User talk:Tryptofish

Newsletters.
Check RfAs.
WP:ADREV.
Statistics on most-viewed neuroscience pages.
User:Skysmith/Missing topics about Neurology
User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 67#Adminship and RfA
Commons:Category:Smilies

Adminship?

Hi there Tryptofish. I just had this crazy idea that you might want to think about. I was wondering if you'd ever be interested in being an admin. You seem experienced and clueful enough. Unless you've got any hidden skeletons, I'd be happy to nominate you if you'd like. Let me know if you're interested. AD 23:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Aiken, and thank you so very much! I am very flattered by what you said. I'm going to say "no thank you", for the time being, while leaving the door open for later on, like maybe a year from now. In brief, I personally do not feel ready for it yet, and I'm at a stage in real life when I temporarily cannot offer the project the additional time that this would take. I can explain all of that at greater length if you'd like, but that's the WP:KISS version. But sometime later: who knows. Thank you again for the very kind words. Best, --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Even though I've archived subsequent talk threads, I'm intentionally leaving this thread at the top of my talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Response Regarding an Edit I Made

I made an edit on the page entitled "Christian Terrorism." I changed "Christian terrorism means..." to "Christian terrorism is a debatable term meaning..." The article does not really give any defense from Christians. "Islamic Terrorism" opens by stating that it is a disputed term, expressing a small degree of incredulity. I thought it would be only fair to do the same for this article, and I didn't think my addition was offensive or untrue or anything. Would you mind explaining a bit further why it could not stand? --69.128.204.110 (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Please let me point you to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch). I don't think anyone would disagree with you about the fact that there is debate about the subject, but you were making an assertion that the very title of the page might be something that does not exist at all. You were, in effect, saying that the entire article is about something that is bogus. You were doing this without providing any citation of sources to indicate that this was not just your own opinion. On the other hand, if you would like to raise an issue on the talk page of the article about putting some nuanced language into the lead (but not the first sentence of the lead) about the fact that there is dispute about the term, there is a good chance that I would support that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Temple Beth Sholom, Miami Beach, FL

Having trouble attributing uploaded pics. We got permission to use them, but apparently I didn't do it right. I used the format from another synagogue, but I was flagged for it. Can you help me? I took the pics from the architect's website. http://www.newyorkcityfocus.com/photo_gallery/temple_beth_sholom.html How can I show we have permission to use the pics? Schultzdavid (talk)

Sure. Conceptually, the idea is that the architect is, of course, running a business for profit, whereas when we put an image on Wikipedia, anyone coming to Wikipedia is free to copy and make use of the image, so we cannot violate anyone's copyright. Operationally, editors are required to show, where the image is uploaded (and not at the article where the image appears), that the image is being used with the proper permission. By way of an example that shows what it should look like, here is an example of an image that I have uploaded with the kind of permission that you will need to show.

The kind of license that will apply in this case is described here. You need to have someone from the architect's company, with the authority to do so, give you the right to use the photos according to what it says there. If you've got something like a letter or an e-mail, it would be a good idea to hold onto it, in case anyone asks later on. Once you have that, do the following:

1. While you are logged in, go to Wikipedia's main page, using the link at the left of the screen.
2. Scroll down to near the bottom, and find where it says "Commons" under "Sister projects". Click through to Commons.
3. At the left side of the screen, click "Upload file".
4. Click "It is from somewhere else".
5. Follow the on-screen instructions. What matters in terms of the questions you ask are three fields in the "File description" area. In the "Licensing" field at the bottom, you must select "Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0". Having done that, go up a bit and enter information into the "Original source" and "Author(s)" fields, indicating as specifically as you can how you got permission from the architect. (It is possible that in the future you will be asked to provide a copy of that permission via the OTRS link; the policy about that is still being discussed.)

Let me know if you have any more questions. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for all of your help, but now I feel like an idiot. Followed your instructions, including getting written permission to use the photos. However, for whatever reason, they won't load onto my wiki page. This is format I'm using. Schultzdavid (talk)

File:TBS EXT SS C IMG 1.jpg|Sanctuary File:TBS EXT SS C IMG 2.jpg|Outside File:TBS EXT SS C IMG 4.jpg|Outside — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schultzdavid (talk • contribs) 22:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that was quite challenging! I think it's OK now. There were two things: getting the format of the gallery correct, per Help:Gallery, and then going to Commons, finding the files (which were uploaded just fine, by the way), and getting the exact spelling of the file names correct. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been working on it since 3:56pm when I received permission. I figured it was you because I was stumped. One picture worked and then another, but 2 others wouldn't. Thanks for your help, AGAIN! Schultzdavid (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC).

You're very welcome. You may find it useful to go through the page history for the last several edits, to see exactly what I changed. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm having trouble with copyright violations despite having written permission to use said pictures. Please assist.Schultzdavid (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Schultzdavid (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC).

In this case I will answer at your talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

sorry again Tryptofish

Hi again Tryptofish,

I just want to apologize for taking your comments the wrong way - I didn't mean to.

As far as including Philip Seeman's research goes; he is a prominent spokesperson for the dopamine hypothesis. To someone who isn't used to the policies of writing in this encyclopaedia, it is understandable that I reported his viewpoints.

Before I edited the dopamine section, this is what it was like: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_schizophrenia&oldid=212030177

As you can see, most schizophrenics or people dealing with schizophrenia reading this would assume there 1)is no reason for schizophrenia as far as dopamine goes and 2)may be no reason at all for schizophrenia if this is wrong.

Dr Seeman observed that using methylspiperone the sites were indeed exagerated and consequently proposed a theory for the different results.

Ignoring his theory of cooperativitity, the methylspiperone results still stand.

I hope you can forgive me. I realise I broke the primary/secondary source rule (and included anecdotal evidence in the past) but my main motivation here was to inform people that there is something unusual about schizophrenia as far as dopamine is concerned.

Do you agree that there is something to the methylspiperone research?

Steve Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I've already said at the article talk that there is absolutely nothing for you to apologize for. Please don't feel bad about any of this! I've explained that in a lot more detail at the article talk page. Since you ask me here what I think about the methylspiperone data, I'll say (stepping out of my Wikipedia editor role, and answering as my real life self) that there are technical problems that mean that the graph on the page exaggerates the amplitude of the effect. But I think that pretty much all investigators agree that the dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia is very important, at least for some of the symptoms of SZ (the so-called "positive symptoms"), and that there is, indeed, an increase in the number of D2-like dopamine receptors in people with SZ. Just not that big an increase, nor is it clear how much of it is D2 versus D3 versus D4. OK? Happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Christian Violence NPOV Tag

Ok I hope that we can begin working on the article now. Richard apologized to me about the cutting and pasting and he understands the rules about it as I have posted about that as well. I've asked him to back down for a bit. I can use your help and any others that want to bail in and get this cleaned up. I think its pretty fixable but it wasn't with the two of them fighting over the article. Can I ask you to contact the editors that would like to work on this and lets get this rolling?Tirronan (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not going to contact anyone at this point, because frankly I haven't seen anyone who really contributes to it in a helpful way, as opposed to getting into arguments past or present. Actually, I think that both Noleander and Richard are good folks, and I like interacting with both of them, but they are like oil and water when they get together on this page.

Here's a bit more history that you may, perhaps, find useful. I became aware of the page around the time of this version: [1], fairly early after the page was created by another editor, and the page was brought up for AfD. The issue at the time was that it seemed like an attack page against Christianity. During the second AfD, it was Richard (interestingly!) who removed almost all of the page on the basis that it had too many examples in the manner of a laundry list, giving a page looking like this: [2]. Over the next several months, I worked mostly with editors who wanted the page deleted, to create a better quality beginning to the page, but had not yet gotten to the point of figuring out which of the deleted examples to restore, and which to continue to leave out: [3]. I got a lot of positive feedback for that version from editors who had previously wanted to delete the page, and I'd like to see the opening sections of the page look more like that. Before I got around to looking at the examples of violence, the recent edits such as those you've been seeing began, as did the argument you observed. Richard asked a few other editors to get involved, and they started helpfully pruning the cruft, and I decided at the time to get out of the way and let them do it. Unfortunately, those editors got involved in some other things that involved some dispute resolution ('nuff said), and the effort had petered out until you stopped by.

One of my shortcomings as an editor is that I tend to get overextended, with a long to-do list that I never seem to get caught up on, which is why I haven't done more with this page recently. For that reason, I'd welcome you doing whatever you see fit to do with the page, per WP:BE BOLD. I'll make an effort to do likewise, time permitting. I think it's largely a matter of just going ahead rather ruthlessly and doing the things that are currently called-for on the article talk page, subject to subsequent discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)