User talk:The Transhumanist/Archive 1

START    DIR    TIPS 

Talk   

Home   Talk   Awards 4 U   Sigs   Task 4 U   Tools   User page design   Wiki-school   Wish list

Talk archives (including previous accounts)

List of basic trigonometry topics

Do you really think we need a Portal:Trigonometry? Kusma (討論) 13:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Any subject that has a class dedicated to it in the primary school system is probably broad enough to warrant a portal. And since Wikipedia caters to students as much as to anyone else, having a portal on each academic subject could really help. The link is there in case anyone feels the need to create the portal. Also, if there was a portal on Trig, I'd visit it.   The Transhumanist   14:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Mathematics in the professional world is too interconnected to create separate portals and lists in my opinion. --gatoatigrado 02:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Then what you need are portals and lists that are equally interconnected. Almost anything can be represented in the wiki format. Mathematics is no exception. Chaos in the real world is managed through organization. Well organized reference tools are essential in this regard.   The Transhumanist   18:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome message

I have used the softened color scheme you changed for User:Kukini/Welcome in my slightly altered (perhaps to be more altered) User:Centrx/Welcome which is, if not used only by me, present in User:Voice of All's popular script. —Centrx→talk • 17:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey...how do we access your old talk pages now that you have changed identity? Do you have archives somewhere? Kukini 22:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Another redirect for the hatnote

I noticed that User:The Tipster redirects here. Just thought I'd let you know so you can add them to the redirect hatnotes if you want. Good to see you around again, though the number of user accounts is a bit confusing! :-) I like the concept of transhumanism as well. Read about it a few years ago and the idea caught my imagination. Carcharoth 02:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Re Categories page

...I've extended your changes to the rest of the pages in the ref bar, and have implemented them in the Template:Reference page header to make it easier to adjust all of the pages at the same time.   The Transhumanist   03:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!  I'm glad you're happy with my amendment and I think the template is a good idea for the sake of consistency. Best wishes, David Kernow 10:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Page move problem

There's some kind of page-move problem with Lists of basic topics, it appears to have lost its history, and I can't figure out where the original ended up.

If you go to WP:CORE#Similar lists, and click "The original version was Larry..." you end up in the wrong place. Perhaps you can figure out what's going wrong, and get an admin to fix it? Thanks :) --Quiddity·(talk) 10:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That link you provided above leads to the original page, with the original history...

Gatoatigrado moved it, then changed his mind and cut and pasted it back to the original name (he had already edited there and couldn't undo the move). I then moved the original so I wouldn't lose track of it. It's current location is: Lists of basic topics/Original list.   The Transhumanist   10:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It was more confusing at 4am!

Though, if you click "The original version", and then click "history", it's got a confusing 1 line entry, but if you go to the current page itself (/Original list), the history is all there! It was probably something like that, confusing me. Anyway, see below for more on page moves. --Quiddity·(talk) 01:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Re Uhg

I forgot to put the icons in when I installed the templates...

Sorry not to've been around to see your message sooner and help. It looks like you've sorted out the relevant pages here, so hopefully that means all is now up-to-date. Yours, David Kernow 11:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No worries. There's plenty more to do. See the Lists of basic topics, for instance.   The Transhumanist   14:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

sidebar and basic topics

hi nexus, sorry I've been gone. I moved to Berkeley, CA for college and things are still getting settled. I'll try to help with things when I can. --gatoatigrado 15:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

External feedback

I think perhaps, it's time to get some external feedback. You've been doing a huge amount of resorting and creating, of top level pages, and whilst what I've noticed all seems to be really good organizational work, there are some potential problems that ought to be thought about:

• history-merges -- there are at least 3 pages that need their histories merged, and I don't know whether waiting longer is going to make it more complicated for the admin that has to do it: Portal:Browse with Wikipedia:List of portals, Wikipedia:Browse with Wikipedia:Categorical index, and Lists of basic topics/Original list with Lists of basic topics.
• isolated, new, toplevel pages -- if "list of basic topics" gets linked from the sidebar, all those new lists you've created will be 2 clicks away from vandalism. But you're the only editor that knows about the pages, or has them watchlisted.
  • I think you should announce each of them at a relevant overview/portal talkpage, so that editors in each area know of them, can check them over, and can oversee them.

So what I suggest, is that you contact some admin that you respect, and get them to give feedback on those 2 things. Sound good? (I'll have a try at tweaking the ref-page design soon) --Quiddity·(talk) 01:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what the policy is on merging histories from forked pages. Can you point it out to me so I can read it? I'll handle the history issue on basic. I want to spend more time actually reading the encyclopedia, but will continue cleaning up the basic lists for now (very time-consuming). I look forward to seeing your improvements to the ref pages' design.   The Transhumanist   19:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves and/or Wikipedia:Proposed mergers :) --Quiddity 19:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Any thoughts on that 2nd point, of bringing these new basic topic pages to the attention of a wider audience? Just to clarify, I mean drop a brief note at Portal talk:Architecture about the existence of List of basic architecture topics. And so on. "Many hands make light work", etc. :) --Quiddity

As a prevention for vandalism? I'm not as concerned about a vandalism problem that hasn't occurred yet as you are. If vandalism becomes a problem, then a call to arms should be made at that time, with increased resources brought in to deal with the problem. But to commit those resources in advance? I don't know. But feel free to set that up yourself if you'd like. I have no objections.   The Transhumanist   04:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

My original suggestion came out in a very poorly worded attempt at gentle guidance, that i overthought and rewrote too many times. :-(
Anyway, to re-explain, with example:
It's more that I consider them to be very a high visibility and high prominence set of links, by pure reason of association with the top level reference page "lists of basic topics", and hence I want them to become as excellent and representative of Wikipedia as possible. This is what I propose that I/you could post at the relevant subject's wikiproject/portal talkpages:

Hi, just a note to let you know that List of basic --- topics has been created, and is linked to from the Lists of basic topics reference page. You might like to add it to your Wikiproject's development pool, and help bring it up to a full featured list quality. Thanks! -~~

I was hoping you would both write and post it, because you're the creator, and hence would probably be more eloquent and empassioned than I! (I tend towards brevity, and often leave too many things unsaid). As an example of a specific page, List of basic archaeology topics was created back in November, but it still only has 2 incoming (non-redirect) links, and isnt mentioned anywhere in the pages or talkpages of Portal:Archaeology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Archaeology. I was figuring that many hands make light work, plus (imo) it's a pleasure to watch smart people buzz and hum around a rapidly growing good article.

So, whatcha think? :) --Quiddity 09:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I see, a recruiting drive. A good idea, and the corresponding lists on the Lists of topics should also be included in that drive (because they too fall under the domain of the same projects). However, before recruting, it's usually a good idea to lay some groundwork. Toward that end, I've created a standard structure for basic lists and a task list on the talk page. That's all I can do for now - I have very little free time anymore. The topic lists needs some preparation before a recruiting drive takes place. Some thought needs to be put into standard formats for those pages, and instructions on gathering topics and which are the best tools to use in creating the lists, so that those who help don't waste time on trying to build them entirely by hand. You wouldn't happen to know of an easy way to sort lists, would you? A free utility or text editor with this capability is what I'm looking for. I've been using the Sort command in Window's command shell, but it's buggy.   The Transhumanist   05:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm also very busy right now, and in no hurry to take on yet another major project! Your notes look great, and recruiting drive is exactly the description i was looking for. I'm in no rush, so postpone till whenever you have time to finish preliminaries :)

I did however put the 2 easy page-merges at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. I've mentioned Wikipedia:List of portals at Portal talk:Browse, but have been hesitating on listing it for merge, as it's likely to generate a little discussion, which you should be around for... ;) You might want to keep an eye on those pages in case discussion erupts.

None of my text editors have a sort function, though I coulda sworn one did. hmmm. A quick google give this one though, looks good: http://jsimlo.sk/notepad/notepad.php

And Good luck, if you're starting a new semester/job. :) --Quiddity 06:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ref pages formatting

Sorry I didnt take a stab at it, though what you're trying looks really interesting :)

I was wondering if you might try reducing the icon sizes ever so slightly, as you're already going through them? maybe down to 35px? (if only they were square, so that could be changed as part of the template..). --Quiddity 02:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm already more than half done. But you could give it a shot. I'm basically using find/replace in wordpad, though most any external text editor would do. Watch out for the philosophy icon, it's a different size than all the rest.   The Transhumanist   02:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Used 30px (and 22px for philosophy). I reduced the section template's height, for a thinner overall look, and removed some of the codewrap, which fixed the gap under the headers. (voodoo!).

I don't know how to fix those "edit section" links though (eg Lists of topics). Quiddity 03:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't even see that. I've turned them off on that page, and am looking at the other pages now.   The Transhumanist   03:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It can't handle the H2 header code being transcluded. We're going to have to break apart those section header templates somehow.

Also, the section template shouldnt begin with the 2 closing divs, as they're possibly inadvertantly closing page divs from before the bits we can edit (global page wrapper styles, etc)? --Quiddity 05:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Good observations. On closer analysis, it's not the closing divs or the html code which are causing the problem, but the fact that the heading (and hence its section) resides on the template page. Therefore the edit button opens the section inside the template to edit, regardless of whether it is html code or wiki-code. I've used this as a trick before, so I can't believe I didn't remember it here. Some philosophy list pages uses embedded headings to templatize see also sections. But in those, the see also sections' content resides on the template pages.   The Transhumanist   07:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what I meant by -- can't handle the headers being transcluded... ;)

So you can fix it? --Quiddity 08:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys. Sorry for not getting back to you sooner - have a couple of off-wiki projects which are eating up most of my time right now. Took me a minute to figure out the issue since you've 'patched' it for now and it isn't actually showing up when I view the pages. Basically, it sounds like the 'edit' links are leading to an 'edit this template' page rather than 'edit this section' for the article they are placed on. Correct? If so, my first question would be... do they need to be 'headers' per se? The 'header' designation sets a number of features which can be duplicated in other ways... such as text size, bolding, anchor point, et cetera. The only thing unique to headers is that they set the 'page layout grid' which is used to build the table of contents, automatic section edit links, and the like. I'm guessing you want these to be headers to populate the table of contents, but maybe you could build a manual table of contents. Obviously that is far from ideal too. Unfortunately, I don't know of any way to have a transcluded header give an edit link to the page transcluded onto rather than the page transcluded from. The separate issue with having 'div' closing tags at the front of the template possibly messing up any other divs set on the page could be resolved by passing in the list of contents as a parameter of the template itself. The only drawback to that would be the limits on what template parameters can include... which wouldn't be a problem for simple lists, but would be for tables and other more complicated markup. Your best bet may be multiple templates;

{{section|background-color|line-color}}<h2>Header as text</h2>{{close|colorbox}}
List of items
{{close|linebox}}

Putting the header as just normal text on the page would solve the edit links problems and multiple templates would prevent interfering with other div sections. Obviously not as clean as having a single template, but still fairly compact. --CBD 14:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Notice

Please take a look at my comments here. Any suggestions would be most welcomed. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Smile

Quiddity has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Allegations of sock puppetry on the Ben Best page

As someone who has edited the Ben Best page recently, you may have been aware of the allegations of sock puppetry. As this has continued for six weeks now, I have started the appropriate Wikipedia handling process. If you wish to make a contribution, please go to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/CRANdieter and add your views to the Comments section. Nunquam Dormio 13:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It was closed by the time I got there. I do hope that guy stops bugging Mr. Best, though.   The Transhumanist   21:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

lists

sorry I was busy for a while starting college, see what you think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_basic_geometry_topics&diff=74588396&oldid=71070819

sorry the sidebar didn't turn out how you wanted it to. it should be easy to add Lists of Basic Topics when it is deemed "ready" by other members. --gatoatigrado 20:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

the new sidebar is a lot better than the current one, so I'm happy.   The Transhumanist   05:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

good work on the geometry article. When I get time, I'll read through those pages. I need to bone up on my geometry.   The Transhumanist   05:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yohimbine

I was looking at your Nootropics discussion. From yours and everyone else's descriptions, it sounds like Yohimbine is a longer lasting ephedrine substitute. Question is, does it have the same side effects of rapidly building up tolerance and dependence? I know there's more appropriate forums for questions like this, but you're the only person I've seen talking about using it for Nootropic purposes.

I haven't read anywhere of Yohimbine being similar. I haven't noticed any tolerance build-up, but that may be due to resupplying dopamine levels with phenylalanine. Dopamine boosters tend to deplete dopamine (though I don't know whether yohimbine actually depletes anything), while dopamine precursors (phenylalanine, tyrosine) replenish the brain's supplies of dopamine. Also, whenever I increase the dosage of yohimbine, I can't get to sleep. It doesn't seem to be getting any weaker.   The Transhumanist   19:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool, that's precisely what I was postulating about neurotransmitter replacement (currently using tyrosine). I'm gonna see how it jibes with Olmifon when it gets here next week.

I don't know why one would choose adrafinil over modafinil. The latter is more effective.   The Transhumanist   21:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Modafinil requires a prescription and is schedule IV and is expensive. Adrafinil on the other hand falls into that slim category of drugs that you can import in "personal quantities." In other words, if you don't have in insurance in the states, Adrafinil is the way to go. My liver *likes* living on the edge. ;)

Sidebar redesign final draft vote

at Final draft vote. :) --Quiddity 08:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Philanthrop (y/ist)

Sorry about that merger suggestion. I must have forgotten to put my reasoning on the discussion page. When I put that up, Philanthropist was a much smaller article, and really didn't seem like it needed to be there with the medium sized Philanthropy page. Sorry about the mix up. Vint 22:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a problem with the "size" rationale. The key consideration is whether or not each term or topic merits its own entry, which pertains to the topic's notability. If the answer to the question "will many users be searching for this particular topic?" is "yes", and the term isn't synonymous with a more prominent version of the term with its own article, then it probably should stand-alone. A philanthropist is distinct from the activity of philanthropy and merits its own article, even if it is just a stub. Most articles start out as stubs, just as every tree starts out as a mere seed.   The Transhumanist   22:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Again, it was short sided on my part not to understand why the two pages were not one. Vint 05:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

List of basic robotics topics

Sure, I'm always happy for positive contributions to Wikipedia. -- Casmith 789 14:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Anon edits?

Can I assume you make a fair amount of anon edits on the "reference" & similar pages, e.g., Portal:Browse? [1] Rfrisbie^talk 02:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
p.s. nice layout ;-)

One problem with Wikipedia is that it kicks you off after a certain amount of time, but your user ID is still at the top of the page so you think you're still on. It's a real pain in the ass. But my anon account isn't anon, because I'm prominently identified in the user contributions. So when it does happen, I don't worry about it.   The Transhumanist   14:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. That's one problem I haven't had. I almost never have to log back in, and usually it's because I logged out to test something. :-) Rfrisbie^talk 14:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

List of articles (an overview)

Hi again Transhumanist,

(Update title)

Suggest you may wish to reconsider/revert this move as bracketed phrases in titles seem to be reserved on Wikipedia for disambiguation... Regards, David Kernow (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll think of something. Thanks for the heads-up.   The Transhumanist   23:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

...also, I'm afraid, I believe colons are something of a no-no as the results may sometimes suggest (or even clash with) namespace identifiers. (To date, however, I've only seen this once.) I guess, though, you could leave the current name until (1) you think of yet another; and/or (2) someone more versed than I quotes some policy or guideline. ("Don't step on rename the grass!")  Chuckle, David (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe just a little too WP:BOLD, it would be WP:CIVIL to discuss changes like these and Geometry on the talk pages first. --Salix alba (talk) 23:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I had written an explanation of the move, but Wikipedia was slow so I saved and walked away from the computer to get something to eat. I guess the save didn't stick, making the talk page look a bit bleak. I'll see if I can track it down. Though I was pretty sure there would be editors eager to jump in on such a project. By the looks of how fast the page is developing, it looks like my guess was correct.   The Transhumanist   00:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Username references

When referring to me on Wikipedia, please use my username. Thanks. Rfrisbie^talk 21:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay Rfrisbie, will do.   The Transhumanist   21:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Cycles

I was wondering if you'd (like to) glance at List of cycles; I just organized the assorted groups under 4 subheadings (see previous), but you might have some alternative suggestions? (I've been trimming out some of the non-directly-cycle related links too, as it really is a deserving topic to have in the footer bar. It was just in a bit of a disarray :) --Quiddity 07:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice. The only thing I could spot was that both organic and physical cycles are natural, which made me wonder what the entries under the natural subheading had in common... They all have to do with planets (time is based on astronomical cycles, for example). Climate and weather are caused by axial tilt and the Moon, (with a lot of help from the Sun and the Earth's rotation). Maybe "Planetary cycles" or "Planet-related cycles" for the first section?   The Transhumanist   07:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Aha@! Thanks :) --Quiddity 08:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Time cycles, that's a good one too. Excellent job. I like it. (This is fun).   The Transhumanist   08:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Overview page

Hi there. Thanks for the messasge. I had a quick look, and it looks very nice. Fundamentally though, I think categories are more useful than a portal-type list that needs to be kept up-to-date. I have plans to do something similar in a small area of Wikipedia, and I've been organising things based around the categories, before using the categories to update the portal interface. But I would always provide: (a) a link to the categories (as you do in the browse bar); and (b) explain that this is a subjective list (not an objective and comprehensive index), and explain how it was created and what has been included and what might have been excluded (the title implies some of this, but I think a short explanation at the top is needed). In other words, my concern is that people coming to the page may think that everything they need is there (as the title, and especially the browse bar link 'overview' suggest). In fact, some things (maybe lots of things) may be missing from this list, and the explanation should also make clear that other browse options may be more helpful in some cases. I think moving this to a portal page might make this clearer. Does Portal:Overview exist? I don't really have a lot more to add than that, other than to congratulate you and the other editors on what is a very impressive job. Carcharoth 09:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I've been studying the list/category issue for quite awhile, and I find lists a lot easier to work with (there are many more tools available and useful tricks for working on lists). I've noticed five main things about categories: The first two are that the name structure is odd, and 2) once an odd naming structure is in place (in the cat system) it can be very difficult to extricate it. The third is that the category system is subject to editing errosion far more than lists (and such errosion is far more difficult to repair on categories than on lists because it is not trackable due to a lack of category redlinks and edit histories). Fourth, categories require even more maintenance than lists because they have decentralized data-entry points. And finally, I run into just as many gaps in category coverage as I do in the list system, but not the same gaps, which makes the two systems complementary. By the way, the portal and reference page editors won't go for a list of overview articles as a portal, because it isn't a list of portals and may easily become confused with the list of portals (the entries in both lists look the same, because in the portal list they drop the portal prefix from the entries in their list). Your suggestion to provide a lead section explaining the list's coverage is a damn good idea - I'll implement it as soon as possible. If you should happen to notice any gaps in coverage, please let me know. The design concepts behind the Overview page are that it provides a top end to Wikipedia's internal link and see also link structure - theoretically you should be able to get to any article from this page - and it serves as a maintenance tool for tracking recent changes to the top tier of subjects. The pages in the reference page header navigation bar are designed to work together: if you can't find what you are looking for on one page, you may very well find it on another. Each page should explain this. Thanks for the idea! And I appreciate your feedback.   The Transhumanist   09:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great. While you've been listifying things, do you have any tips for how I could expand List_of_time_periods (see also the discussion at Talk:List_of_time_periods). Thanks. Carcharoth 10:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Another list builder, cool. Yes, I have run across some pages that you might find useful...

• Sociocultural evolution - describes the progression of societies, and each stage of progression is generally a period, and researchers love to name periods. This article leads to others which list such periods, such as Rostovian take-off model.
• I worked up a progression of the development of society for the List of articles, an overview, and it has some "Revolutions" which your article's list of historical periods is missing. Here it is (I've italicized your missing links):  Hunter-gatherer bands → Social rank → tribes → Social stratification → chiefdoms → Neolithic Revolution → Civilization: Agrarian society (Pre-industrial society): Agrarian villages → Towns → Cities → City-states → Nation-states → Industrial Revolution → (Modern) Industrial society → (Postmodern) Post-industrial society → Informational Revolution → Information society → Digital Revolution → Globalization → ?
• Don't forget Agricultural revolution, especially the British Agricultural Revolution (which preceded the Industrial Revolution, which also started in Britain, by the way).
• Modernity lists some periods not on your list.
• Your article lists 4 Astrological Ages, but there are 7 listed on Astrological age.
• Why isn't the Chinese zodiac listed in the Mythological and astrological time periods section?
• Centuries are an obvious time period, and each century is highly characterized by the historical events and progress which took place in it. See List of centuries.
• And so are decades, like the the Gay Nineties, the Roaring Twenties, the Thirties, Forties, Fifties, Sixties, Seventies, Eighties, Nineties, etc. See List of decades.
• Another type of period is the Era. See Chinese era name, Japanese era name, and Korean era name.
• Periodization explains the naming of periods, and is sprinkled with period names.
• Movements are often used as period names, especially Cultural movements.
• Periods are often named for Epochs.
• Wikipedia's timelines are sprinkled throughout with epochs. See List of timelines, especially the technology section.
• If you want to go regional, then you'll find a lot more periods in regions' local history. See History of present-day nations and states.
• There are some Ages listed in Wikipedia's All Pages, like the Age of sail. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AAllpages&from=age&namespace=0
• The reigns of kings and Presidential Administrations are also often used to specify periods. Such as "during the Reagan Administration".

Well, I hope that helps.   The Transhumanist   12:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks. That helps a lot. I hope you don't mind, but I've copied your suggestions to the talk page over there, so anyone who passes by can work on it. BTW, it's not really 'my' list. I just found it recently, and got interested in it. Carcharoth 13:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know (the first thing I do when inspecting an article is check the history). "Your ___", is a figure of speech for "the ____ you are interested in." Have fun with "your" list.  ;-)   The Transhumanist   15:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Health

This is to inform you that the project page you created above is currently being considered for deletion. Please feel free to follow the links on the page to participate in the discussion. Thank you. Badbilltucker 14:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Response from CBDunkerson (eom)

Duplication

I was wondering if you had any replies to this thread Wikipedia talk:Contents#Duplication (in case you don't scroll up that far on this rapidly growing page...) Thanks. --Quiddity 02:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi there

Is User:Nav console another sock puppet of yours? Do you have any others not listed on your current user name? It would be a courtesty to identify all of your sock puppets here and on their respective pages and link them to this account. Rfrisbie^talk 16:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

We should start with a list of your sock puppets. (I'm kidding.) I'm just glad I finally found you. How the hell have you been?!!! It's good to see you haven't slowed down on Wikipedia. You should activate your email. When you get yours set up, drop me an email, there's something I've been wanting to talk to you about for a long time.   The Transhumanist   10:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any sock puppets and my e-mail is set up. By the way, as you frequently do, you didn't answer the questions. Are you going to cross link all of your sock puppets? Rfrisbie^talk 12:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I never said anything about having sockpuppets one way or the other. That was uncool of you to accuse me. I was happy to have found you, looking forward to catch up on old times (you left a lot of loose threads when you disappeared), and all you want is a confrontation. Okay, if that's the way you want it. But when you're done, it'll be my turn. That's fair play, don't you agree?   The Transhumanist   16:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Your refusal to answer the question is unfortunate. What I want is other users to not have to guess if one person is using multiple user accounts without disclosing them. Again, it's a matter of courtesy on your part. Rfrisbie^talk 16:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The six usernames listed at the top of this page are former sock-puppets or principle accounts. User:Ooga Booga and User:Nav console are your current sockpuppets. You do have other names not listed, and it would be courteous to disclose them all amicably, and highly preferable to cease using them entirely. See Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, the term is not being mis-applied. --Quiddity 18:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Those two are sandbox accounts, for the most part. They're listed at the top of on my user page, as per your request.   The Transhumanist   23:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Rfrisbie^talk 00:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

(and true genius and categorically speaking and alpha beta and pythagoras one and good vibrations(!). and making the go for it! talk archives more accessible. please and thank you :)

Nice history write-up :) I'll comment later on. Just generally, you may want to read all of Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list if you haven't already. --Quiddity 06:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. The accounts you mentioned that weren't already there, I've added to the hatnote on my user page. I'll add links to the talk archives above. I've started reading those pages you cited, but will certainly finish them. Thanks.   The Transhumanist   09:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how it works, but I saw this a few weeks ago, might interest you. Wikipedia:Esperanza/Programs/Admin coaching --Quiddity 22:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Signature

Please, please, Ixnay on the super-colourful signature. It takes up 6 lines of wikicode in the source (making talkpages longer and harder to skim in edit mode), plus is kind of attention-grabbing/distracting when trying to read. Thanks :) --Quiddity 19:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC) (hah! and a lovely ironic first-usage, [indented as] a reply to my sentence "The icons and colour scheme are far too bold." ;P ) -Quiddity 21:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I've cut the code down and dimmed it a little. How's this? The Transhumanist   01:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Not just me ;) see also: [2].

Personally I prefer plain sigs. Colorful sigs are distracting from the talkpage threads themselves, and I tend to assume the editors using them are young and over-confident (based on confirmed experience here and elsewhere online). Though some might argue that they're a good warning signal to other, more mature editors (I've seen this argument used for letting people keep immature/inflammatory userboxes)!

If you're attached to the idea of color, then I'd suggest going shorter than what you have above (3.5 lines of code); Radiant!'s sig is 2.5 lines, Starblind's sig is 1.2 lines. And maybe pick a single hue. Hope that helps. (edit confl: yeah, the dimmer helps too) --Quiddity 01:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be reading more into this than what actually applies. :) I can think of many reasons which support a distinct signature. Okay, I've reduced it again.   The Transhumanist   04:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well obviously there are benefits to you in using a bold signature, but (in my, and some others opinions) it comes at a cost to everyone else (it's distracting in discussion threads, and makes it appear that one name overwhelms a conversation (which itself carries subtle implications/connotations of "look at me! pay attention to me!" for many people. Which, as I said, can be a useful warning signal to everyone else.)). Which is what I was explaining above.

I've explained the same thing to others who had images in their signatures (which have since been officially banned). See the lines from WP:SIG: "Your signature should not ... be annoying to other editors" and "images in signatures give undue prominence to a given user's contribution". You're within the letter of the law, but (imo) are violating the spirit. --Quiddity 19:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, and I respect that, which is why I've gone out of my way to find a compromise by reducing the wikicode as much as I can. The precedent for colorful sigs has been set by other users having similar signatures, without complaint. I therefore find it a bit annoying that you would take offense specifically with my sig. I feel singled out. I also feel like you are trying to force everyone around you into conformity. While I like you, I don't want to be like you. While I would agree that a signature displayed on the image of a Disney-style glowing purple castle standing 30 lines tall with spinning green and orange whirlygigs all over it and red, yellow, and blue fireworks going off all around it would be uncalled for in a signature. But simply changing the font and color of the letters (without changing the size of the sig) should be seen as self-expression, nothing more. And perhaps the reason that more people do not have creative sigs is because they are not that easy to set up. It would be shame to punish or condemn those who try to do something special. You never know when the skills they pick up during creative explorations like this will be applicable. I learned a fair amount about wiki encoding in the process, for instance. I hope that I have addresse your concerns to your satisfaction. Sincerely,  The Transhumanist   03:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If you just want to be able to find your own comments in a talk page more easily (so you can find replies, etc), then I'd suggest using the highlightsig user script instead. But it's completely up to you, and how you wish to influence how you are perceived :)--Quiddity 19:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

How I'm perceived? Hadn't thought about that. Hmmmm, "trans" and the rainbow both in the same sig. I don't know, it may be interpretted as symbolic. Hope not. I still think it looks cool. I'm keeping it for the time being. By the way, thanks for the coaching link, I'll look into it.   The Transhumanist   02:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Got your message about this sig issue and was just going to stop by to suggest... what you did. Your six line version was basically the same as what User:Radiant! uses... except 'The Transhumanist' is longer than '>Radiant<'. Switching to letter groups is more consistent with what User:Starblind does. You could also consider dropping 'The' in the signature and could maybe save a few characters by using 'font color=red' instead of the numeric codes. Finally, it isn't considered 'kosher' HTML, but as you are setting a new font color with each section you could really lose all of the '/font' tags except the last one... each new 'font' setting will supercede the previous and at the end you will only have the one to close. --CBD 10:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know one "/font" tag at the end was all that was needed to close, as User:Radiant uses five of them in his sig. Thanks for the pointer! That'll save some space! ...okay, I tried it, and it works in direct markup, but it doesn't work in the signature field in preferences and returns an "invalid raw signature" error. But, since I have a rather sturdy macro program, I've set up a key to insert the sig at the cursor. It's worth it to keep the wikicode tight. Thanks. Here's the tigher version:   The Transhumanist   11:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I saw you wanted to become an administrator, maybe the sig is something you need to sacrifice to make other users like you. At the norwegian WP, where I'm an admin, nobody uses rainbows as sig's, and we don't have a problem with it. Please, it looks nice, but if someone don't like it, I suggest you remove it. Good look in being an administrator! NorwegianMarcus 09:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Color

Brief note, in case you're in mid-edit of more content page color changes. We're using the color palette listed under "HSV Two-level and One-level header palettes (Lighter)" atUser:Rfrisbie/Palettes. I'll fix Lists of lists. --Quiddity 21:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Just added a couple colors (yellowish at Tables, and orangish at Lists). To give it a little more variety. Lists may be a little too saturated still.   The Transhumanist   21:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please use the palette provided. I don't know how you're generating the colours you're using, but they don't match. --Quiddity 21:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, you are going by some formula, rather than by your artistic eye. There's an element in the formula that's missing. Flip back and forth between the pages, and you'll see what I mean.   The Transhumanist   21:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I have checked and flipped. It matches. I don't understand what you think is wrong. Anyway, please see Wikipedia talk:Contents#Page colouring. --Quiddity 22:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, there's no variation from multiple shades of the same color. Take this talk page we're on right now for instance. The background color in the message area isn't a shade of the header or border, yet they go together quite well.   The Transhumanist   11:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That's because this page uses the "palette style" shown at Wikipedia talk:Colours. The background is from a different hue, but it uses the same saturation and value (brightness) shown for main backgrounds. It complements the S&V settings for borders and headers. They work well together by design. Rfrisbie^talk 15:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Re Image:LocationArctic

Hi Transhumanist,

In one of your edits, [this image link] is added to the List of articles, an overview, and is somehow replacing the picture of the arctic map... in case you aren't seeing what I'm seeing, I'm seeing a Techspot ad!

When I saw your message, the image appeared as I exepcted, i.e. blank world in grey apart from Arctic in green – if I link it again below, how does it look to you now...? :

...I've just visited List of articles, an overview again and it's appearing correctly there for me. The image is from the Commons ([3]) and all appears in order there too, including the history. So... I don't know...  I just hope that by the time you read this you find it as it should be...

Incidentally, seeing the title "List of articles, an overview" again makes me realise it's a comma splice, i.e. in lieu of using a colon or slash, perhaps it ought to be "List of articles; an overview". However, I think I'd far prefer "List of overview articles" or even simply "Overview articles"... but if there's a rationale not to do so that I've forgotten or overlooked, please point me toward it. Otherwise, what do you think...?

The page and its siblings do look great and, most importantly, inviting – my visit just now reminded me that I have to stop them drawing me into browsing when I'm meaning to edit!  As pages meant to invite people into the encyclopedia, though, that's perfect. Thanks for your contributions to them.

Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the image on the Overview page. So the next step is to track down the TechSpot ad. Here's what you need to do in order to see it: Find a large image on wikipedia, and then make a link for it either on your talk page or mine, but in the link shrink it down with link parameters to a size too small for Wikipedia to show it. That's when the TechSpot ad appears.   The Transhumanist   02:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I definitely see it in Firefox, but I just opened an IE window, and I'm seeing the map. Maybe it's here on my machine. I'm in the process of tracking it down. As for the filename change you suggested above, I think the current pagename is fine. The page has been renamed enough this month.  :-)   The Transhumanist   02:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I right clicked on it, and clicked on properties, and this is the URL displayed:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/LocationArctic.png/120px-LocationArctic.png

  The Transhumanist   02:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That's strange - the above link appears normal in IE. I'm not sure what to make of this.   The Transhumanist   02:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It does sound bizarre. Perhaps this is something some more knowledgeable folk can solve; have you tried the Village Pump or maybe the Administrators' noticeboard...?  Sorry not to be of any assistance, David (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe the Overview pagename should be changed too, it's an awkward construction at the moment; but not until we sort out how the group as a whole avoids duplication and redundancy.

You may want to check for spyware, as i said at wikipedia talk:Contents, as I can't see anything on the pages or in the histories either. --Quiddity 03:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ever find the source of the problem with this one? Something affecting firefox but not IE is very odd. -Quiddity 05:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem went away, seemingly by itself. Which is even more disconcerting.   The Transhumanist   08:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's hope it remains "Problem? What problem?". Best wishes, David (talk) 06:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Adminship aspirations

I would like to become an admin eventually, and I'm ready and willing to do whatever is needed to prepare myself for that role, including overcoming any and all objections anyone may have, by taking their input and feedback to heart (which I have been doing, and will continue to do). What do I need to learn or change or do before you would be comfortable handing me the mop?   The Transhumanist   22:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC) (aka Go for it!).

I have a question, why so many usernames? Isn't that messy? (This is a question, not critic) :) NorwegianMarcus 09:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The main reason was experimentation: I'm trying to learn everything there is to know about Wikipedia, so I try a great many things (see my contribs) and make a lot of discoveries because of it: seeWikipedia:Tip of the day, which I have been a major contributor to. Another is I was looking for a better username. How do you like it? Another was messing with Quiddity's head. Just kidding, but everyone needs peace and quiet every once in a while. Having an alternate account can provide that. The conclusion I've come to is that you only need a seperate account if you use AWB (an editor, which can drown out your other edits in the contrib history), one for each bot you run, and one for when you get really stressed out. --  That was a good question, thanks for asking. The Transhumanist   01:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review appears to be helpful for some people who asking the same question. For my part, I can imagine that the multiple accounts may be an issue, just because it requires RFA reviewers to look through six or so accounts to see if there are any issues worth bringing up. - BanyanTree 13:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

List of regional bird lists

Please see discussion there... --Glen Fergus 23:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the heads up. Thanks. My response is on that page.   The Transhumanist   02:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Dab

Just fyi, on dab pages, only the dab'd articles should be linked, nothing else. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages): "Each bulleted entry should in most cases have exactly one navigable (blue) link. ..." :) --Quiddity 03:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

right, otherwise it's ambiguous, which doesn't suit a disambiguity page. Makes sense.   The Transhumanist   01:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sig Shortening

I saw your request on an admin's page. You could save it as a transparent PNG, have it hosted off-site, and link to it. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. How is that done, and how does that work? Wouldn't the click template and the url make it just as long if not longer? Dazed and confused, Template:Smi  The Transhumanist   21:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Long time no see. Thanks for grammar correction, I am horrible with all those a and the... Glad you are still around and involved in some many different things. Renata 03:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Arg, excuse edit summary for previous edit. It was upposed to be hi File:Blush.png Renata 03:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Try commons:Category:Smilies :) Renata 11:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool. You've doubled the size of my collection! Thanks! Take a look...  The Transhumanist   00:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I beg you to remove the animated ones. They shouldnt be encouraged at all. Thanks. --Quiddity 01:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

But they're my favorites! And they're file sizes are very small, smaller than most of the rest. Besides, animated emoticons are all the rage across the internet (such as on Yahoo Messenger), and there is precedent already set in the use of animated icons on Wikipedia. Like this one: . I have addressed the rest of your points of content in a reply to your previous post above.     The Transhumanist   01:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Merging accounts

Hi. What you want to do sounds like a variation of Wikipedia:Changing username. That is generally used for transferring edits to a new account, but it may be possible to do so to an existing account as well. I don't know. You'd presumably have to somehow prove that the other accounts are yours and even then it requires a bureaucrat to make the changes. Anyway, that's the page you want. Someone there should be able to tell you what the possibilities are. --CBD 11:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.  The Transhumanist   11:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy portal

Howdy, just fyi, Portal:Philosophy has 2 empty/broken sections (selected philosopher and article). The thinking portal could use an update too, but that's less urgent, as it isn't in the browsebar. (and, Great work with the reference tables/topics pages :) --Quiddity 18:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Admin coaching

Hey, thanks for your suggestions about using some of the vandal tools. I've tried using Lupin's tool in the past and it ends up continually crashing Safari out, which is a pity, and most other tools are PC-only. I've added my name to the VandalProof list for approval, I should be able to use this from my PC at work (!)...

As for non-admins closing AfD's, I'll certainly take a look at that too. Thanks again for taking the time to look into what might be useful for me, and for the encouragement. Cheers! Budgiekiller 14:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. If you have any more questions, just fire away. I'll be checking the coach page for further questions.   The Transhumanist   18:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I've left a comment for you at Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Admin coaching. Cheers, Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 16:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

For going above and beyond the call of duty at Esperanza/Admin coaching, I award you this Original Barnstar. Good work! --Fang Aili ^talk 18:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . end of page - do not click that edit button →

Message received

Thanks for letting me know. Unfortunately, I don't really have time to reply properly at the moment (modern history exam in three hours), so I'll get back to you later today. Cheerio, --Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 19:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)