User talk:Armondikov/archive5
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Archive 5
In which "creative differences" arise, someone gets butthurt over Thunderf00t and Trent dives into the world hyperpolarised nuclear magnetic resonance.
Flooding recent changes[edit]
Maybe you should start a bot account. It can stay logged in on a different browser - eg I'm Totnesmartin on Firefox and Aylesburymartin (a bot) on Chrome. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Would be a lot of effort. You can also log in separately via a private tab, which is interesting because that means they're not just for pron.
gnostic 20:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- You a 'crat? You could just bot and unbot yourself, or get someone to do it. ħuman
22:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- You a 'crat? You could just bot and unbot yourself, or get someone to do it. ħuman
Unified wigo design[edit]
I like where this is going. -- Nx / talk 20:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- So do I. Especially if you can hack in the formatted titles as you did on RationalBeta. However, the one I'm about to change, people may kill me. gnostic 20:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
link titleWith or without the place dying? gnostic 20:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Keeper of the keys[edit]
People are nominating you for an important job at Forum:Keepers of the keys. Please could you go there and give an opinion? Thanks EddyP (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Being a Muslim does not automatically make DawahFilms wrong[edit]
In context the original quote clearly meant that he would use lethal force TO STOP GENOCIDE. That's how he interpreted Thunderf00t's original video, and (for that matter)that's how I interpret it. It was not a threat of immediate harm, or even a threat that applied under any circumstances that could realistically happen (Thunderf00t does not have access to nukes). And, btw, if I knew someone was about to use nukes against the Middle East, I'd be willing to kill them too. It's not a matter of religion, its a matter of human morality. People who try to commit genocide have to be stopped, no matter what you're religion.--75.104.110.197 (talk) 03:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- No, being a Muslim doesn't make him wrong, it makes him a little irritating when he has to duck-speak all that crap whenever he mentions anything to do with Allah, Muhammad or the Koran, but it doesn't make him wrong. Either way, it's Dawah that's more guilty of quote-mining, and surely more guilty of blowing things out of proportion. Thunderf00t's full speech was quite clear that it would be terrorist aggressors that would be risking "awaking a sleeping giant", and even had to clarify it afterwards. If you interpret it as him condoning attacking the Middle East, yet alone a nuclear based genocide you need to get a sense of reality. On the other hand, Dawah quite distinctly said "if you try to awaken any kind of sleeping giant [we will kill you]" - certainly based on a harsh misinterpretation of TF's "sleeping giant" quote, but quite blatantly a personal threat to him. Not a vague warning, but a personal threat. And that's the difference, TF said "don't prod the beast or it might properly bite you" and DawahFilms responded by "we will kill you", it doesn't matter if he meant that "we'd kill you to prevent genocide", he made the threat direct and personal. gnostic 09:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- And you'd have a problem if I made a threat against Hitler before he started the Holocaust in an effort to prevent him from trying it? DawahFilms did a point-by-point analysis of what Thunderf00t ever said, where he defended that interpretation better than I ever could, I suggest you watch it. Meanwhile, Thunderf00t has yet to make a real clarification video, and its his silence that speaks volumes. He WAS talking about genocide against all Muslims as a response to terrorism.--75.104.110.197 (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- To reply to the Godwin point (which officially ends this conversation under the Rules of the Internet) you can't prove that Hitler was going to cause the holocaust prior to it happening, therefore if you killed Hitler prior to 1933, you'd just be guilty of murder, not saving the world. The same goes for any so-called "peaceful" person who threatens someone with death for speaking out against terror. gnostic 11:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- BTW, one clarification I'd like to make: the scenario I'm imagining is one where Thunderf00t literally has his finger over a button to launch a nuclear strike at the Middle East, and Dawahfilms is in the same room with a gun (clearly an impossible scenario, but its what came to my mind when Dawah films said "TRY to rouse a sleeping giant"). Under those circumstances, would you object? I would also like to note that under US law "TRYING to commit murder" or "attempted murder" is considered a crime.--75.104.110.197 (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- In which case, my advice is to go out into the world and develop a sense of reality. gnostic 10:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- In which case, my advice is to go out into the world and develop a sense of reality.
- BTW, one clarification I'd like to make: the scenario I'm imagining is one where Thunderf00t literally has his finger over a button to launch a nuclear strike at the Middle East, and Dawahfilms is in the same room with a gun (clearly an impossible scenario, but its what came to my mind when Dawah films said "TRY to rouse a sleeping giant"). Under those circumstances, would you object? I would also like to note that under US law "TRYING to commit murder" or "attempted murder" is considered a crime.--75.104.110.197 (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- To reply to the Godwin point (which officially ends this conversation under the Rules of the Internet) you can't prove that Hitler was going to cause the holocaust prior to it happening, therefore if you killed Hitler prior to 1933, you'd just be guilty of murder, not saving the world. The same goes for any so-called "peaceful" person who threatens someone with death for speaking out against terror.
- And you'd have a problem if I made a threat against Hitler before he started the Holocaust in an effort to prevent him from trying it? DawahFilms did a point-by-point analysis of what Thunderf00t ever said, where he defended that interpretation better than I ever could, I suggest you watch it. Meanwhile, Thunderf00t has yet to make a real clarification video, and its his silence that speaks volumes. He WAS talking about genocide against all Muslims as a response to terrorism.--75.104.110.197 (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Wigo buttons again (still)[edit]
I opened up File:Wigobuttons_inline.png in gimp, and I think I know what the problem is: You made the whole image at a higher resolution and then resized it, right? Because of this, the hovered and unhovered states were resized slightly differently (e.g. look at the left edge of the unhovered clog icon, it's not as smooth as the hovered one), but the difference is unfortunately noticeable enough. What I did was first resize to 50px, then duplicate and desaturate to create the unhovered state, so that the shape is perfectly identical. I tried to recreate the image, but I don't know how to add the glow and it's badly aliased. Are these vector files? Can you upload svgs? -- Nx / talk 13:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Damn. Sorry about that, my laziness is getting the best of me as I didn't realise the aliasing would be a problem. I'm not in a position to upload the originals at the moment, unfortunately, as I'm not at home. Truth be told, it's all done in Word 2007 because I currently don't have Illustrator installed at the moment and it turned out to be not too shabby as a vector graphics program (in fact, it's pretty neat). Therefore I think that might cause a problem in uploading original sized docs (although I'll be happy to post the docx file if people want the originals to look at). The glow was done in photoshop by making a duplicate layer, using lens blur to white it out a bit, and then setting the layering property to "soft light". gnostic 14:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I did something like that (gimp has no lens blur, so I had to make-do with gaussian), I think it's close enough, except I have to fix the aliasing on mine (I probably screwed up when resizing the original image)
Yours: 
Mine: 
- -- Nx / talk 14:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Looks close enough to me. I usually gaussian blur for that trick anyway, I've only switched to lens blurring because it simulates white bleed and is biased towards brightening an image, but the colour enhancement from the soft light mix looks exactly the same. gnostic 14:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Looks close enough to me. I usually gaussian blur for that trick anyway, I've only switched to lens blurring because it simulates white bleed and is biased towards brightening an image, but the colour enhancement from the soft light mix looks exactly the same.
- -- Nx / talk 14:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok[edit]
The door is open for you to ruin the wiki replace all our WIGO pages with your beautiful redesign. -- Nx / talk 20:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oh wow. That does look pretty nifty there. gnostic 10:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Chemistry[edit]
What is your general area of research? Done much with spectrometry by chance? tmtoulouse 17:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Organometallics and NMR. More specifically parahydrogen induced polarisation as applied to catalytic mechanisms. gnostic 17:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Chemistry is one of my weaker areas, so your doing NMR spectrometry on organometallics? tmtoulouse 17:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. I work with inorganic/organometallic chemicals, but the primary analytical method is NMR spectroscopy. gnostic 17:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Would this be classified as an organometalic? tmtoulouse 17:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- In principle, I suppose so. But it seems like it's just an organic counter ion to a Gd3+ ion, rather than the organic group being covalently bonded to the metal. You'd probably pigeon-hole it as organometallic. gnostic 17:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- In principle, I suppose so. But it seems like it's just an organic counter ion to a Gd3+ ion, rather than the organic group being covalently bonded to the metal. You'd probably pigeon-hole it as organometallic.
- Would this be classified as an organometalic? tmtoulouse 17:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. I work with inorganic/organometallic chemicals, but the primary analytical method is NMR spectroscopy.
- Chemistry is one of my weaker areas, so your doing NMR spectrometry on organometallics? tmtoulouse 17:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Next question, and I appreciate you helping me with this as google searches seem inefficient as it is either totally unrelated to what I need to know or way, way overkill.
For your NMR work what kind of base magnetic field strength do you use? Do you put molecules of interest into solution for analysis ever? And what is the minimum threshold concentration for picking up a molecule at the field strengths you are using? tmtoulouse 17:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- NMR samples are almost invariably in solution. NMR of solids is possible, but it's almost an entirely different ball game to play. The strength of the spectrometers range anywhere up to about 21.1 Tesla, but typically the majority of instruments are ~10 T - they're usually measured in the resonance frequency of the proton in that field, so the top range one I've used is 700 MHz (16.4 T) while the one I use routinely is 400 MHz (9.3T). If you're familiar with MRI scanners, I think they're usually rated in Teslas, typically they're weaker and only about 3 T (although I've seen one go up to 9 T and approved for use on humans!).
- The fact that you mention the threshold concentration is interesting because the PHIP-NMR I do is all about seeing things at lower concentrations than normal routine experiments allow. The fact is, NMR is really insensitive, although the field strengths do help increase your signal-to-noise and lower the threshold, that suffers diminishing returns and you really don't get much benefit from a higher field when you're using super-conducting magnets that are measured in Teslas. Indeed, the reason you use a higher field is for better dispersion/resolution, rather than better intensity.
- Ideally, if you just want to get a spectrum out quickly and with little fuss, your solution should be pretty concentrated. If you're willing to wait a few hours for it to scan a few thousand times, then you can go a bit lower. Something in the range of 1 mmol is okay, higher is always better but when your stuff is really expensive, I imagine you want to keep it lower. It also depends what nucleus you want to look at; hydrogen atoms can be seen easily, the rest are a bit more time demanding. gnostic 18:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Doesn't the water signal wash out hydrogen in a molecule of interest? So there is no way to use NMR at a nanomolar level with current technology, regardless of whether or not it could be used "in vivo" if you will? tmtoulouse 18:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- That's why you use deuterated solvents. Deuterium is NMR active, but at a frequency well away from protons. You do get a residual signal from solvent that hasn't been deuterated, but it's generally small and doesn't impact your spectum unless what you're looking at is very close to that signal or really low intensity. As for nanomolar, we can get it down to picomoles using PHIP. gnostic 19:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- If you're interested in getting NMR to pick up really low concentrations, you need to look up hyperpolarisation. There are a few methods available. DNP (Dynamic Nuclear Polarisation) can, in principle, hyperpolarise anything, but it takes about 6 hours to prep a sample and it's expensive. There's some in vivo studies in rats that have used DNP to successfully get an MRI. PHIP (ParaHydrogen Induced Polarisation) is less widely applicable or generic but some recent research is showing promise for applying it to imaging. Don't hold your breath just yet as it's early days for these techniques, but I imagine it's the sort of thing you might find useful in your neuroscience work. IIRC you're looking into dopamine, which I don't think is suitable for polarisation transfer via SABRE. gnostic 21:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Aye, that's roughly what I am interested in...exploring ways to get in vivo information on dopamine that doesn't involve injecting people with radioactive labels. Any suggestions on a couple method papers to start out with? tmtoulouse 21:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- If you're interested in getting NMR to pick up really low concentrations, you need to look up hyperpolarisation. There are a few methods available. DNP (Dynamic Nuclear Polarisation) can, in principle, hyperpolarise anything, but it takes about 6 hours to prep a sample and it's expensive. There's some in vivo studies in rats that have used DNP to successfully get an MRI. PHIP (ParaHydrogen Induced Polarisation) is less widely applicable or generic but some recent research is showing promise for applying it to imaging. Don't hold your breath just yet as it's early days for these techniques, but I imagine it's the sort of thing you might find useful in your neuroscience work. IIRC you're looking into dopamine, which I don't think is suitable for polarisation transfer via SABRE.
- That's why you use deuterated solvents. Deuterium is NMR active, but at a frequency well away from protons. You do get a residual signal from solvent that hasn't been deuterated, but it's generally small and doesn't impact your spectum unless what you're looking at is very close to that signal or really low intensity. As for nanomolar, we can get it down to picomoles using PHIP.
- Doesn't the water signal wash out hydrogen in a molecule of interest? So there is no way to use NMR at a nanomolar level with current technology, regardless of whether or not it could be used "in vivo" if you will? tmtoulouse 18:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Molecular imaging using hyperpolarized 13C
- Sigma-Aldrich Hot Topics
- Current concepts on hyperpolarized molecules in MRI
- List of some hyperpolarisation in chemistry (the top one is the Science paper linked to in the last post)
- A brief article on the xenon method, which I think is only applicable if you're breathing it in, it won't polarise dopamine
- Towards hyperpolarized 13C-succinate imaging of brain cancer
I have to warn you that as far as I'm aware this hasn't been properly tested on humans yet. gnostic 21:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for the information, will take me some time to review it and digest it. Ethical concerns on human testing don't matter if you do it to yourself right? tmtoulouse 21:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't understand any of this until Trent last comment. Trent, don't shoot yourself up with experimental shit until you at least send the Keys to a few people! After that it's all you. You understand many early chemists accidentally killed themselves while describing the taste and smell of compounds, right? ħuman 04:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, you definitely don't want to shoot up yourself, while I'm sure injecting yourself with a safe level of dopamine will be fine, you'd also be injecting yourself with methanol and an iridium catalyst as they're all mixed together (see the second video here, the imaging ones are at the bottom). I'll ask around to see if anyone has polarised dopamine, we have a big list of stuff we're meant to be trying and it's probably on the list. 10:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, looks like dopamine is probably not a good contender for this sort of thing (PHIP and SABRE). But if any relevant papers crop up I'll be sure to pass them on. gnostic 15:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- DNP (Dynamic Nuclear Polarisation) will probably polarise dopamine, however. So far, DNP is the more proven technique so it may interest you to focus on reading up on that rather than PHIP or SABRE. But the overhead and start-up costs of DNP are astronomical compared to PHIP, which you could set up in your kitchen if you wanted to. gnostic 17:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sigh, I am terribly confused. There is just too much to figure out in the world. I need several more life spans. tmtoulouse 18:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- If you'd like, I can write up a guide to it assuming absolutely no previous knowledge. gnostic 18:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- I appreciate the offer......and may ask for such.....but gonna try and dig through it a little longer, but just wanted to bump the thread for some questions later. tmtoulouse 19:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Okay. gnostic 19:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Fuck's sake. I'd just nearly finished writing something on that - I should do it anyway as a science communication exercise - and the trackpad decided to have a special and zoom to the top right corner as I clicked, closing the browser and losing everything. Eugh. gnostic 22:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Fuck's sake. I'd just nearly finished writing something on that - I should do it anyway as a science communication exercise - and the trackpad decided to have a special and zoom to the top right corner as I clicked, closing the browser and losing everything. Eugh.
- Okay.
- I appreciate the offer......and may ask for such.....but gonna try and dig through it a little longer, but just wanted to bump the thread for some questions later. tmtoulouse 19:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- If you'd like, I can write up a guide to it assuming absolutely no previous knowledge.
- Sigh, I am terribly confused. There is just too much to figure out in the world. I need several more life spans. tmtoulouse 18:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- DNP (Dynamic Nuclear Polarisation) will probably polarise dopamine, however. So far, DNP is the more proven technique so it may interest you to focus on reading up on that rather than PHIP or SABRE. But the overhead and start-up costs of DNP are astronomical compared to PHIP, which you could set up in your kitchen if you wanted to.
- Hmm, looks like dopamine is probably not a good contender for this sort of thing (PHIP and SABRE). But if any relevant papers crop up I'll be sure to pass them on.
- Yeah, you definitely don't want to shoot up yourself, while I'm sure injecting yourself with a safe level of dopamine will be fine, you'd also be injecting yourself with methanol and an iridium catalyst as they're all mixed together (see the second video here, the imaging ones are at the bottom). I'll ask around to see if anyone has polarised dopamine, we have a big list of stuff we're meant to be trying and it's probably on the list. 10:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't understand any of this until Trent last comment. Trent, don't shoot yourself up with experimental shit until you at least send the Keys to a few people! After that it's all you. You understand many early chemists accidentally killed themselves while describing the taste and smell of compounds, right? ħuman
WIGO headers[edit]
I think we should go ahead and change them all, since noone bothered to even respond -- Nx / talk 15:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Okay. gnostic 15:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- HCM here we come! -- Nx / talk 15:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- FUN!!! gnostic 15:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- I imagine the only problematic ones will be the bar and CP. I might leave the bar for now, actually. gnostic 15:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Nice one guys. Thanks for all your work on this. Oops, that's not HCM enough. Argh! I hate it, I'm leaving and never, ever, ever coming back. (BTW, the green on WIGO world is hideous). Jack Hughes (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- But I like the nice earthy colour... gnostic 15:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- And as creator you have the right to chose the colour of autumn foliage. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- But I like the nice earthy colour...
- Nice one guys. Thanks for all your work on this. Oops, that's not HCM enough. Argh! I hate it, I'm leaving and never, ever, ever coming back. (BTW, the green on WIGO world is hideous). Jack Hughes (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- I imagine the only problematic ones will be the bar and CP. I might leave the bar for now, actually.
- FUN!!!
- HCM here we come! -- Nx / talk 15:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- (undent) Anyway, it's done now. I'm not envisioning major complaints as it's primarily a visual overhaul and doesn't change the system or content. It streamlines what was turning into a lot of tl;dr above each WIGO. We kept adding and adding instructions and caveats and it got so long I don't think anyone really read it anyway - and it's certainly just in the way once someone has read it. So I think we might want to press on and try something new. Certainly the mainpage needs a look at and then go onto the "consistent branding" idea. gnostic 15:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not envisioning major complaints as it's primarily a visual overhaul You must be new here at RationalWiki
- Anyway, maybe we shouldn't be displaying the WIGO Nav selflinks, there's a bit of an icon overload on WIGO CP with the CP logo in the sidebar too. Unfortunately the talkpage links make this a bit more difficult to do. -- Nx / talk 15:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Nah, that's all fine. What I really hate is the brightly-coloured titles on the page. But the rest is gorgeous. Well done. - David Gerard (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- (EC)You mean make it disappear rather than highlight as it did when it was first made? I'm not sure I agree that this is a massive problem. If you're saying there's too many images on the page, then for consistency reasons it'd be best to lose the one in the sidebar, it was formerly the
{{conservapedia}}template but is now actually in there as code rather than a transclusion.gnostic 15:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but mostly because the same icon is repeated on the left (and is larger) and the talk page link is also unnecessary. -- Nx / talk 15:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Good point. Although that does alter the consistency of the WIGO NAV template across pages. If it's a rule of thumb in web design to avoid that, then yes by all means, remove it. However, I don't see the problem myself, although that's probably because I'm thinking "consistency" over "repeating the same icon". gnostic 15:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Good point. Although that does alter the consistency of the WIGO NAV template across pages. If it's a rule of thumb in web design to avoid that, then yes by all means, remove it. However, I don't see the problem myself, although that's probably because I'm thinking "consistency" over "repeating the same icon".
- No, I mean like the page title itself being in white text on BRIGHT RED. It's garish. Perhaps desaturate a bit? I dunno - David Gerard (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- It's dark enough on my monitor. It's certainly darker than the nearly pure red that CP's logo and colour scheme actually is. gnostic 16:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- It's dark enough on my monitor. It's certainly darker than the nearly pure red that CP's logo and colour scheme actually is.
- Yes, but mostly because the same icon is repeated on the left (and is larger) and the talk page link is also unnecessary. -- Nx / talk 15:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not envisioning major complaints as it's primarily a visual overhaul You must be new here at RationalWiki I hate to say it, but told you so. -- Nx / talk 10:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Fuck it. I think, and many others agree, it looks grand. Acei9 10:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, the complaints aren't major as such. They're in line with what I actually was envisioning (I just didn't want to make a self-fulfilling prophecy) namely, that it would be blowing out of proportion one fiddly detail. The scale of edit war was a bit of a surprise, of course. But really, if it is going to cause a massive hassle or be deemed change for the sake of change or similar, then I'd rather not bother. It's not worth it. gnostic 10:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- We all knew Human would have something to say..Heh. Acei9 11:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think every appreciates the effort and loves the new design overall (with details pending for a few) and I think it is a significant improvement to the site and would be sad to see other such improvement projects halted in their early stages for fear of the "debate" to follow. tmtoulouse 18:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, it seems like it's always going to be too much hassle to get everyone on board and happy with something to make any change worth the amount of time it take. I've certainly put all the other ideas I had in mind on the back burner, probably indefinitely. gnostic 12:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- I guess this is what I don't understand. No, your not going to please everyone, but why isn't it good enough to please 90 percent of the people? You have pointed out on several pages the basic psychology of this, the salient and the extreme have a tendency to grab attention, and the other feedback gets drowned out. Is it really worth it to shut down good ideas, and things you want to accomplish because you won't make everyone happy? I would think making most people happy would be good enough. tmtoulouse 19:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- In theory, yes, in practice, not so much. I mean, the majority of time when someone is pro a change, they're also perfectly fine without it either. So that 90% who are for something might not translate into 90% against changing. gnostic 19:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- There in is what separates out the leaders from a community. While RW does not make leaders through virtue of user rights, or any sort of institutional procedure, we do still have leaders. There are several ways in which these leaders eo wemerge, on of them is by caring about improving the site, developing ideas, and implementing them. Forward progress is pushed for and limited by the number and strength of these kinds of members. Eh, I don't want to belabor this issue past where it should go. The gist is, if you have a good idea, and a desire to see it implemented, it is a shame to the let the herding cats problem prevent you from moving forward with it. tmtoulouse 19:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't this is taking the point past where it should go, more taking it in a generalised but productive direction. The herding cats problem is something unavoidable. It can be overcome, surely. With small, gradual changes that no one notices, the community just evolves in a direction. This is good, it's where 90% - at least - of change comes from. But the remaining 10% of change is a larger, more noticeable and is likely to hit the problem head on. You can go for it, ignoring potential issues and staying out of it until the dust settles (which I have tried but felt quite guilty with and couldn't really do). The other issue is that some things need everyone on board to work. Article of the Weak or WIGO:RW or the rating system would need everyone to be in favour and actively behind them, otherwise they roll over and die due to inactivity. New ideas that are project based need a large number of users, if not the whole group to be enormously enthusiastic in order to let them take flight and establish itself. Otherwise you're left with "here's my idea" and the general response being "meh" - which I think is possibly a larger barrier than butthurt (I'm using this word a lot recently...) to getting things done. So it seems we're a little stuck between two options; 1) propose something first and get a lackluster response and 2) publish and be damned, let the fallout commence. It seems to be very rare that anything doesn't go down one of those two routes. But again, as I started this tl;dr with, this only really applies to 10% of progress as the rest is purely organic. gnostic 20:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- These are complex issues that I don't think are unique to RW or even to the internet. I have spent a lot of time browsing meatball wiki which has a lot of interesting discussion about this kind of stuff, and even more interesting links to actual communities that live and died because of these issues. Nothing like exploring the remnants of a ghost wiki, trying to piece together its last months of existence and what caused its downfall. I guess I think the more interesting question is why some things succeed and some things fail, rather then how to keep CPR going on a failed sub-project. Often times a truly laudable goal that seems to be floundering is floundering not because of some systemic issue but because it hasn't been implemented in a way that gets the community to interact with it yet.
- For example, the article rating, lets say the problem is that we are not getting enough articles rated. Do we throw up our hands and say no one cares? I don't think that is true. Lets play "make believe" for a second and say if there were no practical or technological limits how might we improve things. For example, one idea lets say we had a wiki bot that could "read" a page and assign a rating based on a set of rules. We just have to assign those rules. I bet before we unleashed such a thing people would take an interest in the "rules" we were using. And I think people would monitor it and see if the rules needed to be changed. I think people would be interested to see what the "bot" would rank a new article they just wrote, etc. Or lets say we want people to make the determination, maybe the problem is trying to make the final decision by saying this article is a gold/silver/bronze. People like the up/down voting of wigo where they are part of a community making a collective decision. What if we implemented such a thing on articles, and gold/silver/bronze was more about ratio of "i like this"/"i don't like this." So when people read random articles they can just push an up or down button. This would also have the virtue of "rating" articles more precisely the "more" people that read them. It also more directly involves the "lurkers" instead of just the "editors."
- I am not saying that any of this is what we should do, merely showing how even if something seems to be a struggle changing the way it is implemented can suddenly open up new possibilities and engagement with the community. tmtoulouse 20:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't this is taking the point past where it should go, more taking it in a generalised but productive direction. The herding cats problem is something unavoidable. It can be overcome, surely. With small, gradual changes that no one notices, the community just evolves in a direction. This is good, it's where 90% - at least - of change comes from. But the remaining 10% of change is a larger, more noticeable and is likely to hit the problem head on. You can go for it, ignoring potential issues and staying out of it until the dust settles (which I have tried but felt quite guilty with and couldn't really do). The other issue is that some things need everyone on board to work. Article of the Weak or WIGO:RW or the rating system would need everyone to be in favour and actively behind them, otherwise they roll over and die due to inactivity. New ideas that are project based need a large number of users, if not the whole group to be enormously enthusiastic in order to let them take flight and establish itself. Otherwise you're left with "here's my idea" and the general response being "meh" - which I think is possibly a larger barrier than butthurt (I'm using this word a lot recently...) to getting things done. So it seems we're a little stuck between two options; 1) propose something first and get a lackluster response and 2) publish and be damned, let the fallout commence. It seems to be very rare that anything doesn't go down one of those two routes. But again, as I started this tl;dr with, this only really applies to 10% of progress as the rest is purely organic.
- There in is what separates out the leaders from a community. While RW does not make leaders through virtue of user rights, or any sort of institutional procedure, we do still have leaders. There are several ways in which these leaders eo wemerge, on of them is by caring about improving the site, developing ideas, and implementing them. Forward progress is pushed for and limited by the number and strength of these kinds of members. Eh, I don't want to belabor this issue past where it should go. The gist is, if you have a good idea, and a desire to see it implemented, it is a shame to the let the herding cats problem prevent you from moving forward with it. tmtoulouse 19:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- In theory, yes, in practice, not so much. I mean, the majority of time when someone is pro a change, they're also perfectly fine without it either. So that 90% who are for something might not translate into 90% against changing.
- I guess this is what I don't understand. No, your not going to please everyone, but why isn't it good enough to please 90 percent of the people? You have pointed out on several pages the basic psychology of this, the salient and the extreme have a tendency to grab attention, and the other feedback gets drowned out. Is it really worth it to shut down good ideas, and things you want to accomplish because you won't make everyone happy? I would think making most people happy would be good enough. tmtoulouse 19:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, it seems like it's always going to be too much hassle to get everyone on board and happy with something to make any change worth the amount of time it take. I've certainly put all the other ideas I had in mind on the back burner, probably indefinitely.
- I think every appreciates the effort and loves the new design overall (with details pending for a few) and I think it is a significant improvement to the site and would be sad to see other such improvement projects halted in their early stages for fear of the "debate" to follow. tmtoulouse 18:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- We all knew Human would have something to say..Heh. Acei9 11:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, the complaints aren't major as such. They're in line with what I actually was envisioning (I just didn't want to make a self-fulfilling prophecy) namely, that it would be blowing out of proportion one fiddly detail. The scale of edit war was a bit of a surprise, of course. But really, if it is going to cause a massive hassle or be deemed change for the sake of change or similar, then I'd rather not bother. It's not worth it.
(undent)Very interesting proposal actually. Although I'd be weary of treating that as a measure of quality, as depending on subject matter it could just as much be a measure of controversy... may be worth discussing further. And sticking an up/down arrow on whether people like it :P gnostic 21:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Careful, your opening the door to a regression of the likes that spawned rationalwikiwikiwikiwiki. 21:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The Bureaucracy[edit]
does not approve of you're corner cutting measures! EddyP (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well disable CSS3 or web-kit then,
gnostic 16:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Essay copyediting[edit]
Is it better if I jump in and fix mistakes I find myself (possibly annoying you with edit conflicts), or should I point them out on the talk page (which would be Schlaflyesque) or should I just STFU? -- Nx / talk 12:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- If you find an obvious mistake, please get it. I can't get them all in something that size and have probably missed the most glaring ones. If it was a piece of actual work, I'd leave it for a few days before re-reading and correcting, but I may as well take advantage of the many eyes. gnostic 12:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) I'm asking because I've been berated before for jumping on new articles and fixing mistakes without giving the original author enough breathing space. Plus it's an essay. -- Nx / talk 12:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- (EC) While that's a good point, and I'd certainly say there's an unwritten rule of waiting a little while for the initial editor to breath a little, it's kind of a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. gnostic 12:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- (EC) While that's a good point, and I'd certainly say there's an unwritten rule of waiting a little while for the initial editor to breath a little, it's kind of a non-issue as far as I'm concerned.
- (ec) I'm asking because I've been berated before for jumping on new articles and fixing mistakes without giving the original author enough breathing space. Plus it's an essay. -- Nx / talk 12:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Feedback[edit]
Just think you should know that your new TOC, well, that red is too bright, and that curve at the end is visually distracting. tmtoulouse 17:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Good. gnostic 17:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sigh, I make a terrible troll. I am gonna slink away now. tmtoulouse 17:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Just wait until I revamp the userpage too... gnostic 17:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Teach me the meaning of garish! I demand animations, neon colors, trailing mouse cursors. tmtoulouse 18:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Just wait until I revamp the userpage too...
- Sigh, I make a terrible troll. I am gonna slink away now. tmtoulouse 17:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- You need to adjust your monitor to make the curve look good - David Gerard (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Actually. The monitor adjustments are quite simple:
- Press the "menu" button
- Scroll sideways for two options
- Turn the monitor90 degrees to the right
- Select volume
- Open your window
- Place monitor, still 90 degrees sideways, on the window ledge
- Press menu button very hard and quickly
- Easy done. gnostic 19:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Easy done.
- Where is the dancing fruit, huh? WHERE IS THE DANCING FRUIT? Bah, I don't know why I bother with this place. Y'all lack style. tmtoulouse 20:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Here you go, Ray. gnostic 20:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Where is the dancing fruit, huh? WHERE IS THE DANCING FRUIT? Bah, I don't know why I bother with this place. Y'all lack style. tmtoulouse 20:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Wow![edit]
Your userpage is amazing!! It's almost liek a logo! Holy shit! Same with Nx but oh man. I thinkyou might pull ahead. rational ghey (message) 00:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hrmph. Needs more dancing fruit. tmtoulouse 00:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Most of it is stolen wholesale from Nx, really. I've had little to do with it. gnostic 01:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Who cares! It's awesome! rational ghey (message) 02:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Most of it is stolen wholesale from Nx, really. I've had little to do with it.
Science communication/outreach[edit]
Feel like having a chat about ^ topic? tmtoulouse 23:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- If you like. I shall endeavor to respond to your emails when hotmail decides to stop being raving useless and having all its flash advertising freeze up everything (I just can't be arsed to change all my contact details around to my gmail account, in case someone tries to convince me to change). gnostic 23:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Non sequitur[edit]
- Non sequitur, the curve on your talk page header works well, because it wraps into a box and is followed later by a small curve. The wigo ones don't do that :( ħuman 03:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- It's why I've dropped the curve on my page. I still think it works on the WIGO styles - although to be honest I don't think I have the mental capacity to discuss it much further, so leave everything in the hands of the mob - but when I put in NOTITLE on the user page, the margins changed, making curves something that just don't work well. I was thinking of trying something more complicated, but I'll have to come back to it again with a coherent plan rather than just making it up. gnostic 23:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Also, it might be worth pointing out the origin of this controversial stylistic choice. In my gravelbox mainpage, the sections are all curved in the top right, quite similar to that box above that you mention. This came first, the WIGOs came second and it made some sense to continue this motif there. Without the context of the full thing, it does seem odd and out of place. With that curved corner as a more constant feature throughout the main sections of the site, it makes more sense and is less out of place. gnostic 23:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps indeed. But your top of talk page box is overall much better than how the wigo versions come out. I'd rather see them look more like what you have. And, yeah, it's a hard "story" to follow. ħuman 02:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps indeed. But your top of talk page box is overall much better than how the wigo versions come out. I'd rather see them look more like what you have. And, yeah, it's a hard "story" to follow. ħuman
- Also, it might be worth pointing out the origin of this controversial stylistic choice. In my gravelbox mainpage, the sections are all curved in the top right, quite similar to that box above that you mention. This came first, the WIGOs came second and it made some sense to continue this motif there. Without the context of the full thing, it does seem odd and out of place. With that curved corner as a more constant feature throughout the main sections of the site, it makes more sense and is less out of place.
- It's why I've dropped the curve on my page. I still think it works on the WIGO styles - although to be honest I don't think I have the mental capacity to discuss it much further, so leave everything in the hands of the mob - but when I put in NOTITLE on the user page, the margins changed, making curves something that just don't work well. I was thinking of trying something more complicated, but I'll have to come back to it again with a coherent plan rather than just making it up.
I'm sorry[edit]
I apologize if I was a bitch recently. I hope you can find it in your heart or liver to forgive me. ħuman 09:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- There's nothing to forgive. People have opinions, and when all you can deal with is straight text, it's easy to interpret the attitude in any way you like. Things just get out of hand when we forget this. gnostic 23:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm glad I don't seem to have pushed you into an uncomfortable stance, and the work you've been doing on the wigo etc. look and feel is of course much appreciated, even if I quibble about details. Again, glad you haven't taken personal offense. ħuman 02:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm glad I don't seem to have pushed you into an uncomfortable stance, and the work you've been doing on the wigo etc. look and feel is of course much appreciated, even if I quibble about details. Again, glad you haven't taken personal offense. ħuman
WHY DO YUO HAET BETELGEUSE[edit]
WHY DEAR GOD WHY - David Gerard (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- www.godhatesbetelgeuse.com gnostic 09:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
We don't block users[edit]
Undo your violation of the community standards immediately, or I will be forced to bring this to admin abuse. -- Nx / talk 15:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
gnostic 15:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Et tu, Armondikov? 86.40.223.25 (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Cheers![edit]
Glad to see someone as fed up with the drama around here as I am. It sucks that, instead of refuting nonsense and BS, this site would rather argue over the colors of WIGO CP. Anyways, glad I'm not alone. Peace. Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 06:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sure colours are important, and I think people should discuss it. Similarly, if someone starts abusing administrative privileges it should be discussed and the problem solved. The issue comes when people attach too much importance to it. Recent changes can get completely flooded by what is essentially meta-discussion and that means that genuine spam and bad/correctable edits just go unnoticed. gnostic 11:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- That's why I use "my watchlist" instead of RC to keep track of the site. Less high water. ħuman 11:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- I use both. But often the watch list goes without picking anything up for ages. Most of the ones I'm interested in are on there, though. But RC gives a better impression of what the site is doing. gnostic 12:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- I use both. But often the watch list goes without picking anything up for ages. Most of the ones I'm interested in are on there, though. But RC gives a better impression of what the site is doing.
- That's why I use "my watchlist" instead of RC to keep track of the site. Less high water. ħuman
hey armadillo[edit]
might just wanna bin me now. but I mean if you dont want to, i can keep using this ip. it's cool either way man. peace 77.68.47.134 (talk) 12:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
your userpage[edit]
It actually pains me to look at it. That is all. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 16:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Virginia Foxx[edit]
Saw you requested a citation for her having said that Matthew Shepherd was killed in a robbery, so I linked to two youtube videos that show her saying it before Congress.--Mustex (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Userbox[edit]
Did you ever get around to making a toulouse number userbox? I think it's a great idea. DickTurpis (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- No, actually. I forgot what the name of the userbox template was. I should have just RTFM. gnostic 07:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Here. This is for you:
| 3 | This user's Toulouse Number is 3 |
Not saved as a template or anything, just a cut/paste. There's a discrepancy over what your number actually is, but that seems to stem from Chaos! and Punk being one or two people. I went by Human's tree. DickTurpis (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Your threat against me[edit]
Saying you will bomb my Volvo is entirely unnecessary, especially seeing as I don't have a Volvo. - π 02:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- I will bomb your Volvo! ħuman 04:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Pat on the back[edit]
You did a fantastic job sprucing up the scientific theory article to "Silver" level. Thank you, job well done. Lord Goonie Hooray! I'm helping! 06:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'll see your pat on the back and raise you a rub on the bottom. AceLiquid Room 07:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I can't remember adding it, but cheers for that! gnostic 20:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
You[edit]
Are reading. You have decided to continue reading. You are perturbed by this sentence, and wonder what I am getting at. You have been wished a good day. Javasca₧ In Soviet Russia, the wobbly cutting board zaps YOU! 02:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- I once had a t-shirt that had about 800 words to that effect. Except the conclusion was "while you've been reading this I've been staring at your breasts". gnostic 02:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)