User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 16

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

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

November, 2011 – March, 2012

Oops

Thanks. I suspect you'll sail through the above when you're ready. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no problem about that. It was easy to overlook that there were two different IPs. And thanks for the kind words. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Tryptofish, his view is shared by many ... or at least one other person I know. :).Griswaldo (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm really blushing! But, at least at this time, I really don't want to be an admin (which I assume is what we're referring to here). I'm also pretty sure that there are plenty of people who have become pissed off at me, who would be happy to line up and oppose. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

We should hold an RfC on whether you should file an RfA. |; --Nuujinn (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I can just see it, the RfC would come to a close, and someone (ahem) will loudly demand that it be reopened. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyone does that, I'll trout them and take them to DRN. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Did someone say something about fish? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

So, Tryptofish... we meet again

Ran into you at Pond air pump. Listen, isn't it time we had another secret meeting of the evil and vile deletionist conspiracy? I just don't feel right if I don't cruelly delete at least a few deserving articles every day. EEng (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

At least pond pumps don't have a blog (that I know of) where they comment on the AfD while the AfD is commenting on them. Now, now, you have to wait a month. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

www.tsurumipumpsales.com/blog -- EEng (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Question about File:NY Rangers 1926 training camp.jpg

In the deletion discussion about the above image, you raised the possibility that the photograph may be in the public domain. And if I understand correctly, it hinges on whether the copyright was renewed? I've seen this come up but don't know how to verify if a copyright has been renewed. Seems like {{PD-US-not renewed}} is the correct license, but I'm not sure. Any idea? Thanks. --Mosmof (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The short answer is I don't know, but I'll try to answer in more detail at the discussion there. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For patience and diligence in a hotly debated article with some very heated discussions. Alatari (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	You know why. Alatari (talk) 08:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I'm incredibly flattered! Thanks!! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

disruptive editor

One of the editors on criticism of J page is the most disruptive I've seen since 2005 that is still allowed to edit. Why is this person allowed to continue? Alatari (talk) 11:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion there are multiple people there who have been quite unpleasant, but it's a complicated thing about when someone crosses the line to where they should be site banned. I don't really see much disruption there with respect to actual edits of the page, but rather, the talk page discussions tend to be people saying what they originally believed over and over, without really listening to what anyone else says. A big part of the reason Wikipedia works as well as it does (albeit not perfectly) is that it makes us all try to work with whoever else comes along. I've come to find that process rather interesting, and I apparently have a bigger tolerance for obnoxious editors than a lot of other people do, so I'm reasonably unperturbed by working at that page. It's just a website, after all. I very much value the kind and generous things you've said to me, and I definitely want you to be happy editing here. If that particular page gets you down, please remember that there's a gazillion other subjects to edit instead. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep an eye on it, and participate if I see somewhere I feel I can contribute. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

RFA thank you

Thank you for your comment and support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my talk page. <3 --Abigail was here :D (Need Some Help? Click Me!) 23:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hypothalamus

Hi -- do you think you could take a look at that article? I don't want the editor to believe that I am the only one who has a problem with his edits. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Will do. I'm on my way. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I've done about as much as I intend to for now, but I'll start watchlisting it. I took the approach of trying to fix it instead of reverting it completely, which may not be perfect (maybe you can improve on what I did, please do), but I think it's a step in the right direction. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If you're happy, I'm happy. I couldn't stand the thought of having that text there, but I wasn't capable of fixing it. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Criticism of Religion

Template:Criticism of Religion has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

Ion Zone (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

lmao, it's like fighting the ocean waves. *sigh* Alatari (talk) 09:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The longer I edit here, the more predictable/perennial these things seem. On the positive side, the less they worry me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Theta model

Hello! You recently rated my article (Theta model) as C-class. One user as provided detailed input as to what could be wrong, but I'd like to know your thoughts. Aside from the unorthodox referencing, the entire article is apparently too technical. What other issues need to be addressed? I am also in the process of learning to write better (and in particular writing technical topics which don't scare away a general audience), so please let me know if you have any advice. Best regards, BBAmp (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, those ratings are a fairly unimportant business (not attended to by readers, just inside baseball amongst editors), and I didn't give the rating a lot of detailed thought. (It's nothing like a C grade in school; the article strikes me as much better than that.) My main objective was to get it entered into the WP:WikiProject Neuroscience list of pages, to increase the odds of interested editors contributing to it. To some extent, the rating reflects the fact that there haven't yet been a lot of different editors working on it. Beyond that, here's what stands out to me:

The page relies rather heavily on mathematical equations, instead of text, which makes it less accessible to Wikipedia's general public audience.
It's a rather specialized topic. I'm not really convinced that it is sufficiently notable to merit its own article, as opposed to being a section within a parent article, such as Neural coding or Theta rhythm. The page may also try a little too hard to make a case for the importance of the model.
The references are not formatted according to Wikipedia conventions. Please see WP:INCITE (and Template:reflist).

Please take all of this as constructive advice, and not as fault-finding! I'm always happy to see another editor with an interest in neuroscience. I'd be happy to answer any follow-up questions you have. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This is extremely helpful feedback, thank you! I believe I can address these points once I am done with finals. If you find any further problems, please let me know. This is a great start. Best, BBAmp (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you direct me to some math-heavy pages which in your opinion do a good job of explaining the math without relying heavily on the equations? BBAmp (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Membrane potential. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:V

Just to let you know I've changed the word "should" to may in the lead, because of the objection of another user. I don't really care one way or the other, but I am trying to resist the depressing notion that it is not possible to edit the page without a year-long RfC process. If you don't like it, I hope you'll join the talkpage discussion. --FormerIP (talk) 03:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, much appreciated! Well, there comes a point where I actually stop caring. But, I've just gone through the wall of discussion since I last logged out, and, honestly, I can't find where anyone objected to it! I'm sure it's there, but I couldn't locate it. Could you please point me to where it was? Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, OK, I found it. Phew! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

DRN notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Atheism". Thank you. --u n☯mi 02:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Replied. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Dumb

I didn't call anybody dumb. I described an Edit summary as dumb. There is a huge difference. You apology will be appreciated. HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

In context, that's a hair-splitting difference. You might therefore consider apologizing to that editor, about whom you said that. Up to you. You also were edit warring over the edit, and failing to acknowledge that the other editor had explained their thinking in talk. In fact, it looks to me like you've put an unsourced number into the text, and the only thing you are discussing in talk is the trivial side issue about how to count editors. Now, that said, I have a feeling that you are probably correct about that source to which you object. It may very well indeed fail WP:RS. But there are better ways of getting to that conclusion. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Help Needed

There seems to be another dispute about sock puppets. First, I am not a sock puppet. Second, it is not at all clear to me how one responds to such accusations. Wikipedia needs to s have a clearer process for making a response. Please feel free to transfer this information to any page where it would be appropriate.

More importantly, I believe that the Ramachandran entry needs more editors not less. The only disruptive editor I have noticed is 66.27.48.50. (If you look on their talk page you will see a rather strange history of multiple warnings.) Yes, there are disagreements between editors such as Ed Hubbard and Neurorel but their back and forth has made the article on Ramachandran more accurate and balanced.

It's hard enough to find the time to work on editing articles. I suspect that fighting over who is a sock puppet is a waste of time. 75.85.170.133 (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Edgeform

Hello, Edgeform. I certainly wouldn't want anyone to be blocked unfairly, and I'll gladly try to help you sort this out. Please take a look at this link: [1]. Can you provide any explanation for what that person says in their edit summary? It sounds like they are saying that you and Neurorel are the same person, and the edit seems to be coming from the same place that you are sending me this message from. I am also going to ask the administrator who handled the sockpuppet accusation and who blocked you to look at the discussion here. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tryptofish, I am no one other than myself. The person who made the disruptive edit (dropping a web page for no reason) is 66.27.48.50. They did the same thing on the wiki entry for Mirror Neurons. If you look at their talk page it has a history of warnings going back to 2007. One thing that puzzles me is the deletion (2010?) of the article on The Center For Brain and Cognition. Is it possible that someone is upset about that and is attacking related articles and editors?

75.85.170.133 (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Edgeform

Could you point me towards the deletion of the Center For Brain and Cognition? I can't find any history of the page, or of edits there from that IP address. Do you have any insight into why someone would want to implicate you and Neurorel? Those warnings look to me like that IP address is one that is shared, perhaps at a library or school. I have asked an administrator to look into all of this. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see my reply to you at User talk:75.85.170.133. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Citizens of WikipediaWorld

Has there ever been a broad based discussion about editors being citizens. Maybe not as an end in itself (too many passports, documentation, customs agents,etc.) but as the genesis of a discussion about solutions. The Civility enforcemnet sites clearly show that we are two countries seperated by a common language. Now its obvious that out mutual language allows us to come together but we bring along all our cultural baggage. And, as we see, its the cultural baggage that, sometimes, causes dysfuntion. The cultures that people live in around the world took generations to form...building, nurturing, teaching, even scolding. Maybe that is at the heart of it. As a community we are very young. We don't hold corrections as positives: we hold them as criticisms. We dont see the helping hand: we only see the finger pointing. One thing I learned early in life is "How and where do you plug into The Conversation." Wether its about politics or civility at a website or porn or ecology, etc etc. I think we are plugged into a similar socket. I'm starting to rant so I'll stop. Thanks. Buster Seven Talk 19:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi! That's an interesting question, and one that I'm not sure how to answer. We have the article Community of Wikipedia, and the page Wikipedia:Wikipedians, that discuss the demographics, and to some extent the culture, of the editor community. Obviously, there have been lots of discussions about how to behave as members of an editing community. One essay that I particularly like (written by a current Arb) is User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism. But I'm not aware of discussions about conduct based on the idea of being a particular population, or collection of populations, within the world. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

It looks like there are a couple of people who are determined to interfere with this entry by adding what I would call graffiti edits. Thanks for your attention.Neurorel (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)Neurorel

You're very welcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Access to SOPA articles during WP blackout

Hello, since you expressed interest in providing access to the relevant Wikipedia articles during the blackout, and since technical difficulties and lack of interest seem to have indicate this won't be done on Wikipedia, I've initiated a project to preserve those articles at Wikibooks.

I invite you to contribute to improving the Wikibooks stable versions (mostly trying look nice and focusing them on the information people will need), and to provide the link to anybody you know with questions about the blackout.

The full link can be found here: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Intellectual_Property_and_the_Internet

Regards, Quintucket (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Is that so, that those pages will not be accessible? It's very hard to really know what's going on, amidst all the cacophany, but I thought that the closing statement from the admins called specifically for the pages to be available. I guess if there are technical difficulties, that's that. Anyway, thanks for your work on it, and thanks for letting me know. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No, as it turned out, I was wrong. I spoke to two members of the WMF who assured me that at the least SOPA and PIPA will be available, as well as a few others. Like you said, things are moving so fast it's hard to follow. I'm still working on it anyways, there may be some articles on WB that aren't available here, and it occurs to me having a relatively static, self-contained resource might be useful in the future. --Quintucket (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it looks to me like it all worked out well. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you watch your tongue, lest it run away with you

My understanding was that Pesky specifically asked Salvio for permission to post her comments. Did you? Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Your comment has been duly noted. And I'm suppressing the urge to make a sarcastic reply to you. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively you might simply answer the question. Did you? Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You can take a look at Salvio's talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

So did you or didn't you? Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. And now a moot point, per Risker. Now please leave my talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

How much easier it would have been to just say that right up front, but you chose instead to persist with your hostility. And now, in accordance with your wishes, I will leave you with your pit. Malleus Fatuorum 00:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

no apologies necessary

For the arbcom editing. Seems like the clerk has just been overwhelmed and made a poor decision, but all's well that ends well. Nobody Ent 00:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I really appreciate that. Ugh! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

RFA

Many thanks for your kind words! Regards, Giant Snowman 22:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome! --Tryptofish (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Pretty good, pretty arbitrary break

Pretty good break. Who knows, maybe "pretty" this and that is a good tool for anger management too.[2] Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ha! Let's hope so! --Tryptofish (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ice cream?

I appreciate your Good Humor at the proposed decision thread and whatever times we've crossed in the past, I've always respected the sincerity of your positions. In fact, I have come around to your point of view on admins in many ways.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! You really made my day with that! Of course, we had a few differences of opinion back in the admin recall days (which seem like ancient history now, don't they?), but I too have come around in some of my views about things Wiki, as I have been around here longer. You definitely strike me as one of the smartest and most articulate editors around here, and it makes me very happy to see these kind words from you. (Oh, Good Humor, capitalized, I just got that!) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Voluntarily agree to..

Yes, I admit I thought of similar steps, Fae could voluntarily agree to, after all it is a technique that can draw fangs sometimes. I am very uneasy about it in this context, agreeing to something under duress encourages others to apply duress. Moreover, as I understand it Fae has not edited in the "problem areas" - even DC says "everything has been peaceful since the departure of Ash and Benjiboi" (I paraphrase). Rich Farmbrough, 02:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC).

Yes, I see what you mean, and thanks for pointing it out. I've commented in some of the views about the Steffans sourcing, and you might want to look at what I said there. Other than that, I'm not sure what more to say here. Please feel free to raise the issue of duress there. I won't mind if you do, and I'll agree with you there that there are issues of applying duress. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

New Atheism

Hello! I hope you have been doing well. Per the RfC this past fall, I moved the "New Atheism" content from the militant atheism article to the New Atheism article and started a discussion here. Since you were a strong proponent of splitting the article, I feel you might be able to best attend to the task. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. As you will see from my comment at the discussion, I disagree with that approach. Sorry if that disappoints you. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Troll with an agenda?

We are told that, as you have a Ph.D., you can decide how research should be described at Brain-Computer Interface. Even if it is "just a common knowledge understanding of what the four abstracts say" such "common knowledge" is not really reflected in WP policy. Your position at first seemed borderline. But I was very grateful for your calm and reasoned input to the discussion. I realise that you want to move on, and I don't wish to detain you. But I'm still rather unhappy that the new material has been wrongly-placed and that the juxtapositon of the two remaining sentences looks clearly like WP:SYNTH. I have made all my edits in good faith, as politely as possible, from the standpoint of an interested layman. I have tried a variety of analogies to express my point. In return I am told that I "didn't understand what an interface was, or how neurons relate to the brain". Not everyone wishes to make clear which degrees or PhDs one may or may not have. But it's not very nice to be accused of being "a troll with an agenda" by a multiple- ip and very rude anonymous editor. Thanks for listening. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I'm still keeping it on my watchlist a little longer, but I've lost patience with both of you sniping at each other's motives and educational expertise. Perhaps, as you recently said there, it would be good for other editors to comment, and maybe they'll see something that I do not. By the way, I feel very strongly that arguments about content on Wikipedia should be based on the strength of the argument, and not on whether an editor is an expert, a registered editor, an administrator, or God's gift to the world. If someone makes a good point, I don't care if they are a kid in school, and if someone makes an illogical point, I don't care if they won a Nobel prize. (As it happens, I am not only a Ph.D. but a long-time tenured faculty member at a large US university, who has published extensively in neuroscience and has had many millions of dollars in NIH research grants, but I'm not going to say that on the article talk page, because I don't think anyone should pull rank. Just saying.) In any case, the issue isn't worth feeling badly about. After all, Wikipedia is just a website (gasp!). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for such a fair and honest reply. With friends like that ip - who needs enemies? I don't blame you for getting fed up. And I freely admit to sniping a little. I had not even read this article until a few weeks ago. It's just so annoying and frustrating for a "serious" (registered) editor to take so much unsubstantiated abuse from an ip and have no real comeback. I'm very glad there are gifted experts in the field, like yourself, around to referee. I'm not sure if you've had the patience to look at the other 64 minor edits I made to try and improve. But I'd appreciate a check of this one which involved an assumption on my part. Note sure if that was open-loop or closed-loop. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd want to look at the primary source for that (the cited ref is only a University highlights site), but I think you are correct that they would have to have had visual feedback. ~~You misspelled "produced", so you might want to fix that, by the way.~~already fixed --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I sincerely hope the Tianjin work eventually bears friut, but I can't honestly see how the identification and selective targetting of individual neurons or functionally distinct neuronal networks won't be a stumbling block. But then you know about my pedantic problems with the meaning of the word "interface". Maybe we can all look forward to that particular lunar event. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Good luck with your editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

donkey punch

Your input in a prior RFC on this topic has been mentioned, so you might want to opine at Talk:Donkey_punch#Roadmap. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I responded there. My goodness, what a subject. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability at WP:DR/N

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "At WP:Verifiability". Thank you. -- NewbyG ( talk) 23:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I commented there. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Unblock

Thanks for chasing me up on this, I'm a lot better now, normal service has resumed. I have revisited the situation and responded to the discussion. WilliamH (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, too. I've posted some follow-up questions to you there. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

Dear Tryptofish: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I added myself to the case, and I'll be there. (I'm replying to a bot?) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes you were, but nothing escapes the eye of The Mediator. ;) Thanks for your statement! — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Ha! Well, you've taken on quite a task! Good luck herding these cats! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism at Mirror Neuron entry continues

Whoever is vandalizing the edit summaries has found another computer to use. Now they are attacking you in addition to me. Hard to believe that they are so worked up over the editing of this article.Neurorel (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Neurorel

I can't help jumping in... How does someone vandalize an edit summary? EEng (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

A sordid business. An IP with a grudge is going around making minor vandalism edits, with edit summaries that purport to out the real world identities of some editors. So, strictly speaking, the vandalism is in the edits, and the edit summaries are disruptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

So you're both aware, I've knocked out those edits and protected the article. Let me know of the issues as they arise. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you! I've also left messages at each of your talk pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening COTM

The current WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening Collaborations are:

Hobby farm
Raised bed gardening
Sustainable gardening
Urban horticulture
Vermicompost
The next collaborations will be posted on April 1, 2012. (Contribute here)

fyi regarding brain

Hi Trypto, just as an FYI regarding your edit, it's actually well established that the numerical majority of neurons in the human brain are in the cerebellum. They are tiny little granule cells, and the lowest estimate I've seen of their number is around 40 billion. The rest of the brain all taken together only contains around 10 billion neurons, most of them cortical pyramidal cells. However, cerebellar granule cells only make around 100 synaptic contacts each, so in terms of total number of synapses the cortex dominates the cerebellum by more than 10 to 1. (I'm not going to replace the edit because this is human brain-specific info and I don't think it necessarily belongs in brain.) Regards, Looie496 (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I stand corrected! All I can say is wow! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

More Edit Summary disinformation on Mirror Box entry

Looks like the person who has been adding edit summary commentaries is back. This time they are using 99.91.156.211 as their address. Maybe it's time to protect this article.Neurorel (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Neurorel

Thanks for telling me. What a jerk that person is! I've passed the information along to HelloAnnyong. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)