User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

January, 2013 – March, 2013

User in question

There are a number of us that have concerns as discussed here [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Feedback response guidelines

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia Quality

You responded to edits I made to the Psychoactive drug page, and seem to be familiar with working on Wikipedia, so perhaps you know where to take this and how. As near as I can tell, talk pages associated with articles are very much ignored. My involvement with Psychoactive drugs was not asked for, but as a result, I have learned a lot about them in a serious attempt to find out what doctors knew about antidepressants that I didn't know, that would explain why they were doing something that was so obviously wrong. In the process I learned things about our pharmaceutical, "health" insurance, and medical industries that that should not be. I started donating regularly to Wikipedia, because some Wikipedia articles were of great help to me in that effort; however, it occurred to me to wonder what Wikipedia had to say about some of the things I learned elsewhere, and I am very disappointed.

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

The first article does not make it absolutely clear that Major depressive disorder is not a single illness or condition, but a label given to a set of symptoms for which there is no objective diagnostic tool and no known single cause. It also states in the first paragraph that "the term depression is ambiguous", and then repeatedly uses the term depression where major depression is meant. The subsection Major depressive disorder#Antidepressants then states that "the effects of antidepressants are somewhat superior to those of psychotherapy", which cannot be true, since any desired effects of antidepressants are temporary (until tolerance and therefore dependence is developed), and since their effect on some people is terrible.

The second and third articles also use the term depression where major depression is meant, and do not make it clear that any "antidepressive" effect of antidepressants is temporary, and is not consistent from person to person (a common characteristic of psychoactive drugs).

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

In fact, the clinical trials for duloxetine attempt to demonstrate something that cannot be demonstrated in a clinical trial. Because psychoactive drugs affect everyone differently, and because the placebo effect#Mechanism_of_the_effect also applies to psychoactive drugs, a valid clinical trial for a psychoactive drug would require that the drug, the control and the placebo have identical effects on every patient, including side effects, and that those effects be identical for all patients. Such is not the case, even when "active placebos" are used. Therefore, the clinical trials for duloxetine only show a "statistically significant", short-term benefit over a placebo, and only if the failed trials and other trial manipulations are ignored. The do not show any causal relationship between that benefit and duloxetine.

Antidepressants are psychoactive drugs given in hope (by doctor and patient) that they will hide symptoms long enough for the patient to get better before he/she stops taking the drug. The manufacturer might hope that the patient will take them long enough to become dependent.

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

Hi, there's a lot there to respond to. I think that a good place for you to start would be by reading and making yourself familiar with WP:MEDRS. That's Wikipedia's guideline for sourcing material about medical issues, so that what we report is (hopefully!) verifiable and so forth. (As for industry sponsorship, WP:COI discusses editing, but not who funded the source material.) You will probably find that editors will respond to you skeptically if you frame your arguments in terms of the pharmaceutical industry trying to influence what Wikipedia says, but you will get a good response if instead you frame your arguments in terms of adherence to, or violation of, WP:MEDRS. Once you feel comfortable with those issues, I'd say that you should go ahead and be bold about making corrections to any pages where you see a need for correction. You should feel free to make those edits, and then watchlist the article and its talk page. If anyone reverts your edits, or raises concerns about them on the talk page, just go to the talk page and discuss it with them (again, in terms of MEDRS), and see if you can come to consensus. If you find that you need input from more editors on an issue, you can ask at WT:WikiProject Medicine. I hope that helps! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

An invitation for you!

	Hello, Tryptofish. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's article for improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members. Happy editing! Northamerica1000(talk) 00:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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

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

Claude

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

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

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

A barnstar for you

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

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

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

Talkback

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

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

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

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

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

Mending fences

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mailing lists

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

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

Award

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

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

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

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

evolution of the brain

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

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

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

additional discussion about RfC topic

At this RfC Talk:Joseph_Kony#Request_for_comment you commented about additional discussions that may have taken place, you can see previous discussion User_talk:Zzsignup#claims of "controversial" must be attributed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

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

RfA concerns raised regarding TfD merge

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

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

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

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

RfA: thank you for your supportive comments

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

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

Thanks for the welcome

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

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

differ

On WP:Verifiability you described this example as specialised and uncommon. I beg to differ. I have come accross this situation many times in the past. Usually with the same user, but nonetheless it happened many times. So please don't downplay it as if i added it arbitrarily. Pass a Method talk 00:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I sincerely hope what I said did not come across as implying that you added it arbitrarily. I don't think that at all! Rather, what I thought I was saying was that, in my opinion, it really is a specialized and uncommon situation (although it is clear that you disagree with me about that) and that therefore we need to be careful about instruction creep. If you feel strongly about it, by all means we can discuss it further at WT:V. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Precious

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

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

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

Thanks for all your good work!

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

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

DYK nomination of Brain Activity Map Project

Hello! Your submission of Brain Activity Map Project at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Chris857 (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Composite image

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

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

DYK for Brain Activity Map Project

Carabinieri (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Deletion for Harry Demopoulos

The article Harry Demopoulos is one of User:Pproctor's creations. Most of the content came from Proctor, and characteristically, it shows how clever Proctor is. I used the deletion template from your proposed deletion of Peter Proctor. I am never very good at these even mildly technical wiki-things (I'm a pure content guy normally). So please look at my proposed template and modify it if I messed up. I dont really have any power to take things down, so not sure what happens after 7 days, etc etc. Thank you, --Smokefoot (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

By the time I logged in and took a look at it, Looie (who I'm pretty sure is watching here on my talk too), had contested the PROD, and that puts an end to it. As far as I could tell, you tagged it perfectly OK, but the way this works, anyone can revert you, and the page can never be PROD-ed again. (If, after 7 days, no one had objected, an administrator would have looked at it, and deleted it if the tag and tag rationale appeared to be within process.) My advice at this point would be to respond on the article talk page, pointing out the extensive sockpuppetry and conflicts of interest for any editors who might not know about it, and see where the discussion goes from there. Deleting pages is rarely a simple thing, because everyone has strong opinions one way or the other. If, after talk page discussion, you still favor deletion, you will have to start WP:AFD. I'll put the page on my watchlist, and try to help out if I can. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Potentially libelous material removed

Removed potentially libelous material, per wp:blp. You will thank me in the morning.... Akil muhamed (talk) 02:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

this above poster, has only 3 edits to it's name, and the other 2 are to take down the talk page, and not the main page, but instead just take out comments related to sock puppetry etc as far as I've seen so far on a cursory look. I reverted these edits as I felt it was vandalism perhaps. Particularly because it didn't come from a recognized editor on page like yourself or Noleander and a new editor that tried to take down info that on reading the policy he cited it appeared to be his own interpretation of it, to suit his purpose.Inhouse expert (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Akil muhamed, actually I have reported you to administrators in the morning. Good bye.
• Inhouse expert, thank you for that. It seems that the drawer is very full of socks. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: SPI

Hi Tryptofish. Just some friendly advice about your SPI reports; it really would be helpful if you would provide diffs when opening cases. This means diffs from both the master and suspected sock. I know it's tempting to just say "look at the case archive" or "look at the contributions", but it takes me a lot longer as a new party to the situation to get a proper idea of what's going on than it will take you to simply provide a few links. In addition to it being helpful for us clerks, it's also necessary for the CheckUsers: the CU policy directs that they are not allowed to perform CUs unless at least one link for the master and one for the sock are provided. I know it's a pain but there are a lot of cases for us to work through without sifting through contribution logs, and that really is your responsibility as the filer. Thanks for your contributions. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Basalisk, since you are saying this to me here, I'm going to say to you that my first impulse on seeing your clerk note was to let loose at you with a string of abusive language, to the effect of how hard is it for you to click the contributions link for the alleged sock, and see that there was a single edit. Of course I didn't do that, and I did attempt in good faith to provide the information you wanted. Based on your comment here, do you still need me to provide diffs from the previous confirmed socks, or did I provide enough information already? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Well like I said, diffs from the master and the sock are required, so take a look at the case and decide for yourself. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

This is difficult for me, because I sincerely think that, if I'm deciding for myself, all the evidence that is needed is there, but I also think that I can read into your comment that you disagree with me, and you are going to insist on master diffs. The confirmed socks, in the archive, tend to each adopt a persona: Nucleophilic is the one who discusses scientific sourcing at length, Bandn is the one who makes the most obvious personal attacks, etc. But these are already checkuser-confirmed socks. Now that the SPI case has come out, new socks are appearing, and adopting personas that correspond to the situation now: someone with an Arabic-sounding name worried about "defamation" because the article of the sockmaster is being proposed for deletion, someone apologizing for being a new and inexperienced editor while contesting the PROD, someone pretending to be a lawyer (but posting in a way no lawyer would actually post) threatening to sue because page deletion would be defamation. If I provide a diff from an earlier account, it won't look stylistically like a diff from these new accounts, but that would miss the point, because both would be single-purpose concerned with defending the notability of the sockmaster. Let me suggest this: please check with Delta Quad, who was the CHU on the case up to this point, not necessarily for further CHU, but just for evaluation of the behavioral pattern. Really, it defies common sense that these three new accounts just happened to be three unrelated people who just happened to show up at the same time with the same very idiosyncratic concern. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It might be more productive to find an admin who understands the situation and ask whether you can simply bring new occurrences to that admin's attention directly. It doesn't make sense that you have to waste your time with duck situations like this. Looie496 (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Looie, and done. Actually, that's exactly what I have come to think. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Resolved (and I was pretty much right). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you take a look at my article?

Hey Tryptofish,

I just made my first article! If you could look at it, that would be awesome. Thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Intermediate-term_memory

Rob Hurt (talk) 04:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I've accepted it into the main article space, Intermediate-term memory, and made a series of edits to it. It clearly fills a gap in our coverage. Congratulations! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Could you look at this one too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Retrograde_neurotransmission

Rob Hurt (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I've commented there. As you will see, there is some potential overlap with Retrograde signaling. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The timestamps

[4] I want to let you know that I haven't forgotten this at all; a few days ago I made some fairly concrete suggestions to my colleagues, but they've probably got lost in all the extraneous hoopla that's going on right now. I'll try to draw the discussion back to this in a few days. Risker (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and no worries! I just want to make sure that the archive bot doesn't throw a wrench in the works. I do recognize that the Committee has been dealing with an awful lot of stuff lately. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you have a look at this essay?

Tryptofish, I have been looking through old discussions of notability, especially this one, and you seem to have a good grasp of the big picture. I would be grateful if you would have a look at this essay and give me your thoughts - preferably on its talk page? RockMagnetist (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I've had a quick start at it, and asked a question for you on the talk page. Once I understand that better, I'll be able to try to contribute more. And – congratulations on your successful RfA! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for having a look at it, and for your congratulations. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

We'd like your opinion

A question for people who commented in the RfC at "Probationary Period" and "Not Unless". (Or feel free to reply on my talk page, if you prefer.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done, not that I had much of an opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Colin/Introduction to Psychology, 2013

Could you help me collect and analyse these student edits. I think we need to do something similar to the earlier exercise where we judge each student's edits to build up a picture of whether this is helping Wikipedia. It is quite clear, from an early sample, that is most certainly is not and Joordens is, well, I can't write here what he is. This class needs to stop now. But we need evidence. Colin°^Talk 23:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I saw your note at the noticeboard about this page, and I had already put it on my watchlist even before I got your note here. Thanks for getting it started, because it's important. If you haven't asked Looie, please be sure to, because he has a very good handle on the neuroscience pages. Given my time constraints, I'm not going to actively look, but I'll definitely add cases as I come across them. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes we need more help. Analysis these edits makes my head hurt. Taking a break. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Very understandable. Somehow, though, inviting me to do something that will give me a headache... --Tryptofish (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25