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. — Paleo Neonate – 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. E Eng 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]. E Eng 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. E Eng 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. E Eng 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. E Eng 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. E Eng 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. E Eng 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. -- ARose Wolf 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. -- ARose Wolf 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. -- ARose Wolf 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

Update

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. House Blaster ^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

		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

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? -- ARose Wolf 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. -- ARose Wolf 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.-- ARose Wolf 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. -- ARose Wolf 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) [26] 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. -- ARose Wolf 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. -- ARose Wolf 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. -- ARose Wolf 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. -- ARose Wolf 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 [27]. 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 [28]. 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: [29], 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, [30] 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

Re: linking in hook

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

Intermission (Hopper)

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): [31]. 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: [32], 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: [33]. -- 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

[34]. 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! [35]. -- 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. [36]. 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: [37] (but [38]). -- 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! House Blaster ( 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: [39].) 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. -- ARose Wolf 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: [40]. -- 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. -- ARose Wolf 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. -- ARose Wolf 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 ( [41]). -- 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. [42] 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? [43]. -- 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, [44], with Maloney et. al publishing similar material in 2008 ("A comprehensive analysis of Babe Ruth's head and neck cancer"). [45] 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." [46] 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

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 ( [47]), 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. [48] It must have been pretty bad. Viriditas ( talk) 23:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Oh, it's pretty bad alright. [49] 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. [50] 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. -- ARose Wolf 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