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

Contents 1 Personal reflections on the Crucifixion controversy 2 FSM Lead + Suggestion 3 Reaction and a query

Archives
1, 2, 3

[edit] 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)

[edit] FSM Lead + Suggestion

I shaved some more off the lead and got it down to three paragraphs. I think it's good now, but your input would still be helpful.

As you've noted, the talkpage of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a perennial troll magnet. (And, were the page not semi-protected, the same would be true of the article.) Consequently, I think that we should write an FAQ similar to the one on Talk:Barack Obama. Smaller, of course, but addressing the never-ending "this offends me" and "it's not a parody religion" comments. Is that appropriate?

Thanks, Mnation2 (talk) 03:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. A very big "YES" to the FAQ idea! I'm still thinking about shortening the lead, and maybe I'll make some suggestions on the article's talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Reaction and a query

More power to you Tryptofish! I do not like bullies either, but likely don't have your written jousting skills to deal with them. I haven’t looked at what has happened at Crucifixion (yet) but from my experience with you (Animal testing talk), I am sure you are fighting the good fight. I saw that the firestorm I inadvertently lit there has finally died out(?). I am starting to come around to your view that editors should be registered, and I'm only an IP(so far)! But being registered, as I'm sure you know far better than me, is no guarantee of editorial ability or conduct. Maybe an IQ, written English and personality test are needed too?
I actually came here to get your opinion on a message some 'editor' has left on my talk page. This is probably outside the Wiki 'dispute resolution' guidelines and I will understand if you don't want to get involved in any way. In fact after 4 months (≈500 article edits) of almost constant Wikipedia activity, I am considering giving it up. As I said, I don’t have good written (or verbal) jousting skills. If you just have a look at the end of my talk you will see the message I am upset about. [1] This is not the first time I have 'encountered' this person, and they often seem a bit abrupt, to say the least. I mean I should be able to make a comment, or query something in an article without being demeaned and belittled, as I see it, by an administrator! If you feel like giving an opinion I would value it, if not, no worries. It's about 8 AM here And I have only had a few hours sleep, (in my computer chair!) a very common event since I became a wikiholic. So I will have to go and try to get some more rest. Ramen! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and replying at your talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, much appreciated. Unfortunately I and the other editor tend to edit in similar areas. Just for the record I am an Electronic Technician, ≈20 years experience, have repaired computer memories using ferrite cores & I cannot recall a ferrite ever being called a ceramic (of course I may well be wrong, but for me it wasn't really important). That dreadfully unreliable source (Wikipedia) Ceramic article states "A ceramic is an inorganic, non-metallic solid prepared by the action of heat and subsequent cooling" Ferrite is metallic! (To the best of my knowledge).
Re editor 'shrinkage' this [2] may interest, don't know how true it is. Past 10AM now! Have to get some 'sleep'. "May you be touched by his noodly appendage" --220.101.28.25 (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)