User:Fresheneesz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention

3339 edits in the main namespace
as of 08:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
94 edits to pictures
as of 08:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
This user integrates Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] View Fresheneesz's contributions

[edit] Essays and proposals I'm affiliated with

[edit] To do

[edit] Talk to me at my talk page

Feel free to comment on my thoughts HERE, but I will eventually move your comments to my talk page (unless i really like them ;-) ) - please indent if you do. Note that I might not notice your comments on this page unless you let me know you put one up (on my discussion page).

[edit] Solving All Transportation Problems

Ok, well not all (just wanted to get attention). But if you've never heard about it, read the article on SkyTran. I did a research project in which I calculated that a grid system of Skytran built in San Francisco would cost $209 million for 96 miles of guideway, 31,250 vehicles, and other necessities of the system and would save San Francisco $443 MILLION per year. I'll probably publish my very unprofessional report on my very unprofessional website. Although very unprofessional, my report incorporates numerous accounts of under- and over- estimating to the detriment of SkyTran, so that the report is as realistic as possible.

Skytran would save San Francisco almost than $30 billion after 30 years - a phenomenal 13,800% return to investment according to my report.

So yea, read about the system and decide for yourself why its not already being built.

I finally put my report online. The report's not perfect, but it's a very interesting quantitative look at SkyTran. Note that the assumptions that many would be most skeptical of is the "$1.3 million per mile of track" and "$0.01 of energy cost per mile". The rest is basically pretty clean cut.
My SkyTran Report

[edit] My thoughts for Wikipedia improvements

[edit] Wikipedia program

Usability would be greatly enhanced if we developed a program specifically for accessing wikipedia information. Like downloading programs such as kazaa and bearshare, and IM clients like Triallian, AIM, and MSN messanger - a program would be able to work more efficiently when focused on the specific task of accessing and editing the wikipedia. Also, such a program could cache frequently accessed information such as the sidebar that always appears when on wikipedia. This would reduce bandwidth needs and allow better access to anything and everything on the site. To do this, It would be helpful to clearly display wikipedia's source code and how it works so that people can more easily contribute. Admittedly I haven't looked too hard for the code for this site - since I am not a good enough programmer for that.

Check out the Gollum browser. Not fantastic, IMHO, but does the job. --Ephilei 23:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I've long wanted to suggest a peer-to-peer network of cached Wikimedia information to save bandwidth. Done correctly, this would have the added benefit of being very difficult to censor. It would go well with your suggestion of a dedicated program.--Joel

[edit] Standardization of Similar pages

Certain types of pages should be standardized, and they are to a degree. However, more standardization needs to happen for pages dealing with languages, and probably other pages i can't think of right now.

Wikiprojects? — Omegatron 14:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WikiData - Results of experiments

An important part of our society is science. Yes it is a very broad subject, and without it, most of us would have never been born and our society would still be in the neolithic ages with the human population being barely .1% of what it is today. However, there is no good single source for experimental data that has been done to test scientific theories. I propose that there be a wiki project that allows people to publish Lab and Experiment Data, and other documents along the lines of the Scientific meathod. As a skeptical student in high school, I always wished I could get experimental data on subjects mainly in the areas of particle physics, so that I could verify how things were really seen. This could include experiments from a wide range of things, including medicine. Experimental data is of utmost importance in the Fields of Medical, Psychology, and Chemistry - because so much is not understood in comparison to other fields. Doctors constantly read about drug trials and experiments involving diseases, so much that a public source would be an infinite help to people in the field. This project could and should also include un"proven" hypotheses. If anyone has any information about something like what i'm talking about in the wiki community - please let me know.

I can provide a site like Wikipedia (based on mediawiki) for you to pursue this idea, if you're willing to do management and so on (I'll give you sysop, ftp and shell access). Just let me know on my talk page. I think, though, that Mathematical data should be accepted as well. --nkayesmith 08:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One universal Wiki Screen account

When i got to say Wikimedia or some other wiki - It would be sooo useful if my account was the same so I could view all my contributions in one place - and so other people can as well.

Very disorganized, but you can start reading here. — Omegatron 14:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cookies to identify registered users

There are many cases where I forget to sign on, and since it doesn't ask for me to sign on, I don't have a record of everything i've done. Therefore I have suggested that the site use cookies to identify users who are registered and allow them to more easily sign on. Cookies could also identify serial vandals. Alternatively, when an unregistered user edits - there could just be an option "sign on: yes, no - your edits will be kept either way"

See the perennial proposals page.

Hit "remember me" and you'll get that functionality. -- Chris is me (u/c/t) 23:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A clear, path based, browsable organization of wikipedia

Wikipedia needs a path based organization like yahoo has - and display the path at the top of the page. This would allow users to go backwards through the path to view a broader subject in the same area. Also, it would allow users to browse wikipedia to find something the don't know the name of. It would also help unify topics under one subject. For example, the page for mathematics has plenty of links to other large math topics, but the lists are incomplete, and disorganized. Organization is good!

Categories? — Omegatron 14:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

- Well, there's already categories - but thats different from a path. I'm talking about something like mathematics -> linear algebra -> 1st order DEs or something like that, so that a user can go "up" a category when they're at a subcategory page. Fresheneesz 18:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

This is what categories should do if only people used them properly. The Wikiprojects do good work in maintaining category hierarchies but with the million article mark already passed and many new articles containing redundancy, being orphans or ortherwise not fitting in, it's a big task. You could try proposing enforcing categories, but I don't see that flying because it's newbie-hostile. Guy 08:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Validity Rating system - individual sentences

Wikipedia has gotten to the level where so many people use it, and so much information is on it, that its thought of as a reliable source of information. However, the reliableness of wikipedia is highly variable. If there was some way to rate the information written on wikipedia - people could be more sure which parts are accurate, and which parts are either wrong or still being fine tuned. I propose that people should be able to rate individual lines or sentences for their validitiy. On the side of the article page, each paragraph should have a validity rating. There should be two numbers - a range - that indicate the validity of the paragraph. The range would reflect the number of votes, the number of votes for either the paragraph being valid, unvalid, or questionable. The range would be negative if there were significantly more votes for 'unvalid' and positive if there are significantly more votes for 'valid'. Also, there could be a "validity" page that someone can check if they're concerned. This page would have the validity ratings for EVERY SENTENCE (in fact, the ratings for paragraph validity should be derived from the ratings of each setence that make up the paragraph). When a sentence is changed, the rating for that sentence goes back to zero - but the old rating should be carried with the old sentence. Users should be rated as well - maybe their rating should depend on the ratings of the sentences they edit. - more to be said later.

Fascinating idea! I don't think it would ever get approved in the wiki code because (a) sentences or even paragraphs get moved around a lot and their validity history would be lost; if the sentence is in the same location but its content changes, all its history must be erased; in both cases the validity poll won't last long (b) it would encourage users to vote instead of improving the validity of the info which is much more valuable and (c) if wikipedia is built by the community and the validity polls are voted on by the community, how can one be more accurate than the other? However, this would be a great idea for a Mozilla Firefox or Flock (web browser) extension. I believe there's already a similar extension that polls the general quality of any webpage. --Ephilei 06:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks so much :-)

You were too kind, but absolutely correct in your gentle email to me! I get overly excited by all things related to thermo entropy -- and indeed have been impolite in expressing my anger when a point is made, supported by others or data (and not just my words), and yet it comes up again -- even from the same individual! That ain't the kind of sci discussion/valid conflict with reviewers that I'm used to! I certainly never thought I'd have to write more than a short paragraph about a point. My initial Introduction was to be the whole, but then I, foolishly decided to spill my background plus a detailed outline. But then Kats, a physics grad student, who obviously had not read my own refs said that ....oh, forgive me, what difference does the history make :-) YES! I've gotten in a mode of overkill.

But the good news is Jheald's very reasonable "Focus..." note today. I owe him an apology for my criticism of him -- and will put it up + apology for lengthy writing (thx to you)-- right away. (That means an hour...I'm a slow writer, 88th birthday coming up next week!) Certainly, my view of energy dispersal is not the only possible (except that 'disorder' has no scientific basis :-)) but it is a mainstream view for beginners now. And info 'entropy" has a page of its own, so it certainly should not be prominent in the prinicipal entropy page.

I don't think Jheald would have made his 'Focus' without your and Astrobayes checking. THX greatly! FrankLambert 15:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/r/e/User%7EFresheneesz_184e.html"