User talk:Tryptofish

Newsletters.
Check RfAs.
WP:ADREV.
Statistics on most-viewed neuroscience pages.

Personal reflections on the Crucifixion controversy

It's been a couple of the most interesting days in my editing experience. :-) Given that a lot of the discussion has been about me, I feel it might be appropriate for me to say some relevant things about me. I'm doing it here, because it clearly does not belong on the article talk page.

First of all, no, I do not have Asperger's syndrome, although I have the utmost respect for people who do and who make valuable contributions to society. And I deplore the hate-speech that has occurred.

What may be more interesting is that I also do not particularly like anime. It doesn't make me upset or have any particular salience for me, but I just don't think it's much of a big deal, or particularly interesting. I'm not a fan of it. Also, the editors who know me from WT:BIO, where I frequently argue against recentism and fancruft, would likely be very surprised to see me arguing for pop culture in this case.

So, what gives? My personal likes and dislikes (or those of any other editor) are irrelevant to whether something is or is not notable and encyclopedic. I care, a lot, about Wikipedia telling the truth in an NPOV way. And sometimes, that means questioning people's preconceptions about what is or is not worthy of inclusion. Think of it as a sort of one-person Wiki Civil Liberties Union. What erupted at Crucifixion is still being sorted out, but at least some of it was various forms of Idon'tlikeit growing out of Christian or Western or various other Points of View. Material that is notable can sometimes make people uncomfortable, and they'll find ways to object to it for reasons that sound objective and reasonable, but which are really unexamined. I'm convinced that's happening—with some editors, certainly not everyone—in this controversy. Wikipedia is richer if that gets examined.

And another thing: I have no use for bullies. Bullies show up from time to time on this website, and most good, thoughtful, editors are not very good at dealing with them, often just giving in. What happened over the last few days has been a massive display of bullying masquerading as a snow closure, and the bullies chose the wrong editor to pick a fight with. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Action potential for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Pyrrhus16 18:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries

Things have sometimes gotten a bit heated between us, but I'd say that we both recognize that Matt's approach is...in a class of its own. I firmly believe that all of us – Matt included – are involved in CDA with the best of intentions, whatever and wherever our differences of opinion may lie. It is regrettable that Matt hasn't shown a consistent ability to remain calm and collected in the face of disagreements; it would probably be best for him and for everyone if he backed off and found other areas in which he might be able to contribute positively. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that I've cooled off, just wanted to wish yas good luck, with the CDA. I'll be waiting for the RfC (both of them). GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, GoodDay. I think we all are starting to cool off, me included, and I hope very much that things are going to get back on a good track now. Best wishes, --Tryptofish (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do you & the other supporter have support in your voting? Ya don't need'em as you've both voted in the Support section. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've seen it done this way at many other types of polls on the Wiki, and I just like saying it that way. But you are, of course, correct that the meaning would be the same without it. Now, on the other hand, if I had put "oppose" at the beginning of a post in the support section, that would indeed have been pretty strange. No big deal. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You deserve this

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For your hard work in getting the CDA proposal together, even in the face of strong criticism. >Radiant< 17:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)