User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

January, 2013 – March, 2013

There are a number of us that have concerns as discussed here [1]

Commented at ANI. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Trypto I made a change to the "wheel waring" section which may be a compromise you'd be okay with. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know (I had stopped following it). Yes, I think it's enough of a step in the right direction that I could change my !vote to support. Given the history of reverting, I'm going to wait a few days, and if your edit turns out to be stable, I'll go back and revise my comments there. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it is stable. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You responded to edits I made to the

An encyclopedia is supposed to provide accurate information that can be verified. If information comes from a source with a conflict of interest, it cannot be verified. I refer you to three Wikipedia articles: Major depressive disorder, Antidepressant and Duloxetine. Much information on these three subjects comes from or is funded by the pharmaceutical industry, and the articles are severely deficient in several ways that tend to mislead the reader in ways beneficial to the antidepressant industry. For example:

The first article does not make it absolutely clear that

The third article incorrectly states that "Duloxetine has demonstrated efficacy for the treatment of major depressive disorder." FDA rules essentially guarantee successful trials even if individual trial success is random. The clinical trials for duloxetine are designed in ways that skew the results toward success (and those trials that do show success only barely do so); the subjectively determined trial data are evaluated using statistical methods that are not suitable for subjective data; the drug's safety is inadequately evaluated; and the drug's product information sheet and instructions disguise risks while encouraging the development of dependence.

In fact, the

There is much information in these three articles (and many more on antidepressants) that cannot be verified; therefore, anyone researching antidepressants on Wikipedia will not learn very much that a pharmaceutical company does not want them to know, creating a good chance that they will end up dependent on drugs that are not necessarily safer than recreational drugs, and that may make them more depressed if they try to stop taking them (a possible side effect common to all "uppers", including antidepressants). KMLion (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, there's a lot there to respond to. I think that a good place for you to start would be by reading and making yourself familiar with

be bold about making corrections to any pages where you see a need for correction. You should feel free to make those edits, and then watchlist the article and its talk page. If anyone reverts your edits, or raises concerns about them on the talk page, just go to the talk page and discuss it with them (again, in terms of MEDRS), and see if you can come to consensus. If you find that you need input from more editors on an issue, you can ask at WT:WikiProject Medicine. I hope that helps! --Tryptofish (talk

) 23:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

An invitation for you!

	Hello, Tryptofish. You're invited to join members. Happy editing! Northamerica1000(talk) 00:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	When WP:AFSE was started, I had serious doubts that it would prove to be a significantly useful essay. Today, thanks in large part to your efforts it is. I'll be presenting it as a resource to several classes this semester. Thanks for helping make it a significantly useful resource. Kevin Gorman (talk ) 01:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Kevin, thank you so much! Of course, I have to also give credit to Biosthmors. But classes making use of it is exactly what I was hoping would happen. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I get the impression that s/he's torn between coming up with sensible policy and writing something that could result in problems for his/her friend Epeefleche, who I have taken to WP:RFC/U and would definitely fall foul of the footnote as proposed (because Epeefleche has been mass deleting content that's easily source-able or source-able with a reference already in the text). As such, I wouldn't worry too much about engaging with Claude while s/he works it out. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for setting me straight about that. Oh well, a case of too much AGF on my part. I really didn't mind writing that explanation to them, and I guess too much AGF is better than too little. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

True! ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 02:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		On a comment thread which has got very heated in the past, you made me LLOL (literally laugh out loud, as opposed to the now debased and devalued LOL) with this edit CarrieVS (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

(when I try to put it actually in the box it breaks something)[2]

Oh, you thought I was joking, did you? Ha! I'm collecting dry branches even as we speak. But, seriously, thank you very much for the kind wishes. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Tryptofish. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk: Verifiability.
Message added 13:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello :) Thank you for providing that insightful information some days ago. I have a query regarding a specific source. Till 13:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I've replied there, although as I noted, I'm not really sure which source you were asking about. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Ref #81 on KFC. Till 01:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I thought. Apparently someone subsequently filled in the URL. But I'm glad we got that figured out. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for all your insightful information and help on the verifiability thread. Till 01:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! It was my pleasure. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Action potential, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Efflux (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry bot, but no, the edit that way was intentional. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: your note on my talk page... No need to mend fences (they were never broken). There is nothing wrong with two (or more) editors disagreeing with each other, expressing their views and trying to convince each other that "my view is right". That's how consensus building works.

Question... I still think the entire CHALLENGE section would be better if hived off into its own behavioral guideline (which we would link to at WP:V). It would allow us to discuss the various nuances involved with challenging material (and responding to challenges) in more detail and depth. What do you think of this idea, and would you be willing to work with me on a rough draft? Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Good, I'm glad! I guess the way I see it, is that a behavioral guideline or essay with more nuances would be a good thing if it's in addition to keeping CHALLENGE at WP:V (sort of like a spin-off and summary style), but I would oppose doing it if it meant deleting the CHALLENGE material at the main policy page. If that makes sense to you, I'd be happy to work on a draft if you would start it. It's not a big enough priority for me to start it myself, and I'm also a little policy-ed out after that footnote discussion, so I want to start putting some more of my limited time into article space. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations, the word "policy-ed out" has been selected (by me) as Featured wikiword of the week![3] Please indicate if you'd like to be explicitly credited as the creator inside the fine purple box! Bishonen | talk 22:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC).

CC-BY-SA 3.0 notwithstanding, attribution would be welcome! (Oh, wait, SA does include attribution.) I humbly accept it as a most wonderful and kind honor. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Great! I much prefer it with attribution, but somehow I thought I should ask. Bishonen | talk 22:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC).

Hi Tryptofish, I received your message here and apologize for the delay in responding. How about if we start a discussion over the weekend? That will give my colleagues and I time to review the notes that we made in November so that we can have a more intelligent discussion. Risker (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Risker. That sounds fine. I kind of figured your slow answer was, in itself, an indication that there are still a lot of other things going on. I'm in no hurry. When you and the other Arbs feel ready, please either leave me a note here, or just start a discussion of your own on the Arb talk page, where I'll be watching. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

		The Good Heart Barnstar
		For keeping the recent Verifiability/Burden thread on track, focused, and civilized while still managing to get your own position and opinions in. Frankly, everyone in that discussion deserves an award for staying on track and staying civil, but you actually get it for your outstanding cat-herding abilities. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I really appreciate it! Yes, it's true – quite a bunch of cats. But I think it turned out very well in the end. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree with this - I've always thought that you would make a great mediator. And in the verifiability lead case, I think you might have done almost as much mediation as me anyway. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You know, if I had about twice as much time to devote to Wikipedia as I actually do have... but, alas, I don't. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi -- I think the material you restored had been correctly deleted, even if no reason was given. Neither statement was referenced -- one was dubious and unclear, the other was clearly false. I would probably have removed them myself if I paid more attention to that article. I'm bringing it up here because I'd like to remove them again, but I hate anything that even vaguely resembles an edit war. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem! I self-reverted. I had a feeling that I might have been making a mistake, and I'm happy to accept your rationale here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for taking care of it. Looie496 (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

At this RfC

 Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Tryptofish, thank you for reviewing the history of comments regarding the ongoing TfD merge mess. I don't want to repeat myself, but suffice it to say that the nominator did not adhere to mandatory TfD notice requirements and the closing admin chose to disregard the entire situation. If you want further diffs, etc., I am happy to provide them. The lessons I take away from this as a potential admin are the importance of adhering to written procedure policies to protect everyone concerned, and the need to recognize and undo one of your own mistaken admin actions as quickly as possible.

For purposes of the RfA, I am not going to comment further on the issue. I think more than enough has been said in response to the opposes. The actual underlying situation will remain to be resolved after the RfA concludes, and I am clearly WP:INVOLVED. Following the RfA, I will need advice how best to proceed to resolve the TfD mess with the least amount of drama possible, short of permitting Frietjes to rewrite the darn thing to suit his personal tastes. I considered a DRV at the time, but after review with another admin was convinced that the WP:NFL talk page option was the path of least resistance, but Frietjes has apparently now reneged on his promise to produce a mock-up for review and approval by WP:NFL editors. It is a frustrating situation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

There's definitely no need for more diffs or anything else to convince me. Please don't worry about that. You are right to step back from rebutting at the RfA, and I'm pretty sure it's going to go OK for you. I guess, with 20-20 hindsight, DRV would have been a better way to go, since there is clearly a procedural issue, but that's water under the bridge now. What I think you should do is wait for the RfA to be over, then open a content RfC, asking for fresh eyes on what the best way to go is for the template. The argument that editors who really concentrate on the content area depend upon the template working a particular way should be a persuasive one. And, of course, refrain from using any admin tools on the template or discussions as long as there is any remaining disagreement.

By the way, a big part of my reasons for supporting is what I remember you writing about the Arb mailing list. I think that your analysis was impressively astute. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Tryptofish, please accept my thanks for your initial expressions of support, as well as your subsequent constructive criticism, during and after my RfA. I understand what you did and why you did it. I am, of course, somewhat disappointed with the conclusion of the RfA, but I must accept personal responsibility for the ultimate outcome. It's not the end of the world, and there are still plenty of articles to edit. I hope we have occasion to work on an article or two of mutual interest in the near future. Warm regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very generous of you to say that. No matter what happened, you are a class act. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'm not entirely sure whether or not this is the proper place on your talk page to respond, but I just wanted to thank you for your warm welcome. I look forward to continuing to contribute to Wikipedia in the future. --Msplanchard (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure; you're very welcome. (I've moved it to its own thread at the bottom.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

On WP:Verifiability you described this example as specialised and uncommon. I beg to differ. I have come accross this situation many times in the past. Usually with the same user, but nonetheless it happened many times. So please don't downplay it as if i added it arbitrarily.

I sincerely hope what I said did not come across as implying that you added it arbitrarily. I don't think that at all! Rather, what I thought I was saying was that, in my opinion, it really is a specialized and uncommon situation (although it is clear that you disagree with me about that) and that therefore we need to be careful about

WT:V. --Tryptofish (talk

) 00:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Thanks! That's so nice of you, and I'm incredibly flattered! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Good to see you are still doing your excellent work all over the place! FYI here is some reading that might be useful in another week or two. --Noleander (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and... wow, just wow! I just put the mediation page on my watchlist, but this is a whole new wrinkle. I'm definitely watching now. And by the way, let me compliment you too, for remaining an outstanding Wikipedian, even after that Arb case. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've replied, so please let me know if I've covered what you want. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Would you care to share your opinion about the composite/single infobox image issue here? I would really appreciate it. Thanks! --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for asking me. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Carabinieri (talk