he was lying. A false alibi is admissible evidence as a proof of "consciousness of guilt". Comey was the first, but not only, one to use those words about Trump's lies.

After that, and more under the radar (unless one reads more widely than the popular press), one finds that many RS went deeper and found that the allegation did not start with Steele's sources, and that Trump learned of the rumor right after he left Moscow in 2013, and assigned Cohen the job of tracking it down. (How many people know that? We never mention it at Wikipedia, yet it's a proven fact.)

The Mueller report only touched the topic, but deliberately did not go deeper, yet a footnote became the ONLY subject of a whole lawsuit, and that lawsuit, much to the consternation of its instigator (Rtskhiladze), revealed that he had changed his story and likely lied to Mueller, and that he had good reason, provided by evidence in his own emails, to believe that the alleged salacious tapes of Trump with prostitutes he had been hunting for Cohen, and the tapes mentioned by Steele, were "one and the same" tapes. That's what Judge Cooper said. He revealed that Rtskhiladze's claim that the tapes he had "stopped" were "fake" was likely not a good faith claim. To the contrary, Rtskhiladze, Cohen, and Trump had all acted as if the tapes were real and had to be suppressed by any means, and Cohen said he was willing to pay a lot for them.

The Senate Intelligence Committee report went much deeper and really examined the pee tape rumor, including lots of evidence of witness testimony and allegations of many forms of Trump's alleged salacious activity in Russia and his vulnerability to blackmail.

Then we have Cohen's own testimony in 2019, where he spilled the beans even further, proving that Steele had nothing to do with the creation or origins of the rumor. (How many people know that? We never mention that a Wikipedia, and the Steele dossier article is currently in error.)

The picture that emerges from all these RS is not of "the pee tape allegations being true", as you put it. The picture is that there is more evidence that it is likely true, no evidence that it is false, and that we do NOT know if it is true. I am like Comey, who is open to it being true. There is no evidence that the story is false or a hoax, contrary to what many sources say. So after January 2017, many sources went much further, and that's what I discovered, and what we do not cover. There is a GNG size hole in our coverage of the "sum of all human knowledge" on this topic. It is our duty to include it. The question is how to do it best and most faithfully to what RS say. I don't have a magic answer for that question. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, tl;dr. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And now I'm pinged that Nickps has dragged me to ANI. I only asked him to provide evidence. That's a reasonable request not worthy of misusing ANI. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that the MfD has closed as "no consensus". And I've made my views clear at ANI. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your voice. --ARoseWolf 11:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome (needless to say!). When I saw your post on your user talk page, I remembered my own feeling when, a couple of years ago, I felt the same way and posted similarly. I know what that feels like, and I care about making things right when wiki-friends feel that way. So that's why I said what I said at the WikiProject talk page ([63]). In fact, editors going around and making drive-by edits that get in the way of what other editors are trying to accomplish, and doing so simply in the name of keeping things supposedly "orderly", is one of the things that especially annoys me. And I've recently seen this happen at some of the WikiProjects I keep an eye on, where somebody who is clueless that I'm watching there comes by and labels the project "inactive" (with a template that actually discourages new editors from making it active again). So, I'm happy to call BS when I see it. And in your case, there was also the much greater harm of making good-faith editors feel unwelcome because of their personal backgrounds. I have no use for that. If you run into any such situation, please always feel free to ask me for whatever help I can provide. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a series of, in my opinion, egregiously biased discussions against Indigenous people and Indigenous owned/allied media sources on Wikipedia. Mocking Indigenous editors by saying that capitalizing Indigenous shows favoritism over other groups of people, like "colonials" and "religious" people, pushed me over the line. That editor has no business even discussing Indigenous topics let alone editing them. Their entire argument was based on that and worse, it was accepted in the close. We were said to have provided no policy and guideline evidence in the discussion despite presenting English language style guides, the statements from multiple reliable sources that Wikipedia uses on the regular, and the United Nations making a addendum to their own writing guidelines for member nations. They called the use of style guides as a source a preference and said that our preferred style is not shared by everyone. They said it doesn't matter how sources write something because ewe shouldn't be copying them anyway. They said the UN is inconsistent and we don't have to follow them either. I personally don't give a damn what they think or care about their opinion about subjects they have no business commenting on. Keep your racist and bigoted views to yourself. The rest of the world has long since passed Wikipedia by and these entrenched racial views need to go. --ARoseWolf 14:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's sad. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was a suggestion of self-harm that was likely to succeed, or to do any lasting damage, but it's just shocking to me that any comment anywhere near that harsh would be tolerated. Where would you draw the line in this genre of comments being acceptable? If someone had conducted a coordinated and possibly successful campaign to have someone slash their wrists, I would block them permanently without question. Having some detail exactly how I could suffocate myself would be unlikely to succeed given I'm not suicidal and they are clearly just angry at me. Having someone tell me to sit on a sharp stick is likely to be interpreted as an angry turn of phrase, not a serious suggestion, though following it could result in bleeding out. Having someone tell me to slap myself in the face is not going to result in serious harm, but in no event would I consider that civil. I would expect that any negative comment about me and my body or what I should do with it would be unacceptable in a civil work environment. Isn't that what Wikipedia is supposed to be? -- Beland (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really not aware of this common idiom? E.g. [64] [65] [66]. It is vaguely related to an actual medical thing that can happen but that has nothing to do with self-harm [67]. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm aware of the expression and its social purpose in this context, which is to insult rather than having any expectation that the target would attempt to perform the requested action, any more than "go suck a bag of dicks" is a literal suggestion. That said, the insult uses the language of self-harm to convey its message. This is not acceptable on Wikipedia either in terms of being an insult or using this type of language. Similarly, using the expression "that's gay" to give a negative opinion about something is using homophobic language, even if the speaker means pretty much the same thing as "that's dumb". And bigoted language, regardless of whether or not there is a discriminatory intent, is even more uncivil and unacceptable than non-bigoted insult equivalents. -- Beland (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is all perfectly sensible except that "until you're blue in the face" has nothing at all to do with self-harm (literally or metaphorically), so that the value of the analogies crumbles completely. You got called childish, and then you went to ANI to complain that someone told you to off yourself -- amazing that this didn't work out. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could believe "arguing until you are blue in the face" is unrelated to self-harm, but EEng told someone to "hold your breath until you turn blue", pretty clearly invoking (for the purpose of generating an insult) a situation in which the victim's tissues are deprived of oxygen. As the WebMD article points out, this can cause the person to lose consciousness and fall down. This can cause serious injury; someone in my family got dizzy and passed out once, and had to go to the emergency room because hitting their head on the way down caused them to temporarily lose their short- and long-term memory. In older people, this type of fall can also cause broken bones, which has also happened to one of my family members. -- Beland (talk) 03:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the victim lol ok bro. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What word would you prefer to use to describe someone who is self-harming as a result of bullying directed at them? -- Beland (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation is as if I reached the conclusion (based on our exchanges so far, and your obvious unfamiliarity with English idiom) that you are actually a Portugese farmer, and then I made multiple posts of many hundreds of words based on this theory, and every single other person in those discussions pointed out that I was being ridiculous, and then I called you "senhor agricultor", and you were like "whatever, bro", and now I'm asking what name I'm possible supposed to call a guy who lives outside Lisbon and grows cork trees for a living. The correct answer would be something like "wtf is this surrealist absurdity?" 100.36.106.199 (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I used the word "victim" to describe a person in a hypothetical circumstance, so it really need not have anything to do with real events. If you don't think the other editor in this conversation was being insulted or bullied, that's fine, I can agree to disagree. -- Beland (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And no, EEng was not telling me to off myself; their comments were not directed at me. They were directed at a third editor, and I am embarrassed for Wikipedia that they had to put up with that. I reported it to WP:ANI because it's against our behavioral guidelines, and EEng is a chronic an ongoing offender. -- Beland (talk) 03:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, that page on 24campfire.com is a pretty good example of things we don't tolerate on talk pages; I see posters calling people "leftard" and "douche", and one displaying a confederate flag. Wikipedia isn't a right-wing forum where people are encouraged to spout off vulgar opinions; it's a collaborative research project where civility is required. -- Beland (talk) 03:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning is well established and has nothing to do with self harm. Claiming that it is is an error at best and a serious false accusation at worst. North8000 (talk) 02:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that everyone interprets speech and language somewhat differently based on their background and culture. This is one reason why people in leadership positions can come off as milquetoast. They know that language is tricky so they try to use language that won't cause unintended problems. There's been many times where I've made jokes in a Wikipedia discussion only to be accused of making personal attacks (And I've made those, too). This kind of thing happens a lot. Not only do people have issues with reading comprehension that is tainted by our own experience, but even having face to face communication can be incredibly trying. I was just telling Tryptofish recently about a joke I made to a fellow Democrat about Biden and Trump forgoing the debate (which turned out terribly) and opting for a dance off instead. I thought my joke was funny and terribly non-political, drawing on both the culture of Idiocracy and the viral trend of doing things for the likes. Well, my joke wasn't taken that way. Instead, I was accused of being a Trump supporter, and was told that I was encouraging people not to vote. Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, but that does not allow an accusation of intending a very bad unusual meaning. North8000 (talk) 02:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt, but I think it explains it. AGF, I think Beland truly believes what they are saying, perhaps not realizing there are multiple interpretations, of which there is only one likely interpretation in a given context. This is the essence of the problem, and it's something I see play out again and again, not just here, but pretty much everywhere. A current example playing out in real time is the drag queen tableau at the Olympics. Christians see it as an attack on their faith, while art historians see it as homage to a 17th century painting about pagan gods. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And more importantly, in neither interpretation is this civil behavior appropriate for Wikipedia talk pages. -- Beland (talk) 03:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that when you police and regulate speech like that, you are dealing with the same cultural influences, in this case subcultural, at work. For example, if I said to you, "Have you given any thought to Roko's basilisk?" in this discussion, you would probably shrug it off as meaningless. But that statement was considered a blockable offense (and equivalent to a personal attack) on a site like LessWrong. So trying to come up with a universal code of conduct for speech is not as easy as you might think. Another way to think about this is how different countries, particularly the US, Canada, UK, and Europe, treat the depiction of sex and violence and how they regulate it. The cultural component here is huge. Viriditas (talk) 03:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you arguing that despite their long experience of editing and history of blocks and complaints at ANI, that EEng was under the impression, for cultural difference reasons, that this comment:

See WP:IDHT. Why don't you hold your breath until you turn blue? That might convince people.

is friendly, civil, and appropriate for Wikipedia talk pages? -- Beland (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. My reading of that out of context quote is not the same as yours. I see someone drawing a direct analogy between IDHT, or refusing to get the point, and the metaphor of holding one’s breath. In fact, if you read the IDHT page, it makes the analogy quite clear, and even shows an image of someone sticking their fingers in their ears and mouthing "I can’t hear you", which is the same as threatening to hold one’s breath in the comparison. "Believing that you have a valid point does not confer the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told otherwise." The site Brainly has a more complete explanation of the metaphor: "Threatening to hold one's breath until they get what they want is considered an idle threat primarily because it's a type of coercion that is unlikely to be effective and can be self-harming. This form of persuasion, much like some historical examples of political intimidation, is based on the fallacy of argumentum ad baculum, or an appeal to force. The ineffective nature of such threats is explained through human psychology and historical precedents. For example, as described by Cassius Dio, it is part of human nature to issue promises and threats without fully committing to carrying them out. Moreover, when a person threatens to hold their breath, the natural survival instincts of the human body will eventually override the conscious effort to avoid breathing, making this an ineffective strategy for getting what one wants." Viriditas (talk) 03:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so given your explanation, I don't see how suggesting to an editor that they act like a child and engage in an ineffective, potentially self-harmful coercive technique to get their way could be anything other than an insult (unless it's meant as friendly teasing). Drowning out someone's speech with "la la la" and fingers in your ears does not carry a danger of self-harm, though it is also childish and unreasonable. Referring someone to WP:IDHT bluntly is rude, and criticizes that editor personally rather than focusing on the actual disagreement or misunderstanding that is causing the author to not feel heard. Other editors did make progress clarifying the objections of GiantSnowman (which were not always clear) by using those techniques.

Reading this quote in context, EEng says in their own words they are "pissed" at GiantSnowman, and there's plenty of other angry context that makes clear this was an insult.

EEng's comments read as hostile starting from the edit summary, which began: "this should be obvious but apparently it's not to everyone". To be fair, GiantSnowman started to be uncivil to a third editor: "unsure if you're trolling or having AI write your responses for you". EEng was clearly annoyed by this discussion, and started to use emotional tantrum phrases like "No, no, no." and "is an absolutely terrible idea". Then got even more unhelpfully hyperbolic - remember we're talking about whether day or month should go first, here: "The idea that we're going to debate the clear preference in English-language publications from the country is either a joke or part of a plot to destroy Wikipedia from the inside."

As the conversation goes on, EEng starts swearing: "every goddam time they write an article". GiantSnowman called EEng's proposal "nonsense" in a not-vote. Then EEng tells GiantSnowman to hold their breath until they turn blue.

Then, after GiantSnowman agrees that EEng's proposal has consensus, instead of taking "yes" for an answer and quietly bringing this contentious thread to a close, EEng unleashes a torrent of angry comments with phrases like "butthurt", "quite obviously, my hand was already so upper that the Hubble telescope would be needed to see it". GiantSnowman requests "Stow the 'tude please." which prompts a completely gratuitous new subsection titled "'tude? You wanna see 'tude?" in which EEng rants for several paragraphs about GiantSnowman's past edits, saying "And now here you've wasted a dozen people's time with your mixed-up reading of MOS. No wonder I'm pissed off at you." (Another innocent editor previously disputed that EEng's reading of the MOS was "obvious".) Yet another editor had to declare the discussion closed to stop the ranting.

I brought to AN/I what I thought were the most obvious examples of bad conduct for brevity, but picking through the thread like this has made me realize that this was not just a one-off inappropriate comment, but an extended uncivil flying off the handle. It doesn't seem like the editors who responded to the AN/I thread took the time to look at the context. I'm sad we never got to discuss just how bad this incivility got, because RickinBaltimore closed the AN/I thread before I had a chance to respond to others' comments. But thanks for your thoughtful consideration here. -- Beland (talk) 07:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EEng is a big topic. I think that the more specific conversation is about saying that the comment was about self-harm and critiquing folks for saying otherwise. North8000 (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I stand by my assertion that the comment unacceptably uses the language of self-harm, even though I agree it can be (and probably was) used without actually intending that someone harm themselves or realizing the statement could be interpreted that way.

Putting any disagreement about self-harm aside, would you at least agree that EEng was being unacceptably uncivil during that conversation, especially at the end? -- Beland (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, folks, I logged on this morning and had a notification that I had something like 28 new messages. Did I get nominated for Vice-President or something?

OK, let me get serious and reply to Beland. Beland, as you know, you and I have worked well together on other things, and I want to assure you that I have no ill-will towards you. I see that other editors have already pointed out (at great length) how "holding one's breath until one's face turns blue" is a turn of phrase that does not mean instructions for anoxia, but rather, means acting childishly to demand what one wants. I also see that you did not interpret it that way, and I think that you did so in good faith. So your concern was a good faith one. But the fact remains, nonetheless, that EEng used the phrase in the common meaning and multiple editors who commented at ANI understood it that way.

EEng is indeed "a big topic". And maybe he can be faulted for peevishness in saying that to the other editor. He's had a long history of being blocked for things that he did wrong. He's also had a long history of being blocked for things that he didn't do wrong. And many editors, including me, are troubled by ANI complaints that seem to be "taking another swing" at editors who have been regarded as controversial. When you posted your ANI complaint, you didn't simply link to the "hold breath" diff, but you listed a wall of previous block history, in a way that came across as a request for a site-ban or indefinite block, and indeed you proposed a series of rapidly escalating sanctions. That might have been proportionate to a genuine threat of violence, but this wasn't a genuine threat of violence. That's why you got the reaction that you got. My advice is to try not to take it personally, but to learn from it. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, being the Wikipedia user page with the largest number of admitted lurkers (like me) is right up there with being the VP candidate. :-) North8000 (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you're being facetious about that "largest number" (especially with the "admitted" qualifier), but you're not actually saying I have more WP:Centijimbos than Jimbo, are you? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. WP:UNCIVIL says, I think sensibly: "While a few minor incidents of incivility that no one complains about are not necessarily a concern, a continuing pattern of incivility is unacceptable." Given what has happened, I'm scratching my head a bit about how the second part could be usefully enforced. It seems to me that if anyone is ever to be sanctioned for a continuing pattern of incivility, a history of incivility would need to be established at AN/I. If presenting a long history of bad behavior is dismissed as a "wall" or "taking another swing" at an editor who has been previously punished, then it seems we have a catch-22 where we can only sanction individual instances of egregiously bad behavior and never a chronic pattern of moderately bad and occasionally egregiously bad actions.

I expect opinions differ greatly on which blocks were deserved and whether they were too long or too short, which is why I noted which ones were shortened. And also why I presented all of them; no matter what you might think of any given block, it seems like there are still plenty of others that establish a chronic pattern of bad behavior. Would spending an enormous amount of time researching which blocks were the most controversial and dropping those have helped? Would it have helped to spend even more time pulling out actual quotes and linking to actual diffs?

It occurred to me, perhaps people who participate at AN/I are used to dealing with much worse behavior, and their level of tolerance is simply far higher than mine? That would imply no action will be taken in a chronic case like EEng until the next egregiously bad incivility. It also implies this problem would need to be dealt with in the meantime without the benefit of sanctions.

In many cases, reminding people to be civil and refocusing the conversation on the merits of a content dispute can get people to cool off and proceed to resolution. With some chronically uncivil people and EEng in particular, that sort of admonishment can just enrages them further, resulting in incivility directed at the person trying to cool off the conversation, and further "they deserve it" sort of abuse directed at editors involved in the content dispute. Previously I've been told that sort of reaction is not a site-blockable offense on its own, so the result seems to be that chronic incivility continues, and anyone who isn't willing to put up with sharp elbows just doesn't engage with certain discussions or articles or Wikipedia at all. Given it is now possible to block an individual editor from a specific page for a certain time, would it be appropriate to do so as a response to a moderately uncivil comment from a chronic offender? If so, is a warning required? Would that last until they say they are going to be civil and stop attacking the admin?

I'm genuinely curious what sort of solutions you would recommend. -- Beland (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest in what I would suggest, and I'm going to disappoint you that I don't have a good solution.

In a way, you are right about what you said in the paragraph starting "It occurred to me...". It's true that admins (I'm not an admin, by the way), tend to sanction for really bad incivility, but not for "minor" incivility, whatever "minor" really means. In some ways, Wikipedia has never been good at handling the civility policy. Partly, that's because different editors perceive civility different ways, in good faith, so it's difficult to define a boundary between "OK" and "not OK". But it's also because everyone's merely human, and it doesn't seem right to block someone for "understandable" conduct (even if they have had a history of doing worse). There's also the issue of not wanting to block someone who was WP:BAITed into incivility. There's a theory about some editors being WP:Unblockables, which I don't believe. (I've lost count of how many times EEng has been called an unblockable, and yet he has a lengthy block log.) And in this case, what EEng actually said was no big deal. I chose my words above carefully when I said that "maybe" it was "peevishness"; it was certainly nothing more than that.

So what I'd recommend is to accept that the civility policy is never going to be enforced in a fully satisfactory way. Remember that other editors are real people. One thing that follows from that is that they will make mistakes and lose their cool from time to time. Another thing that follows from that is that, even if other editors hold themselves to a low bar for civility, we can still choose to try to hold ourselves to a higher standard in what we do. And if you see someone be incivil to someone else, think twice before going to ANI on behalf of the victim. In this case, GS did not choose to complain, so you didn't need to step in on his behalf. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. -- Beland (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The MfD and ANI have been closed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Valjean/Rumor#Closures_at_two_drama_boards

I have left a comment about continued personal attacks here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Red-tailed_hawk#ANI_closure

You really should activate your email. If you have one you would like to use, email it to me. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already aware that it has all been closed, because I've been following it closely. That's good, and I hope we can both start working on some constructive stuff now. As for the links you've given me to your continuing concerns about personal attacks and the like, my strong advice is to just drop all of that. And move on. No good will come of continuing to complain about it. Some editors are just hostile to you, and you cannot change that. But you can stay away from it.

As for email, I'm doing things that way on purpose, and I'm not going to change it for you. I never use email on Wikipedia, because I want to be extra careful about protecting my privacy. I've always done it this way. We can communicate onsite, especially at the draft talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, great, now I can no longer read about the latest scripts on your talk page. Thanks a lot dude. I thought you were taking one for the team. Now I have to subscribe to it and have it take up half my talk page instead? You were performing a public service. Viriditas (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I do the same thing, reading newsletters on other editors' talk pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment triggered a madeleine moment. Many years ago, my friends and I used to inhabit a small cafe in the city, when third places were very much a thing. People would buy newspapers from around the world and leave them on the tables for the next person. I will never forget sitting there, listening to fantastic music, eating too much food and drinking too much coffee, and most of all, staying warm as SF was really cold back then, and the condensation on the windows of the cafe would fog up the glass, giving the scene outside a hazy, colored light streaked swirl that resembled an oil painting. Viriditas (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I had never subscribed in the first place. Someone just put me on the list. Maybe they used a script. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was your doppelgänger. You were interested in the Watchlist Cleaner script for some reason. Viriditas (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whaddya know? I didn't even remember doing that. Good research on your part. There must have been a long time between that, and when the newsletter started again. As for my watchlist, it probably needs a really powerful cleaning agent. And disinfectant. (I'm not quite myself today. I was supposed to have an airline flight this afternoon, but it was canceled, and I'm rescheduled for tomorrow. I feel, um, disrupted.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please. I doubt most people remember half the edits they made. If you knew how many times I searched for a topic on Google, found a search result that led me to Wikipedia, and then discovered a great article on the subject, only to wonder about the authorship, and then to find, to quite my embarrassment, that I was actually the one who wrote it, well, you would laugh. It's happened so many times that I don't even look anymore. Viriditas (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I remember what I had for breakfast this morning. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've told you this several times, but I like telling the story because it's so fascinating. NPR aired a segment a decade ago that interviewed several vetted memory savants. They were quite literally in tears because they couldn't forget what they ate for breakfast every day for the past 20 years. The show was about the necessity and benefits of forgetting, and how much we needed to do it to have healthy and happy lives. It's also interesting to take this idea and put it into other contexts, such as the process of dealing with anger, forgiveness, grieving, etc. Forgetting is, in many ways, very important, although socially, we pretend it's a bad thing that makes us look feeble. It's not. Viriditas (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention, stay safe. I think I can intuit why your flight was cancelled. Stay on top of civil alerts. Viriditas (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided not to ask you why, until I get there. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No magic. Just look at a weather map. :) Viriditas (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm back, uneventfully. You had me wondering, sounded like it might have been Gulag-related. As it turns out, the flight was cancelled because of weather, although it wasn't really located within the worst of what's on that map you linked to. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you're okay. I had something weird happen to me when I last flew from JFK to HNL. It was an 11+ hour flight. I had a good seat, but when I stood up to get some air and walk around, I realized I couldn't move my shoulder to get my arm out of my jacket. I'm still dealing with that loss of mobility today. I'm hoping to see an orthopedist soon. Doctor Google says it's probably a torn rotator cuff, but there's something else going on. I noticed what looks like sarcopenia as well. FWIW, I've had problems with my left hand and forearm for as long as I can remember, so I wonder if it is some kind of underlying condtion related to arthritis as well. I had carpal tunnel syndrome back in 1997, and I was able to cope until around 2000, when I had to give up playing piano and guitar altogether. This is the first time I've ever had issues with my shoulder, but the fact that it's on the same side as the previous problems makes me wonder if there's a connection. Viriditas (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry to hear that. It sounds quite unpleasant. Is the difficulty moving because it's painful to move it, or just resistant to motion? In any case, I do hope you see an orthopedist soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas, I noticed this thread and, as a retired PT, I'm intrigued. (When a health care professional says "Oh, that's interesting!", watch out. We have morbid senses of humor, and pathologies interest us.) I automatically think about possible differential diagnoses. You say "loss of mobility". Do you mean weakness, stiffness, and/or pain? Did any weakness on the plane occur in connection with pain? A "torn rotator cuff" doesn't occur spontaneously without any provocation. It would be quite painful. Are there symptoms of neurological deficits like pain, weakness, loss of sensation, tingling, weakened or lost reflexes, etc.? I'm wondering if there could be some variation of a Saturday night palsy thing going on (just much higher up). Being stuck in one position for several hours can mean some nerves were compressed for so long that they lost their function. Sometimes there is recovery and sometimes not. I've seen this happen. The presentation and medical history often provide the diagnosis without any other investigation. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not clear what precipitated the event, but I did sit down last February, close my eyes, and tried to recall what happened. Nothing came up at first, and then a few minutes later, a memory popped up into my head out of nowhere. It turns out that a month before my trip, I remember sitting parked in the driver's seat of my car and doing something really stupid. My keys had somehow slipped out of my pocket and fell into the floor of the passenger seat behind me. I recalled thinking to myself, "Hey, I wonder how flexible I am, can my left arm go behind the seat and reach back behind my body?" I used to be really flexible when I was younger, not quite a contortionist, but I remember watching those magician videos as a kid and reading about people like Houdini, and trying to fit into small spaces (like a cat, "if I fits, I sits"). Well, I'm no longer a kid, and I think I must have torn something when I did this. I didn't feel a thing until weeks later when I was flying at 30,000 feet. Viriditas (talk) 02:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I recognize that symptom. It's a memory issue that afflicts us older characters. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historical elections. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historical elections/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historical elections/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tryptofish. I have thought about coming here for a while now; there are two things which made me resolve to do so at last. One, my post directly above: If I can leave you a template message, I can surely take the time to write a manual message. And I really like the poetry of the (in this case, necessarily) robotic/bureaucratic message being followed by a more personal note. It is both a before/after – (hopefully) becoming more aware of others' emotions and less attached to the letter of particular rules – and a reminder that there is a balance I need to strike, too.

My second reason: If you can leave a nice message to Clovermoss about RfA and stuff, I can leave you a nice message, too.

I have no hard feelings for my RfA, and I hope you do not, either. Some time we will have to work on an article together. Or something. It is hard to work on CfDs together, so I do not think we should do that.... As mentioned above, people can butt heads and then move on to collaborate later.

I wrote a debrief, containing my thoughts on the process, how I will strive to improve, and my thoughts on further RfA reform. I am curious if you have thoughts on my thoughts?

Anyhow. I am rambling at this point. I am just going to end here by saying I hope you are doing well :)

Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 03:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for this very kind message!

As it happens, I read your debrief very soon after you posted somewhere that you had written it. I was struck by how much of what you chose to write about had grown out of my comments at the RfA, and I'll admit to being a little surprised at how much "impact" I had had. I guess something I can focus on is what you said about learning to do things by "reading the book". In a sense, we all do some of that (or at least we all should). But I've also found that I learn about the right way of doing things by interacting with other people, and coming to understand how other people react to the things that I did. I think that may be the important take-away message. (I've also written some related thoughts at #Hi there, above.) In an essay I wrote, at WP:KNIT#Dealing with it, I said that editors generally, and admins in particular, should approach disputes by asking: "How can I de-escalate the dispute, rather than escalate it?" And I went on to say: "The goal, ultimately, is always to get everyone back to productive content work." Implicitly, I think that means that those things are consequences of WP:IAR.

I know from what you wrote in your debrief that you already understand those things, and intend to take them to heart in your admin work. That's good, and I wish you all the best! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You confused me for a second; you forgot the # at the beginning of "#Hi there" and instead linked to our mainspace article Hi there. Who knew that "Hello" only dates to 1826?

What you said had the most impact on my RfA, no doubt about it. I definitely learned the most from your comments out of anyone at RfA, and I try to let learning experiences have the necessary impact on me. I am glad I won't have to return to RfA as a candidate, but I do wish something like WP:ADMINREVIEW still existed. RfA is the one and only real opportunity you have to get direct feedback from many people on your actions (positive and negative) not worth a dramaboard complaint. Anyhow. Thank you for your thoughts, and I wish you all the best, too! HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 22:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Tryptofish! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I probably say it every year but I find it so cheeky we made our first edit on the same day, albeit 12 years apart. Congrats on 16 years as a Wikipedian. --ARoseWolf 11:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both of you (and congrats to you too, ARoseWolf). Is it 16 years? Feels like 26! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know you don't generally do email but if you drop me a line I have something you may find interesting. It's not related to anything currently ongoing on Wikipedia but also it's not something that can be communicated in public! Bon courage (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't like to do that. It doesn't sound to me like this is very important, but if I'm wrong about that, please let me know. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated, but thanks for getting the page protection at TCM. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting more than important: material from a whistleblower from what turns out to have been a coordinated effort on a topic we were both involved with years ago (we'd no doubt have suspected this at the time anyway). I'm just keeping it on file to send to Arbcom should it flare up again, rather than bother them with anything that doesn't need immediate attention. Bon courage (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Yeah, I have no doubt that there have been such wrongdoings from the kinds of POV-pushers we both encounter. As you say, just keep it on file for future submission to ArbCom if ever needed. That's the right way to handle it, and I don't need to know the details at this time. Thanks for letting me know. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This old topic is getting some renewed attention on Reddit this week.[68][69][70] Since this is your area of expertise (as a neuroscientist, not as someone with hydrocephalus) I would love to hear your thoughts. I think the writers of Westworld were aware of this case as they appear to have echoed the ideas of Axel Cleeremans in several episodes. And yes, The Simpsons anticipated this when Homer had his head imaged. Viriditas (talk) 10:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It's certainly a remarkable example of functional adaptability. My area of expertise (and I got a good laugh out of what you said there) leads me to make a picky distinction between functionality in general and consciousness in particular. As I mentioned above, in #Gone fishin', researchers are trying to figure out if there's a sort of "minimum amount of brain tissue" that can be capable of being "conscious", and for now, there's no answer to that. But the example you cite demonstrates clearly that the minimum is going to be smaller than 10% of a human brain. The man in this example has some impairments, but still can live a largely normal life. It's well-established that the central nervous system makes a lot of use of redundancy – and obviously there are significant evolutionary advantages to this (one can potentially recover from various forms of brain injury, instead of it being inevitably fatal). There's also the quasi-scientific cliché that people only think with some small percentage of our brains. So that study demonstrates that a smallish percentage of the human brain can be sufficient to provide "normal function", with the remaining neurons adapting to take on some of the roles of the neurons that were lost. "Consciousness" would be some fraction of that "normal function", because the study subject clearly appears to be as conscious as anyone else, but the study doesn't let us determine what fraction that would be.

By the way, when I was in graduate school, one day we went to dissect the brain of a laboratory rat. The rat had been moving around it its cage and doing what looked like the normal behaviors a rat would display, nothing out of the ordinary. But when I opened up the skull, the cerebral cortex of that rat's brain was entirely missing. Just pretty much the brainstem. I was flabbergasted, enough that I remember it decades later, and I asked some more senior people in the lab to come over and check what had happened, whether I had made some sort of mistake. We decided that, in fact, this rat had been behaviorally normal, without a cerebral cortex. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you could have won the Nobel if you pursued that line of thinking that arose from seeing the rat without the normal anatomy? Viriditas (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In a word, no. It was a rarity, but not that unique. But as for documenting it and publishing a short paper on it, maybe that was a missed opportunity. A problem would have been documenting the normal behavioral repertoire. There had been no reason to collect that data before the dissection, and after, well, it was too late. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I recall reading something about a researcher genetically engineering animals without full anatomical structures. That was a while ago so I don’t know what became of it. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think what I'm also asking is what kind of implications does this have for AI development? One of the themes in the show Westworld is that our "code" for consciousness is very small and simplistic but we like to think of it as complex because of our hubris. While that is just fiction, it does point at some kind of paradigmatic bias in our overall approach to understanding ourselves. What if consciousness really is something incredibly simple and inconsequential, as this aforementioned medical case seems to imply? What then? I often get into discussions (outside of Wikipedia) where I compare animal and human intelligence, and I have to tell you, people get incredibly angry and upset when this comes up. There's this kind of idea that we are special, that we are unique, that we are better than other animals, and I get the sense that this idea pervades our culture at every level. I was just thinking about this yesterday, while I was walking around this artificial, urban environment that we've managed to create in spite of the natural environment, land that has been buried under concrete and paved over, while never giving a single thought to all the other species who live here or for their welfare. I think it's obvious that any attempt to create AI (if that is even possible and not some kind of fantasy to begin with) will end in the same way, with humanity being paved over by our own creation. Viriditas (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, when relating AI to biological brains, one of the things that I keep coming up against is that biological brains have to do what they do, using cells and biological constituents. There's no way (yet) to take a shortcut, and put some silicon transistors and some binary code into some part of the brain. A newly made human brain, as in a newborn baby, is a lot less computationally complete than a brain that is ten, or fifty, years older. And that would be a very inconvenient time course for someone constructing a computer that can do strong AI in time for the venture capitalists to be satisfied. I'm going to disagree with you about the case above demonstrating that consciousness is something simple that can be accomplished by something very small. Even with approx. 90% of his brain tissue gone, what remains is an incredibly large quantity of neurons and synapses. That's still an extremely complex biological system. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The AI proponents reject carbon chauvinism and argue that consciousness is probably substrate-independent and that sentience is just a matter of degree. I've often wondered if we learned to have the feeling of consciousness as we grew up and if these ideas of feeling consciousness are just ideas that could be implanted in non-biological systems. For example, most people go through their lives with thoughts, ideas, and beliefs in their heads that came from somewhere else, but at the end of the day, we like to pretend or call our own. Couldn't consciousness be a similar kind of idea? We think we are conscious, but isn't this just another story we learned from others that we tell ourselves? Viriditas (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a ton of fascinating philosophical issues in there. I'm not arguing for carbon chauvinism, by the way. It's entirely possible that in silico can do some things better – and certainly doesn't need to spend as much time being trained. We use the word "consciousness" as though we know what it means, but we really don't. Is your brain conscious when you sleep, when you dream, when you daydream but aren't paying attention to something near you? Depends on how you define the word. One can program a machine to mimic any particular manifestation of consciousness, but if you ask it if it is conscious, can you trust its reply? I'm taking it on faith that you are conscious, because my past experience tells me it seems to make sense to assume that other people I interact with have the same consciousness I think I have, but I don't know it for a fact. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve spent a lot of time playing around with chat bots and the like, as well as interacting with different kinds of animals. I think what I mean by consciousness is being able to go beyond our programming (cultural, innate, whatever) and to recognize ourselves as self-aware in relation to the larger world. I can ask my cat to try a bit of broccoli and give me their opinion, but it can’t do that for some reason. Which is odd, because it can do a hell of a lot of things that I can’t, like catch a bird flying in mid-air. So maybe consciousness is related to tasks, I don’t know. Viriditas (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of thought about this centers on awareness of self. I have a definite sense that I am a conscious self. But how does one ask someone else if they have the same sense, and if they reply yes, how does one verify that it's really the same? If a plant turns towards the light, that's a task, but it's unlikely to be conscious. If your cat eats the broccoli, you might be able to observe its body language and infer its opinion of the taste. Cats and other mammals appear to have a lot more consciousness than the phototropic plant does, but we keep coming back to the issue of how we choose to define the word. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. Maybe we just can’t escape the rigidity of primate consciousness. There’s a powerful scene in the film First Man where Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin are getting ready to land on the Moon in 1969. There’s a quick succession of frames showing their faces in almost chiaroscuro, framed and entangled by the darkness and sheer terror of space while the moonlight reflecting from the lunar surface lights up slivers of their faces, mostly just their eyes, giving the distinct appearance of ape-like faces, not human, peering out of a dark primeval forest, except this is the metallic compartment of the Lunar Module Eagle, not ancient Africa. This scene likely went unnoticed by most people but it really stuck with me, and it may have been a subtle homage to 2001 to boot. My point is that when we are truly faced with the unknown, we seem to revert back to our original programming, likely because we are unable to escape from it. Viriditas (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should note, this is a major subplot in Westworld that is used to show how an AI system and human brain might be indistinguishable. In the story, the humans think they are special and unique and better than the AI, but the AI show that human thought processes are simple and rudimentary, while the AI surpass them by being able to network and upload their minds for saving and restoration in case something happens to their bodies. The humans think they are conscious and have free choice, but the AI explain how that’s basically an illusion of limited choices, feedback loops, and predictability. Viriditas (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cite this as a disenchanting experience, and it is implied older editors like myself are to blame. Several say the problem is that a group of editors (me, nableezy etc) bludgeon.

Well here is an analysis of just the talk page of that article, where you and Andrevan, sharing almost identical views argued your case

• Tryptofish edits 60
• Andrevan edits 59
• Nishidani 27
• Levivich 20

etc. The totally of edits by both of you exceeds the comments of several other partecipants.

Idon't think you were tagteaming, and since I think talk page discussions should run their natural course, tolerate longueurs but by the sloppy criteria being splashed all round that ARCA page, you are a tagteamer and bludgeon, a view and an interpretation I do not share. Nishidani (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like ArbCom is going to accept a full case, and you will have the opportunity to present your evidence there. I'm not interested in arguing about it here. My comments at ARCA were not about bludgeoning and tag teaming. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of accepting an invitation to join what I consider a farce. I appreciate your indirectly citing my position correctly, that Jewish/Israeli/diaspora scholarship is the most reliable guide to the conflict. That is a position I have insisted on for a decade, hoping other editors absorb it. You mention WP:BRIE as if someone like myself believed in the truth of that scholarship and was muscling this in in a behaviourally aggressive manner (try to seed that suspicion to anyone who works as a lecturer in academe and has to interpret cutting edge scholarship so that his students can themselves master a subject). It is not a matter of belief. Scholarship doesn't give anyone the truth: it succeeds where it shows that less empirically grounded stories are shaky, and gives us a narrative that, provisorily, is superior in terms of explaining any historical question. It is simply a matter of writing articles according to the best available scholarship, even if one may entertain personal doubts about some of it. Why? Because it is infinitely more sober, objective and analytical, data-rich, than the newspaper memes and nationalistic fairy tales touted by what you identify as the other camp. And note, rampant sockpuppetry is almost the exclusive practice of that nationalistic camp. You have a scientific background. I would have expected you to have grasped that.Nishidani (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can grasp that I said that I'm not interested in arguing about it here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you interested in another Hopper DYK? Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm guessing it's Rooms by the Sea. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I’ll do a major expansion later tonight. You’re free to do whatever you want, of course. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lots to do! The tension between Hopper and his critics is fascinating, with Hopper denying every attempt to describe him as an abstract artist or surrealist. I believe this is where the famous "You kill me" quote comes from, when a critic compared Mondrian with Hopper’s Rooms by the Sea. Also need to add he began it in Truro in September during a bout of artist’s block and finished in October. He famously described it as his "jumping off place". His wife was pretty critical of it! Viriditas (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One hypothesis that I have is that Hopper was so opposed to the association because at the time, many of the people associated with abstract art and surrealism were communists or fellow travelers. Just an insight I have with no evidence, but it makes sense given Hopper was a conservative. Also, I’m ignoring abstract expressionism for obvious reasons. Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a whimsical idea: DYK... that Edward Hopper sold some beachfront property to a New York art gallery? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Love it! You have a talent for this. Apologies for the delay, but there's so much information on this one painting, I'm experiencing a bit of information overload. I've spent the last few hours collating. Viriditas (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best if I start small, that always seems to help when I feel overwhelmed. I will focus on the provenance section for the next hour. Viriditas (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'm going to log out now, and I'll give it some attention tomorrow. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just added the provenance section in toto. I've got a bit more time to start another section, so we will see what happens. I hope to have a third section added by tonight, and a fourth by tomorrow morning. Viriditas (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If all goes according to plan, maybe we could submit the hook sometime Thursday? Viriditas (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just added a background, description, and exhibition section. I'm signing out now, but I may return much later if I have the energy. Viriditas (talk) 02:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've done what I could think of, and I think it looks good. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The doctor is in, Charlie Brown! Viriditas (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you have any other hooks. I will try to submit tomorrow morning. I think it's best to present multiple hooks, so if you can, please come up with a few others. Otherwise, I will just submit the one up above, and maybe one of my own if you don't have a few more. Viriditas (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Offhand, that's all I've got. If the reviewer doesn't like a given hook, it's always OK to add more options as needed. I'm going to leave the kewpy-que to you. (I'm always happy to be hired as a hooker!) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will be taking you up on that for the next year. Viriditas (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm done copyediting. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's too bad, as I would encourage you to continue copyediting like you were. I just didn't like the image placement. Other than that, please keep going! I already have a stack of unused QPQs, so that's already done. Viriditas (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, that's not the way I meant it. I just meant literally, that there's nothing more I can think of. Like I'm done, and you don't have to wait for me to do anything more. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so if I submit the DYK right now, the first thing the reviewer is going to say is "where do I find it in the article"? There's two places that I see that could partially support it right now, but I'm not against making additional changes. Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will submit it now if you don't have other changes for the hook or the article. Or if you do, consider making them after the DYK, when it will give you additional opportunities for more hooks. Viriditas (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, feel free to go ahead; that's pretty much what I meant by my clumsy remark above. I see the same two places related to the hook, and they both make sense. But I don't have access to the full source material. My advice is to follow the hook by as many source citations as can support it, perhaps from both places on the page, and include in small font some quotes from the sources that support it (as I did here). The sources you cite will determine the "where" to find it. And if the source material isn't quite consistent with the hook I wrote, the language of the hook could be adjusted slightly. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't write hooks that way, I tend to follow WP:DYKHFC. So I will add your hook and see how it goes. Viriditas (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Rooms by the Sea: looks good! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: I just noticed that the source quotes at the DYK nom sound like quotes from the page, but they should be quotes from the sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I did that on purpose. Happy to reverse it. Viriditas (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Viriditas (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the small expansion: "Hopper sent the finished painting to Frank Rehn". That's a safe assumption, but none of the sources give us that information. Viriditas (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that such information might appear elsewhere, particularly in places I haven't yet looked. For example, there's a cited source that includes discussion of the original note written by Jo that I have not yet checked. It's very well possible that it says "the note was sent along with the painting that was delivered to Rehn". But we don't have that in the article yet, do we? Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of them is called Edward Hopper: A Journal of His Work (1995) by Deborah Lyons. Seems very hard to get a hold of online. Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only available in brick and mortar libraries. Viriditas (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You willing to make the trip to a library? Viriditas (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About the quotes for DYK, that's much better, thanks. About the small expansion, I just tweaked it so as to not imply that the painting and the letter were sent simultaneously (although that may be gilding the lily). As for whether there's any OR in saying that Hopper sent the painting to Rehn, I really don't think so. We know from the sources that Rehn was the first holder of the painting after Hopper was finished with it. Either Hopper sent it (very likely), or Jo (or someone else) sent it on his behalf (possible, but effectively the same thing), or it traveled to Rehn magically. I honestly don't think it's an issue. About me going to a library, sorry, I just don't have time. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given Hopper's Greenwich Village studio, it seems likely that he finished the painting in Truro and then delivered it to Rehn. It wouldn't make sense for Rehn to come and get it when the Hopper's go back to NY after their Truro summer vacation every year. However, I do have concerns about going beyond the sources, so I will continue to look for additional supporting material. Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel strongly about "sent" in "Hopper sent the finished painting". But I think that "sent" can encompass "delivered" or "handed to", in this context. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But we still don't have the source for how the painting got from Truro to the New York dealer. I mean, I think it's obvious that Hopper delivered and drove it to Rehn himself (he didn't like it when Jo drove, and this was a major source of friction between them). But I also like to stick as closely to the sources as possible. Viriditas (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I don't even think it matters. The hook is probably fine, I don't see anything wrong with it. Viriditas (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like. I agree. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get mad at me. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! No problem. (Why you, why you..... !) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(And I just learned from your talk page what a bandoneon is. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Rest assured, you wrote a great hook. It’s unfortunate, but there are people who might not see that. It kind of reminds me of all the criticism about Don't Look Up from 2021, one of the greatest films of the pandemic era. At the time, conservatives and technologists on the right were apoplectic about the movie, and couldn’t figure out how anyone could like or appreciate it, seeing as they were directly pilloried by analogy. At one point, when the film was receiving accolades around the world, these people all bandied together to flood the Internet with bad reviews, claiming it was one of the worst films ever made. Sometimes people are just wrong and there’s nothing you can do about it. I just wanted you to know that I see you and recognize your brilliance. Viriditas (talk) 03:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, welcome back (belatedly) after your vacation. I was a little worried that EEng's edits had caused some friction, but I think the page ended up in very good shape.

That's incredibly kind of you to say those things (blush). And of course the page would not have existed at all without you. As for the hook, yeah, humor is a very iffy thing on Wikipedia. And I'm perfectly content with the ALT hook that got accepted. Whatever. Now if only someone would get around to promoting it to a prep and queue. I also agree with you about Don't Look Up, a film that I admired a lot. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The next to last scene at the end, where they all settled their differences and held hands, waiting for the end of the world, touched me in a way that no other film has in recent years. It was such a beautiful film. Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that I liked where the tech bro got eaten! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just deserts, quite literally. We can't build a single, sustainable contained biosphere on Earth, but Musk is all systems go on a Mars colony. It's insanity. Viriditas (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It will end up being natural selection, I hope. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This just showed up on my watchlist. Draw your own conclusions. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And what's even crazier, Mark Rylance didn't win an award for his performance. That's upsetting to me. He made the whole film worthwhile and made me laugh so much. I demand an award for him! Viriditas (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if only someone would get around to promoting it to a prep and queue

There are a few reasons why it hasn't been promoted, I think, but I would rather not muddy the waters with my unbridled speculation. It would help if you could leave a brief note at Wikipedia talk:Did you know asking for fresh eyes to take a look. I've seen this kind of thing happen before, so there may be a reason. Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about the process, but I'm not going to do anything right now (but I have no objection if you do). I'm going to the neuroscience meeting soon, so my time for things here is about to go down a lot for a while. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have a good time! Viriditas (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK just featured the following hook in the primary, top spot: "Did you know... that Punam Krishan (pictured) was raised on curry and Irn-Bru?"[71] I completely fail to see how this is in any way different from your initial proposed hook. We all know Krishan wasn't raised on curry and Irn-Bru, just as we know Hopper didn't sell a beachfront property. Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've long since adjusted to Wikipedia being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, including people who are humor-challenged, and worse. And I've had work of mine, in real life, that I cared about far more than this, get pissed on. So, I'm not bothered by how this came out. And I hope you aren't, either. Rooms by the Sea is a fine new article, that we can both take pride in. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just became aware of this, and I want to make sure you are abreast of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the utterly preposterous link. I could milk the idea until it runs dry, but I would prefer to just latch on and wait for others to comment. I will not be cowed into participating. Viriditas (talk) 23:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you meant udderly preposterous. Sorry if I'm acting like a boob. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note the use of double Ts, not double Ds. What would your alma mater think? Viriditas (talk) 23:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tryptofish, in the open Historical elections arbitration case, in which you offered a statement, a proposed decision has been posted. If you have comments on the proposed decision, they may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. SilverLocust 💬 14:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be away from Wikipedia October 4–10 while attending the Society for Neuroscience meeting in Chicago. I'll respond to stuff here when I get back. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to your return and any updates on the recent breakthrough which led to the mapping of the fruit fly connectome and how it can hopefully improve my life soon. :-) Viriditas (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Trypto. I read about that poor fruit-fly, giving up it's brain for the good of humanity, and naturally I thought of you. Bless you. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey flyboys, I'm back. Seems like I've got a lot to get caught back up on, on my watchlist, but I'll post my yearly debrief when I get to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did they discuss anything related to the fringe (literally straight out of Walter Bishop's lab), emerging technology of REM dream control and two-way communication?[72] New Scientist gave it lip service as future tech back in July.[73] Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a huge meeting, so if anyone did, it wasn't in what I attended. I'll get around to posting what I found interesting, when I get around to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's taken me long enough, but I've finally broken away from the firehose of blech coming over my watchlist, and I'm going to reply about what I learned at the meeting. Caveat: everything is preliminary reports of findings, frequently not yet even peer-reviewed, and so it's all entirely what WP calls primary sources, viewed through my personal opinions.

There were things that were of a specialized, technical nature, that were of interest to me personally, but if I focus here on things that would be of more general interest, one point that stood out was that there is increasing evidence that the idea that specific brain regions have specific functions is just not holding up at all. Stuff like one part of the brain is responsible for memory, another for pleasure, and another for fear. Those brain regions do, indeed, play roles in those things, but all of these complex functions actually involve multiple brain regions simultaneously interacting with one another, and a single brain region that is involved in one kind of function is also involved in many other kinds of functions. Another trend I noticed is that there are increasingly significant differences between how male and female brains (in humans and in other animals) process various kinds of inputs, with some specific brain circuits actually going in opposite ways. (To anticipate a possible question, I didn't see anything in that regard for non-binary humans.)

But I think the most memorable information that would be of general interest definitely was about "brain implants", along with implants in other parts of the nervous system, as a way of providing medical treatment. Things like electrical devices that can be implanted, usually surgically, in the body. This kind of thing has been going on for quite a few years, and I had been regarding it as still pretty early in the experimental process. But in the past year, scientists and doctors working on it have figured out a lot, from trial and error, about what does or does not work. And it's really starting to work. I saw results in individual people that were spectacular. A person who could not stand up on his own, and was needing to use a wheelchair, now able to go jogging down the sidewalk of a city street, and looking very athletic. Another person who had lost the ability to speak, and who could only communicate by moving his eyes, now talking out loud in a conversation and sounding entirely lucid. Patients saying that they had finally gotten their lives back. Loved ones saying that they had finally gotten their family member back.

And a new ethical issue has come up in that regard. These implants need a lot of maintenance. Repairing a microelectrode after a while, or even just changing a miniature battery. This can be very expensive, and there is a shortage of neurosurgeons who work in this specialty area. And (of course) medical insurance does not pay for it, because it's experimental. We are now facing the dilemma of patients who have been dramatically cured, but nobody will cover the expenses of maintaining the cure. So there are cases where the implant will just have to be removed, which is horrifying. One patient said that if you want to remove his implant, he is going to fight you over it. We are going to need a new way of paying for this, and we need it yesterday. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could I order one of those snazzy Wik-implants. please? Jeff says he'll do free next day delivery. Please send the bill to Jimbo. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're one of those cases who just cannot be cured. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But if you don't have a surgeon to open up your head yet, Dr. Fishy would be happy to do it! Now, where is my axe, anyway? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continues below. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably me making a stupid impulsive decision in the middle of the night, but I try very hard to not let bad experiences burn me, so here I go. Hopefully our conversation goes better than the last time I came here, especially now that you've apologized. I still have no idea what you saw in me, or what those coincidences were, but I figured I'd give you a glimpse into what I'm actually like. I gave a keynote at this year's WikiConference North America. A lot of people said it moved them, but I'm not sure I actually did that well. There's a lot of umms and you can practically feel my fear from the stage (or maybe that's just me projecting because my heart pounds even trying to watch it). But I got through it. It still feels surreal that I really did all that. Anyways, if you want to watch it, it's here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and let me assure you right away that it's fine that you posted this here, and I appreciate it very much. Please know that you are always welcome on my talk page.

I watched and listened very carefully to your entire video. You did very well, by the way, and I think you are an effective and personable speaker. (We are all our own worst critics.) Although I previously had a superficial understanding of some of your life experiences, your talk did indeed fill in many more details. I'm genuinely sorry for the difficulties you had to deal with, especially when you were so young, and I'm glad that you are finding the strength to move on with your life, into a better set of circumstances. If Wikipedia helps with that, all the more to the good.

I'll tell you a few things about me (all of which I've posted here in the past, but I'll repeat it in one place now). I'm 68 years old. I was sexually abused as a child, by a teacher at my elementary school. I've had major depressive disorder for much of my adult life, and am getting good health care to deal with it.

That said, I'm sort of flattered that you appear to care so much what I think, but my sincere opinion is that you shouldn't care that much about it. Wikipedia can be a very random place, in that you never know who the other person is, who is about to cross paths with you in editing. Fortunately, there are plenty of fellow editors who are really wonderful people to interact with. But there can also be people whose opinions are really not worth spending any energy on. As I said, I'm glad that you are finding a positive community in editing here, but it's important to keep it in perspective. Don't care too much about any random thing that some anonymous user might say to you, or else it can really wear you down.

As far as I'm concerned, the rough patch that you and I had in the past is in the past, water under the bridge, any metaphor you want, to convey that it's over and done with. From now onward, I consider you to be a colleague, and you are always welcome on my talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping that we'd be able to put this past us, yes. But that doesn't just happen automatically, you know? That's why I wanted to reach out about this instead of just being angsty. To be quite frank, the talk I gave just scratches the surface of everything I've been through. I've learned to be very careful in how much detail I explain my childhood, because it tends to either lead to people pitying me and seeing me as a victim with no agency, or feeling like their problems aren't nearly as bad. Life isn't a competition. I'm sorry you went through what you went through, too.

I know you're concerned that I'm placing too much stock in what "random" people think, but it's a bit more complicated than that. You're not really a random person to me. I don't care about what random trolls say. Otherwise I'd be more troubled by all the revdelled nonsense (some it incredibly sexual in nature) LTAs say to me. The reason all this mattered to me so much is because I've always viewed you as my colleague, and I generally valued your perspective elsewhere. So it was a bit more personal to me in that way, I suppose. I just desperately wanted to prove that I could be trusted and it felt like there was nothing I could do that would be convincing enough. Sharing that photo was the first time I ever confirmed that information on-wiki, and showing who I was wasn't even enough. But I also know that sometimes people just don't like you and there's nothing you can ever do to change that. That's why I said I could move on, even if I didn't really want to. I generally try to err on the side of hope and that reasonable people will come around if something really unfair is happening. Because I've spent a lot of time dealing with people who won't come around no matter what you say.

I think I am slightly more sensitive to accusations of lying and somehow being inherently evil; others might be able to put that out of their head more easily. My father's abuse started when I was 5, around the time he was disfellowshipped. He hurt my Mom a lot too. Part of what made it hard to see that what happening wasn't normal is that my Dad was a "mentally diseased apostate". I thought that it wasn't really my Dad that was doing these things (he was just being influenced by Satan) and that if I could just convince him to come back to Jehovah, the abuse would stop. We'd be a family and everything would be okay. Then my living situation changed, as I said in my talk. So when I lost my faith and the support system that came with that, the only person who really understood what that was like was someone I could never confide in. I was worried I was destined to become some sort of evil monster like my father. Afterall, I was his child.

My point is that you never really know what someone on the other side of the screen has been through and I'd rather give people the benefit of the doubt if they've never done anything wrong. I don't think it's a good idea for the community to be so paranoid about socks that baseless accusations happen. LTAs do some real harm to people and accusing people of being one should not be taken lightly. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's kind of you to respect me enough to care what I thought. If you want, I can go into more detail about my thinking about the photo, but I'd prefer not to. I have said clearly and publicly that I came to realize that I was wrong, and you should always feel free to link to the diff where I said that. There may be a limit to what I am qualified to do, in terms of explaining why that past interaction with me should not be triggering for you. I hope there is someone off-wiki, in real life, who can talk with you about this. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do realize you have apologized since. I'm just trying to be open about why I cared about it. It's not triggering for me to simply have a conversation about this, I've been through a lot and this is nothing. Our previous interaction definitely hurt but it wasn't the end of the world either. I'm not asking you to be my counselor or anything.

I just try very hard to make sure that our community is a place where everyone feels welcome, you know? I'm not the only one out there that has falsely been accused of being a sock and not the only one that felt some sense of rejection from the community because of that. I'm not placing all the blame on you here, I'm using this as an example that hopefully everyone can learn from? At least that's what I was trying to do. I don't think approaching people with inherent suscipion because they look like some other person on the planet or aren't making a ton of mistakes is what a non-toxic community does. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In context, when you say "I'm not placing all the blame on you", it sounds like you are placing some of the blame on me. I'm going to push back on that. I'm not someone who makes careless accusations. In fact, I didn't make anything like an accusation, just a vague "neutral" comment, until you pushed me to say more about it. I wasn't "approaching" you with "inherent suspicion". At the time, there were very substantial reasons for my concerns, nothing careless about it – but also nothing that was your fault. I'm all in favor of doing more to making the community more welcoming, and I have a long track record of working towards that. In fact, you might want to look back and my entry on your editor reflections page, in that regard. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to disagree with your conclusion here. People can care about making the community more welcoming while also acting in ways that don't always reflect that intention. To me, your accusations definitely seemed careless, and I doubt that others wouldn't also see it that way. I hope you reconsider what I've said. All I can hope for is that you get the point of what I'm saying one day. I've tried my best. I should probably move on from this conversation, because I doubt I'm going to change your mind here, and I've already invested too much time on this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said I didn't want to go into details about my earlier thinking, but your insistence on calling me "careless" has made me feel that I need to do so. A long time ago, I happened to notice a comment you posted that sounded, oddly, like something that someone else might also have said. I'm not going to explain, because WP:BEANS applies to that someone else, who may still be out there. The fact that it sounded that way could, of course, just be a coincidence. And in fact, it eventually turned out that it was just a coincidence. Did I do anything to you, as a consequence of that, that could reasonably be construed as hurtful? No. I commented neutral in your RfA, and did so in a bland way. At the time, your response was this: [74]. I figured that was that. Later on, you came back to my talk, in the discussion you link to above. Let me reconstruct exactly what I thought:

1. Oh, that's disappointing. I thought we had settled that, but it sounds like she is still concerned about it. Let's see what this is about.
2. Good! She's posted a photo. I'm going to look at it and see it isn't the same person, and that will put it to rest. That's good.
3. Oh shit! I can't believe what I'm seeing in that photo.

All that went through my mind more rapidly than the time it takes to read that. What I did next, was to pull up the photo you posted, in a separate browser tab where I could enlarge it. And in a second tab, I enlarged a photo of the person I suspect of being the disruptive user (obviously also a youngish woman). I then carefully compared them, side-by-side and feature-by-feature.

Again, this turns out to have been a horrendous coincidence. But the similarities were remarkable, nothing careless about it. I carefully compared every feature I could find (other than changeable things like hairstyle or clothing), and each thing matched up, detail by detail. It was spooky. I tried to find subtle differences, really tried, really wanted to find some, but nothing stood out. I hadn't been particularly convinced that my suspicions were justified, but now I was really wondering if a very nasty person was playing games with me. I had to decide: should I just say OK and don't worry about it, or should I indicate that I had reasons to be concerned? Obviously, I chose the latter. In hindsight, I wish I hadn't, because that would have saved both of us a lot of hassle. But I said what I said, even then acknowledging that I wasn't sure whether it was just a coincidence. I didn't post about it anywhere else, just here on my talk page. Now I know that some of my talk page regulars posted some jokey things about it, in that same section, and I know that that hurt your feelings, which I am sorry about. But you also lashed out at me, at places like WT:RFA, in the months that followed, and I feel that I didn't deserve that.

The day that you won that Wikimedian recognition, I looked at the video, and immediately saw things that proved, conclusively, to me that this had all been a horrible coincidence. I'm not going to say what, because of BEANS. But I immediately went to your talk page to try to make things right.

I know that this has been bad for you, and I'm very sincerely sorry that it has. I wish I had not gone into those details in my earlier talk page comments, and just let it all pass. But I did not do that out of malice towards you, and it wasn't careless.

Something I'm trying to get across to you is that, on Wikipedia, you sometimes, often times, just have to let things go. When I was a new editor, I had this said to me by someone very experienced and respected: [75], which also led to: [76]. This is the internet, and stuff like that happens. The person who said that second thing later became someone I got along with very well, and I doubt that he remembers what he earlier said about me. And I haven't forgotten what it was like to be a new editor. Indeed, my concern about that person whom I mistakenly confused with you grows out of my concerns over unfair things done to other editors.

I get it, that your life experiences made you especially vulnerable to feeling hurt by what I had said. And again, I'm very, very, sorry that I said it. But I wasn't being careless. Stuff like this happens online, and one should not blow it out of proportion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also no proof that whoever you think I look like is a sock, as you've said yourself: For reasons that I cannot post, I have a hunch that I know who the sockmaster is, and what they look like. I still believe it is careless to make these accusations because I wrote something once that apparently sounded like something this sock would say. I think that's what happens when people get so paranoid about socks that they don't listen to what this sounds like to literally anyone else. You really are missing the point of what I'm trying to convince you of here.

I don't think anything I've ever said to push back against this logic is "lashing out". I'm not content to simply sit back and let people say awful things about me anymore. You have a right to think whatever you like about me and I have a right to respond to that rhetoric when it publicly involves me. I think I've been beyond reasonable about it, all things considered. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not missing the point. I haven't gone looking for any of this. If you initiate a discussion, understand that you cannot dictate how someone will respond to you. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware I can't control how you respond. I'm saying that it's clear you don't understand the point I'm trying to make. I encourage you to ask other people which position is the more reasonable one. I have a hunch no one would side with you. Feel free to prove me wrong. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one would side with me? That's cold. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be. I'm just trying to get you consider that if you're the only person who thinks something is reasonable and everyone else is saying it isn't, maybe you should consider if you're the one in the wrong. Like WP:1AM but as a general approach to life instead of just a content dispute. Talk to other people. See what they think. We're obviously at a standstill here and I doubt anything I can say here will come across. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And now I'm the only person who thinks it's reasonable. Everyone else says I'm wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I referred to WT:RFA, I was remembering a discussion about why people are reluctant to run, where I said this: [77]. I'm confident that what I said was reasonable and relevant. And it also had absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing here. But your response, [78], made it into something about you, and not about what I had actually said. That's what I was talking about. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it had nothing to do with what was being discussed. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is something I cared about for a long while, even before I ran myself. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 263#Accusing someone of being a sock in an RfA?. People see toxicity like that and get scared of the process. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. But my comment, in that diff, was about something else entirely. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The general discussion was about why people don't run for RfA. I've had many discussions with people, both online and off (especially now that I've been a nominator), about why exactly they don't run, and I thought my comment there was very relevant to the general idea. While some people are concerned that certain things they've done will be taken out of context (like you expressed), others aren't concerned about that at all (they can own up to their mistakes and getting opposes on that basis isn't what prevents from from RfA), they're more worried about people finding reasons to reject them that are completely out of their control (like sockpuppetry accusations). RfA can be a rather arbitrary toxic process sometimes. If I could back in time, I'd link to what I did in the above comment because it would've made things in that specific discussion less personal, especially as I was replying to you directly at that time. But people really are scared about these things happening at RfA and I wanted everyone who cares about why people choose not to run to consider that. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm also following the discussion about me, between you and Viriditas, on your talk page. Let me attempt to close with this: I want to go back to what I said near the start of this discussion, before it took a turn for the worse. You are welcome at my talk page. You and I are not enemies. I've apologized for when I was wrong, and I've set the record straight. I don't want to keep ruminating on something that belongs in the past. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like we came to a similar conclusion at the same time. I meant what I said at my talk page too. I don't think something entirely belongs in the past when it's an aspect of our community that shows up from time to time and continues to hurt innocent people, but Rome isn't built in a day and you can always come to me if you ever feel like reopening this specific discussion. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I promise this will be the last thing I ever say on this unless you ever choose to engage with me on this topic again, but for what it's worth, I am sorry for the "no one would side with you" comment. I really didn't mean it to come across that way but to some extent, my intentions don't really matter there. That's a phrase that can have some pretty awful connotations for people (especially if they've been through trauma like we have) and I should have considered that. I should've been more careful. I'm sorry. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate that very much. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

...but basically, when I was a young teenager, I made an account on Wikipedia, and tried to fix some stuff. You helped me do it, and you were really warm and welcoming and you made me feel appreciated. I abandoned the account because I was a silly kid with the attention span humans stereotypically assign to goldfish(in complete ignorance of their intelligence, btw), and when I wanted to come back in 2018, I had to create a new account once I realised I had inadvertently revealed personal information that I don't want connected back to me. (Internet privacy was very overrated in my younger mind). But the way you welcomed me, and the way you walked me through edits/did the edits yourself, has always stuck with me. So thank you. From the bottom of my heart, thank you. I've wanted to say this to you for a long time, and the past week has been making me think a lot about it. And again, there's no way you'll remember who I am - our original exchange all those years ago probably didn't even take more than a few minutes out of your day - but thank you. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very, very much for that. (On a day when I've been feeling pretty shitty about the world, both onsite and in the real world, especially with anxieties about the US election, I really needed that!) I certainly don't know what account was your previous account, but I'm happy to have been able to help. I'm inferring that the ongoing ANI thread was the immediate reason for you posting this, and I, in turn, appreciate the comment you made following mine. I've been seeing you around (in your current account), and I've been noticing that you do good work and have good judgment (or at least judgment I agree with!). Anyway, thanks again for that, and happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, I always assumed you were small and dry, like an anchovy. But if it will prevent me from EVER AGAIN trying to help an editor avoid sanctions, even if they are well deserved, please throw yourself onto a pizza before delivery. Good eatin'! But as I pondered on Doug's Talk page, what the f was I thinking? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 05:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Small and dry? I've been called a lot of things, but I don't remember being called either of those two before. Maybe just salty. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But have you ever been called late for dinner? Or DOCTOR Late For Dinner? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who? What's for dinner? Pizza? Fish? Anchovy pizza? A Petri dish of anthrax? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guess who's coming to dinner.... Sidney Poisson? No, it's Trypt-overdose! yay!! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more rampant Trypophobia! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, suck it up, scaley features! Shove that in your Hebridean pipe and smoke it! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can lead a horse to water but you cannot smoke a fish, or is it tuna fish? I can't even remember if I've been called scaley before... Small, dry, and scaley. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry Trypto, at least you're not frozen. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

--Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I first opened the thread about LB's trolling userpage edits, you were one of the first to respond and seemed to me to be acting as an uninvolved admin (which I now see is on me and not you, to my embarassment). You didn't make it at all clear to me or anyone else that you have a very cozy relationship with them.

Despite accusations to the contrary, I have never closeley followed LBs actions or watched his talk page outside of when I was actively engaging there, and so I was completely unaware of this. It created an impresssion that you were acting as an admin, as opposed to a friend of the accused person.

I'm not making an accusation or saying you did anything abusive, I'm just saying it would've been nice to know, and that probably most particpants in the thread were as unaware of it as I was. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish isn't an admin, uninvolved or otherwise, JSS. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

well shit. For whatever reason I sure thought he was but didn't take five seconds to check. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 02:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cozy? I don’t get that at all. My impression is that Tryptofish, who is unusually sensitive and perceptive to the nuances of human speech in written form, was treating LB as a person, with the kind of respect, compassion, empathy, and good faith required for effective communication. It’s wild how people can read so much stuff into it that doesn’t exist. Viriditas (talk) 01:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my whole comment was based on the idea that he was admin, which he isn't and as far as I can tell never has been or even run at RFA, so that's 100% on me. I didn't sleep well last night and probably need to switch off for a while if I'm making mistakes that basic. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 02:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of sleep does alter perception in a big way, so I can sympathize with your predicament. The only reason I responded was because I've often been impressed with Tryptofish’s active listening skills (albeit in written form) to the point where it’s forced me to come to terms with my own deficiencies in this area. Viriditas (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It took me a few minutes, after logging in today, to be sure whether or not I had figured out what was going on here. Just to be clear, my only significant extra permission is rollback (and I think I also have that thing where I get notified about pending changes, but I only rarely use it and it mostly annoys me). I'm not an admin, and (although lots of people have asked me) I've never agreed to have an RfA. So nothing I did regarding Lightburst was WP:INVOLVED from the admin perspective. As other editors have kindly pointed out here, I was just acting editor-to-editor, according to what I believe to be the right thing to do.

Beebs, please don't worry about having a bad night and mistaking my status. It's no big deal, and believe me, we all have days like that. And with all the shit happening in the real world, I think everyone, including me, is on edge. I also realize that you genuinely felt insulted by a lot of the things that have been coming in your direction in recent weeks, and I'm sincerely sorry that it's weighing on you. Please don't let it get you down.

And thanks, FFF and Viriditas. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The really dumb part is that I use a script that shows me such things whenever I look at user or user talk pages, so like right now at the top of this very page I can see "An extended confirmed user, pending changes reviewer, and rollbacker, 16 years 2 months old, with 68,981 edits. Last edited 3 hours ago". (it's actually really handy, but only if you actually look at it) I was obviously way off my game yesterday. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 02:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I wanted to stop by to say that I really appreciate your respect for consensus around the recall issue. That's model behavior, and I just wanted to let you know that I see and appreciate it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SFR! I hope that, now that Clovermoss and I have patched things up, you and I can be on a better footing. Aside from the things where we've disagreed, I actually think that you have been doing excellent work as an administrator. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, it's nice know that at least someone thinks I'm not botching it. No hard feelings on my end, and I'm glad to put that behind us. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the back and forth of a personal nature to user talk pages. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone cares, this is about this: [79]. I see that you made an identical post on the talk page of the other editor, which I appreciate. As I see it, your role as the admin moderator in this RfA is to see to the community consensus that personal attacks should not take place on RfA pages. So for me, this brings up the question of whether you have allowed a personal attack, directed against me, to remain on the RfA page, and from my perspective, you did. I posted a polite and, I think, thoughtful neutral comment, with links to what I was specifically concerned about. The other editor simply said "Support, per Tryptofish". That's the kind of snarky posting that belongs on social media, but not on Wikipedia, and that might, perhaps, be an appropriate rationale for someone rejecting a bogus oppose from a troll or an idiot. I am neither a troll nor an idiot. And civility is expected not only of those who oppose (or who, for goodness sake, are neutral), but also for those who support. You have left the toxicity on the RfA page, and that's on you. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The threshold for removing or striking a vote is higher than removing other comments. While I see the snark, it's also possible to read it as "I agree with this analysis, but find myself supporting." I've had another discussion based on something that was brought up to me about the RFA, and what I said there holds in this case. There is a rationale, and although it's not how I would have worded it I don't see it as passing the line. Reasonable people can disagree on where the line is, and any time there is one person judging the civility in a discussion involving hundreds there is bound to be disagreement on that line. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can read it as "I agree with this analysis" as in, the analysis that I had written? That's ridiculous, in this case. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like the support that says I immensely respect Tryptofish and find myself agreeing with the content of their neutral. Obviously that much better communicates agreeing with your analysis and deciding that it warrants support. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are two different support comments, the other of which, of course, is fine. The one that I am discussing with you here is not possibly that. And you should know that, because when you reverted me, you also reverted the other editor making it very clear that they disagree with me: [80]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has less to do with you, and more to do with the recent attempts to reign in the free for all comments on RFA. I totally get what you are saying Tryptofish, but I think in this specific instance, SFR did the right thing, and honestly, I don't see it having anything to do with you on a personal level, so I would just let this go. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that, I really do. I don't think that SFR did this out of anything personal about me, but I think the editor who made that comment about me did one of two things: either making it personal about me, or being so insensitive as to not realize that it came across as personal about me. I see a bias in the effort "to reign in the free for all comments on RFA." Comments challenging (badgering) opposes (or, in my case, a mere neutral) get way more leeway than those challenging supports. As for letting it go, I'm saying what I think here, but I'm not reverting anyone on the RfA page, and it's not like I'm going to make a crusade out of it or anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I totally get it, and I think the editor did do what you say they did, but they only mentioned your name, and I think that kind of snark is allowed, however unfortunate. Viriditas (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding, and for your concern about how I feel. The way that I see it, the community has a policy about civility and a policy about no personal attacks, as well as a recent consensus that these policies should be enforced especially seriously on RfA pages. Although the editor has now stricken their comment and replaced it with something different (though, frankly, boilerplate), a snarky mention of my name meant, in this case, mocking my neutral comment, and policy does not make a carve out for that. And practice should not make a carve out for that, either. In this case, the target was me (and I have the same privileges under policies that any other editor in good standing has), but there are other editors who are more easily hurt by this kind of thing than I am. It's important to me to take a stand on behalf of editors in such a position, and I try to do that. The burden should not be on the victim, to just suck it up and move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the responses to the oppose too, and stewing pretty hard. It's a difficult position, since I'm a single person trying to use my judgement to act on what the community consensus on what is acceptable. We're all aware that any consensus about what exactly is actionable incivility is pretty shakey, and varies widely based on who shows up to talk about it, and who's actions are being discussed. I'm sorry that I'm not taking the actions you'd like to see, and I mean that with no snark. Just know that I'm trying to moderate the discussion in line with my understanding of what most editors would think is acceptable or unacceptable, and applying that evenly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saying that. And I sympathize with how difficult this is to monitor, and empathize with your stewing. (Root vegetables taste good in stews, however. ) Anyway, I'm not angry and I'm not upset. I respect your decision, and I'm not holding any grudge over it. Best wishes, --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas: how apt a message!

I've had a feeling this was coming, for a few weeks, so I've already gone through the various stages of grief, and I'm actually now at peace with the whole thing. I've become determined to fight back (off Wikipedia), and this morning I even bought a tire thumper. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Someone dressed as an orangutan would be even better! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I chose Zira for a reason. Viriditas (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also find it interesting that the personal values of Kim Hunter aligned with the role of Zira. Hunter was a progressive democrat, and Zira was a liberal scientist at odds with her superiors. Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That one went way over my poor little head. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just out-numbered, it seems? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading the post-election autopsy articles and paying attention to various discussions on social media. This part of the analysis is the most interesting and will be talked about for years. Viriditas (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most interesting takeaways is the significant rise of Generation Z and Latinos who turned to Trump. I predicted this a while ago, but I wasn’t alone, and it’s been discussed for a long time now. I think history will demonstrate that this will be one of the greatest self-owns ever, with both cohorts voting against their interests. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's so much that I could say here, but I wanna keep it brief. I think it's true that many of the voters who supported him will come to regret their choice when events, especially economic ones, unfold. At the same time, I think that people like me need to accept facts, including the fact that we just got bitch-slapped. Working people in the US are increasingly post-racial (which, in the long run, will be a good thing). They are very clearly angry at being, as they see it, condescended to. Even if they don't understand that the President doesn't raise prices at the supermarket (sigh), they don't want to be talked down to. They feel hurt, like they can no longer expect better lives than the lives their parents had. They have valid reasons for feeling that, and everyone owes them the respect that they have those valid reasons.

As I went through the various stages of grief (I'm better now), one of the things I came to embrace is the idea that I should not feel bad about things that are beyond what I can control. I can control my own actions, and I'm good with what I, myself, did before and in the election. And I'm starting to get clarity about what I'm going to do in the future, and resistance is a big part of it. I don't exactly know what Trump will actually do, because he's unpredictable, but I expect that it will look very, very bad once it starts happening. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're worried about lil ol' Scarecrow Donald? Just "Let That Sink In" shall we? (And I don't think he's there just to do the dishes). Still, at least the cows and the buildings with windows can now breath easy. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC) p.s. and never underestimate the mid-Western squirrel lobby...[reply]

You folks over there better start practicing your Russian. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. Thanks for reminding us. More tea vicar? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find another kind of tea helps me deal with it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I expect Elon thinks he already owns the joint. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought that was Kim Hunter in an ape mask. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the working class, that's true. One of the reasons Clinton lost in 2016 and Harris lost in 2024 is because Democrats try to move right and appeal to Republicans during a campaign, which hurts their own base and never brings Republicans on the fence into their camp. I knew it was over back in September when Harris started talking about how fracking wasn't so bad. I also heard next to nothing how Harris was going to directly address greedflation and the prices which are driving people to desperation, from rent to food prices to insurance doubling overnight. These are real issues, and Harris barely raised them. Same mistake, every time. Lucy, Charlie Brown, football. Liberals and young people aren't going to show up if Harris is taking GOP talking points as her own. The DNC needs to learn from their mistakes. As for gen Z and Latinos, they fucked around, and now they are about to find out. I still remember the Latinos for Trump guy who was all over the news in 2017. Trump deported his family after he voted for him in 2016. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is something where we could potentially get into a lengthy argument, but I really don't want to do that. I don't see the problem as having moved to the right, instead of moving to the left. I see it as a problem as moving inconclusively, instead of taking a firm position and sticking to it. I've long believed that Bernie Sanders could have beaten Trump in 2016, and we'd all be so better off now if he had. That doesn't mean that the electorate aligns with Democratic Socialism, and it also doesn't mean that the electorate aligns with MAGA. The electorate aligns with whoever seems most confident and strong, regardless of ideology. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There’s no argument; in the US we have socialism for the rich and capitalism for everyone else. Virtually all of the major donors and billionaires behind Trump are the beneficiaries of government aid, subsidies, and contracts. This close relationship between corporations and government is also one of the definitions of fascism. The push to eliminate the department of education has nothing to do with improving education. It’s all about stuffing the pockets of donors who will benefit from private and charter schools, which will provide less services for increased costs. This is the game. As for Harris moving to the right, this is pretty much substantiated. She reversed her 2019 promise to ban fracking a few months ago, with even the director of Yale’s climate change communication program saying Harris' position was 15 years out of date. I’ve addressed this before. Almost nothing has changed or progressed in the US in 30 years. We are not going forward, we are going backwards. Viriditas (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: 53% of white women voted for Trump. I wonder just how many more women have to die from miscarriages in red states before that changes. 1000? 10,000? I blame religion, but I'm not supposed to say that. Viriditas (talk) 09:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided, for the sake of my mental health, that I'm done discussing this, except when it might relate specifically to editing on Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to confirm. Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. I think I said that too harshly, sorry, but I figure you understand what I mean. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. But all I have to do is couch any further questions in the context of neuroeconomics, and we're all good, right? :-) Viriditas (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! That reminds me of the neuroscience debrief that I posted above, some time ago. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the new one? Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

#Wiki-break. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First I'm seeing of it. Reading it now. Viriditas (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that was a nice read. You should write more on Wikipedia. One thing you wrote that piqued my interest: why is there a high cost and level of expertise needed to maintain the brain implants? It sounds like an engineering issue that didn't account for the design? Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. About writing more content, I agree. Again, my mental health – and the firehose of blech every time I open my watchlist.

The expense comes from at least two things. One is the incredibly exacting neurosurgery that it takes to remove and replace an implant in an extremely precise position in the brain, with no room for error. It takes a large operating room staff and recovery staff with very specialized expertise. The second thing is what it takes to manufacture, again with no room for error, what may be a near-to one-of-a-kind piece of near-microscopic machinery. Often, this is a matter of giving small electrical impulses at very precise times to just one or just a few neurons, and not to anything else, and then measuring what happens in order to compute and precisely time the next impulse. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Given the popularity of non-invasive brain stimulation devices, do you think this might work in the near future, and solve this problem?[81] Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps eventually, I'm not sure. The idea of "sculpting" the electrical field so that it targets somewhere at a distance is an interesting one. The question will become how precise the focus can be made. Although it would make the surgery simpler, it would still require a lot of the other things, including a very demanding process of tuning it to the exact target. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Oh, to backup a bit and address what you said about the stress from watchlists, I solved that by eliminating many of the problematic articles on my own list. It helps! Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. For me, articles aren't the problem. It mostly comes from user talk of people I care about and really don't want to ignore. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anguish. Had never seen your User page image before. How utterly poignant and chilling. Bleak in the extreme. Quite shocking, in fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC) [82] p.s. End of season sale: One slightly confused has-been Party clown - offers invited (could possibly trade for orange "dishonest, xenophobic, narcissistic, neo-Nazi-sympathising sociopath") [83][reply]

Thanks, Martin. I spent some time tracking down an image that I felt would work, and that was it. Perhaps the interior of my mind is a terrible place to look, but that's what it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It chills one to the bone. Sheer horror. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you care at all about the safety of Wikipedia editors: Wikipedia:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation. (If you live in the US, just consider if Trump decides he doesn't like what our articles say.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you! - For a surprise, a Bach cantata is on the Main page today, where it was last year for the 300th anniversary, and they were too lazy to find something new ;) - Look at my story, and listen to the 3 whole-tone steps and the dialogues of Fear and Hope. - I tell others at this point that there's an open letter open to be signed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Madeleine Riffaud - remember. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, wanted to write to you here rather than taking up more space on the open letter talk page. Have you considered bringing up your concerns about how the Trump presidency might affect Wikipedia at the village pump? That might be a better place for it than a talk page about a separate issue. --Grnrchst (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean: Pinging you too, as you opened the initial thread. --Grnrchst (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that question. For now, I feel like the immediate issue is the open letter, affecting editors from India. And if the WMF does the right thing there, then we have a good start for when the problem moves to the US. And if the WMF drops the ball, then that's when I'd be more inclined to act. When I think of how AmPol has become a CTOP, and about all the back-and-forth that happens every time Fox News or its kin get discussed at RSN, I figure just bringing up a new VP discussion will merely turn into a quagmire. So I'm going to watch and wait for now. But yeah, this will become a substantive issue sooner or later. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It just occurred to me to indicate that what we are talking about is this edit I made: [84]. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tryptofish/ACE2024. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting your guide, Tryp; I always look forward to it. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

--Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your voter guide. The descriptions are very accurate. However: Error querying Pageviews API - Not Found, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I had just duplicated the pageviews thing from last year, so I guess it's obsolete. I deleted it. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, glad to see you around. (It also occurred to me that the pageviews might need 24 hours before working.) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It works now. It just needs 24 hours for the software to do its thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not staging as comeback or anything, but stuff that concerns WP admins and Arbcom still interests me, particularly the chaotic discussions about RECALL. I wonder if they will ever get it right instead of just stumbling around and makinbg it far more complex than it needs to be - or just end up scraping the whole thing for want of knowing how to organise the discussions. Only about 4 people seem to know what's going on. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very dissatisfied about the recall process, and about how it came to be enacted, but I also had it pointed out to me yesterday that I've started letting my frustration show in abrasive ways, so I'm going to start dialing it down. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only just randomly discovered this and had no idea it was a thing. It turns out other people have doing it for a while and I'm very late to the party. I've never taken it before bed, so last night I decided to give it a go. Normally I take it during the day and I haven't experienced any enhanced dreams. This time I took a cold-pressed juice shot two hours before bed. The label claims that it has one billion colony forming units of Bacillus coagulans. I also had a focaccia veggie sandwich with those Italian herbs and spices baked into the bread, which are also infamous as alleged dream enhancers (talk to anyone who has ever eaten Italian food before bed and they will tell you all sorts of stories). I forgot to also mention, I consumed two large cups of hot green tea (Camellia sinensis). So there I am waiting for the rocket ship to blast off. I go to sleep and wake up early, check the news, and then do the standard WBTB. I'm now in a dream where someone has dented my car and I'm upset about the body work I need to get done. What's funny is that in the back of mind, there's another sense of "me", that knows this is a just a dream and my car isn't really damaged. What's unusual, however, is that "me" doesn't have much of a voice and is being suppressed by the dream "me" in a big way. So, when I wake up from the actual dream, I'm convinced my car was damaged and start making preparations to call a body shop. About three minutes after waking up, that dream "me" disappears, and the primary "me" reappears and I realize my car is just fine. The closest feeling I can compare it to is when you lose your keys or wallet, only to discover that they are sitting right in front of you where you always leave them and you breathe a sigh of relief. Well, enough of this nonsense and down to the brass tacks. Probiotics and lucid dreaming? This is the first I'm hearing of it. How would this work if it does? Gut–brain axis, enteric nervous system? Give me the lowdown. In the past, I've experimented with liquid omega-3-6-9 supplements, which do indeed facilitate lucid dreaming. Viriditas (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any way that being "probiotic", per se, would confer this property on anything one would eat. I'd need to put a lot more thought into it, to pinpoint specific chemical compounds present in those foods, but it seems to me that there must be molecules in some of these things that are psychoactive. (There's also the issue that your "experiments" are, of necessity, not blinded, so you may also get some effects because you have come to expect them.) It's plausible that that Bacillus makes trace amounts of who knows what. The tea certainly contains theophylline, which is related to caffeine. There's certainly the possibility that a research project of trying to isolate the active compounds in these edibles could lead to something interesting. Follow the molecules. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gut bugs can certainly produce psychoactive metabolites, including serotonin. See this review. Veriditas, your experimental methodology needs to be refined a wee bit (OK, a lot), but with adequate controls you just might find, if not the secret of dreams, perhaps the Monsters from the Id? Good luck! JoJo Anthrax (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More here. Interesting stuff. Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TIL.. we have an entire article on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are interesting links, both of you, thanks. There's no doubt that there are a lot of potential leads for new kinds of beneficial substances, out there in nature. I know there's also some interesting screening going on, for medically beneficial molecules, in venoms, of all things. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remember as a kid playing in the dirt a lot, even up to the age of 8, after which I kind of lost the interest. I've read that kids exposed to bacteria in dirt at a young age have better immune systems. I have to say, mine is pretty good and I rarely get sick, and when I do, it's just for a day or two. Viriditas (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's a significant amount of science to back that up. There's evidence that decreasing amounts of pediatric play outdoors may be causally related to increasing asthma rates and increasing food allergies. ((edit conflict) before you added that link.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It makes me wonder if we are compelled to get dirty as kids for health protection. I remember having an unusual fascination with the dirt, and along with my play buddies, building strange fortifications, dams, canals, and tiny cities, similar to what people do with sand castles. Then we learn about hygiene and are compelled to do the opposite. Viriditas (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of human evolution, as a species, took place before the time of antisepsis, so that's the state of being that we evolved for. The addition of antibiotics is unquestionably a good thing, as are the avoidance of severe infectious food poisoning and the use of sterile technique in surgery, but the jury is out on other kinds of "cleanliness". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to the Trump admin! When they said MAGA, I had no idea they meant to take the country literally back to 1776. I read a book a while back that said every man, woman, and child was drunk most of the time in early America because the available water was unsafe to drink and alcohol was the safest way to get your water requirements. Not sure how true it is, but it did open my eyes a bit. Viriditas (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget Vaginal seeding, for which the evidence is sketchy but interesting, building off the hypothesis that exposure to and ingestion of the mother's vaginal flora helps to populate the newborn's gut biome. It isn't my field, now or ever, but I believe there is a substantial literature reporting that in the 1700s (Britain, ocean-going vessels, etc.) most people, including children and pregnant women, were at least semi-drunk pretty much all the time because of the unhealthy state of their "drinking" water. Providing safe drinking water to most of the world's population is one of the greatest public health achievements of the past 200 years. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try to forget that. My first thought was that this was going to have something to do with Goop (company). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Get out of my head! That's exactly what I was thinking before I clicked the link. Viriditas (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a worm, and I'm eating your brain. And with that, let's close this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's too bad. I had a pusillanimous joke all queefed up and ready to go. Viriditas (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I doubt he was referring to these particular seeds as a source of discontent. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You kids get off my lawn! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to start working on Western Motel. If you can come up with the greatest hook in human history, that would be appreciated. Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No pressure. :-) Viriditas (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funny story that has no relation to anything in this discussion: I was going through some very old photos I made back in 2007-2008. It turns out I captured some pretty nice photos of some Hopper paintings that I wasn't aware of at the time.[85] Seeing the painting up close and personal is so much different. I don't see any texture in that professional photo from the museum I linked to, but in my own, you do see it. I was having this discussion with Randy Kryn on his talk page a few months ago. Although we don't agree on much, we both agreed that seeing a painting in person and seeing it in digital form is such a different experience that we almost need new technology to handle it. It's an interesting idea. Viriditas (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and in case I forget, the other thing that bothers me, is something like 80% (just guessing, based on how many paintings I've seen on Commons) are uploaded with the wrong colors/white balance, lighting, etc. Something I didn't understand until maybe five years ago is that capturing a good photo of a painting is extremely difficult and you need a very expensive setup; from what I've seen, the body, lenses, lighting, and the right setup required to take accurate photos of paintings are anywhere from $10k and up, although 10k is clearly the very low end, my guess when all is said and done, you're looking at closer to $20k if you include a lab-like workbench for the process). Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]