User talk:Renice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Tips

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Renice, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  RJFJR 20:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links to remember

[edit] Alternate welcome

Hello Renice, and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some recommended guidelines to help you get involved. Please feel free to contact me if you need help with anything. Best of luck and happy editing! (SIG)
Getting started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting help
Getting along
Getting technical

[edit] Removing a redirect / merging pages?

I've expanded the pacú section and I now believe the Piaractus mesopotamicus page should be merged with it. I also found that the subfamily that the pacú belongs to is currently redirected to piranha.

1. Do I need to wait for consensus to merge pages? (I have posted on the talk pages of both articles.)

2. Is consensus needed for changing a redirect to a separate page (which would only be a stub at this point)?

3. How would I change the categories on all affected pages from 'Category: Characidae' to 'Category: Characidae: Serrasalminae'?

Response:

1. If you think Piaractus mesopotamicus should be merged into Pacu (fish):

  • Put at the top of Piaractus mesopotamicus: {{mergeto|Pacu (fish)}}
  • Put at the top of Pacu_(fish): {{mergefrom|Piaractus mesopotamicus}}
  • Wait a few days.
  • If no one responds and you think there is no reason not to do it, do the merge.
Personally, looking at the two pages, I do not think they should be merged, because Piaractus mesopotamicus applies to a particular species, whereas Pacu (fish) applies to several species, including that one, and applies to them as a "sort" of fish as pet, fishing, and food.

2. No consensus is needed for a small or out-of-the-way page. Make sure to merge any appropriate information.

3. For semi-automatic changes, you can use a tool like WP:AWB. However, for moving a whole category, you should bring it up at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion.

Overall, especially for redirects, check out Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages, a good principle on Wikipedia. If there is the possibility of someone objecting, or if an action would affect a major article, an article with a lot of editors, or many articles at once, you should bring it up for discussion, but if it is rather minor and no one will either care or object to it, then use your best judgement. If you have any other questions, I would be happy to help. Welcome! —Centrx→talk • 18:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Printmaking Article

As I stated in Printmaking Talk, I will be working on a revision of the article here.

[edit] Photo permissions?

I requested use of a photograph using one of the permission-letter templates. When I got approval from the author (see User_talk:Renice/Photo_Permissions), I uploaded the image.

However, I got a message that the image is marked for speedy deletion. What did I do wrong? What do I need to do?

thanks
Renice 21:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It is probably because you did not give it the correct copyright tag. Could you perhaps link to the image (remember to put : before "Image" when you link it)? Ryūlóng 21:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I have found the image, and I have removed the speedy tag. It appears that you just did not choose a licensing tag when you uploaded it. That's the default these days. Ryūlóng 21:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! --Renice 21:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black July edit

Very good job except the Context of violence section is no longer visible except when I go to edit the page, some formating error, can you look into it ? Thanks RaveenS 02:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it but look at it anyway, it was a fabulous job by you, finaly some one has made an article out of it. If you google Black July, it is the Wikipedia article that comes first and with the Ethnic problem in Sri Lanka heating up again many people are going to take a look at your handiwork. It makes me so proud to look at that article which has a lot of personal memories for me. RaveenS 02:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
It is done means done, I would like to peer review it and make it a article that is not prone to too many other changes, how do we do that ?RaveenS 12:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

How did you get interested in Black July ? I've seen versions of an article peer reviewed and archived but one can still edit and update the article but a version stays as the most appropriate one. Tell me when you are done and we can begin to archive that version as a peer reviewed one. Just my thoughtsRaveenS 01:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Grafikm fr/Title

Yes, you're absolutely right, the cat on User:Grafikm fr/Title was completely unnecessry (I copypasted a bit too fast I guess :)

Thanks for pointing that out!

Best, Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 11 August 2006, a fact from the article Pacu (fish), which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

DYK's are reserved for articles made or expanded significantly in the past 5 days, but I saw the recent additions you made to Pacu (fish) (and the great picture) and thought it was fair to put it up. Thanks for the contribution! -- Samir धर्म 06:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category for deletion

While I appreciate the heads-up on the proposed deletion of the Wikipedians from Texas category, I must point out that you may have jeopardized it by mass-posting notices to users in the category. This has been viewed as spamming in the past, and tends to elicit a very negative response. Jay Maynard 15:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Spam#Canvassing and Wikipedia:Votestacking. While your message doesn't appear to violate those guidelines, it may generate a backlash, even so. I don't know what the answer is; I just know that it came up as one reason to get rid of userboxes during those wars, and I'm very sensitive to anything that gives the anti-userbox admins reasons to oppose them. Jay Maynard 16:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lovely flag

(Reply from my talk page) Hi, got your message. When you say clear, do you mean it's transparent? (The white background, maybe?) If so, it still shows up on my browser (Internet Explorer 6) as white, so that's probably why I hadn't noticed. If you can reply to me saying exactly what's wrong, whether it's the background or something else, I can upload a new version which might correct the problem. (I can't right now as I need to go out, sorry!) Thanks for mentioning! -- Lewis R « т · c » 11:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

(Reply from my talk page) Thanks for the info, I've uploaded a new image (same file name), but this time the background is a tiny bit grey (its HTML colour is #FEFEFE) so hopefully it won't show up transparent in Firefox. I've also changed the dimensions of the images on the Lovely page and the in the userbox slightly to show the new image more quickly (we'll have to wait for the servers to catch up, otherwise). Thanks for bringing this to my attention! - Lewis R « т · c » 19:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks for the welcome

E4043 20:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Coccidia/Coccidiosis Merge

Thank you for your comments on my merge of the above listed articles. I am pleased that you thought I did a good job in merging the two articles. This was the first merge in my almost 1000 edit history of wikipedia that I carried out, so to get it right first time without reading the guidelines is a pretty neat piece of work, even if I do say so myself. Please feel free to provide comments or feedback on anything else I do within wikipedia, since I am happy to respond to comments or criticism. Regards, Thor Malmjursson 11:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC) Thor's Multilingual Talk Page

[edit] Inline page-number refs while reusing citation templates

Take a look my the example on the page, White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives -- I only hand-created the superscript on the citation-talk page as an illustration of the example. I think I'm doing it the way you're telling me to.... Sorry I wasn't clear: my question is about having a ref link at the end of an inline link -- stylistically that seems odd, but it does what I want, which is to have a page number inline, with a full ref in Refs. But stylistically it seems like I'm footnoting a citation and there should be a better way...????
thanks,
Renice 11:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of editing it myself instead of trying to explain. Hope that what I did is OK with you. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's an improvement. It's too difficult to tell that all the references come from the same source. I'd rather leave it the way I had it. But thanks. --Renice 17:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I am sending this out to wikiart folks everywhere,

so please don't feel picked on. Here's my thing. I've been watching list of sculptors recently and have been weeding out the entries in red on the theory that this is an index of sculptors in wikipedia. However i have been reluctant to remove artists that I know or discover to be real, wikipedia worthy people, so am trying to decide if i should just do a stub - maybe a lot of stubs - of these folks or leave them on the list [I HATE lists with too much red - check out the List of Frank Lloyd Wright works for example.

For example, i checked out one, François-Joseph Duret (1804 - 1865) and discovered that there are at least two sculptors with that name, (1732 - 1816) and (1804 - 1865)- this one is the son - and both probably could comfortably be in wikipedia. I did have a rather bad moment recently when someone DELETED my article on Connor Barrett about an hour [maybe less] after I first posted it, on the theory that he was not wikiworthy [or something] and a lot of these fairly remote (in time and place from me) artists are a lot more obscure than Barrett. So, i would like to know that i have the support of the wikipedia art history community before doing this. Drop me a line, if you wish to sit down and be counted. Life is good, Carptrash 05:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC) P.S. although i do mostly American art i have contributed to lots on non-American articles including Aleijadinho, Ásmundur Sveinsson, Einar Jonsson, Gunnfrídur Jónsdóttir, Henry Moore, Ivan Meštrović, Ørnulf Bast, Rayner Hoff, and probably some others. I say this because most of the stubs I'm proposing would be Europeans.

thanks for the feedback. Your comments along with those of a few others, have caused me to rethink may plan for turning all the red sculpture links to blue. I think i'll just start taking my meds again, go back to my old style of writing articles about folks as they come up in my life and allow the red to ripen in its own good time. Thanks again, Carptrash 15:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilogos

I've noticed you are a graphic designer, you might be interested in my proposal for Wikipedia use logo variations created by members of the wiki community to mark national and international awareness days, Remembrance Days, notable anniversaries, and observance days. Please comment on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Logo Variations and on my talk page. Thanks! FrummerThanThou 05:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Napoleon Dynamite

If you're not saying he's AS, and nobody else is saying that he's AS, or typifies AS, then the AS article is not an appropriate place to mention it. As for trivia sections, they tend to become poorly-focused lists, and are therefore discouraged. (WP:TRIV) Gazpacho 04:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

WikiThanks

Thanks for converting my "hack" to a proper entity - very much appreciated Crimsone 15:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC

[edit] Requesting some AS overview (vision) creation feedback

Renice, I see I was not wrong in my impression of your abilities: your user page is great - concise, usable, appropriate - all those things a good page needs. And that is exactly the hurdle faced in the AS article, one over which I could get very discouraged trying to overcome. In the interest, therefore, of being able to contribute substantively I must find what I believe is most important to what I have called the "elegance" of the article AND what I might be able to reasonably do toward that end.

At this point I realize that Wikipedia article creation involves a great deal of fluency with the entire functionality of the system, something which breaks down into smaller and smaller subsets, yes, but each has its own learning curve to overcome. I believe I will "get" some of this, bit by bit, over time, but for me, I'm afraid the process will become a boggy mire that distracts me and keeps me too involved with the micro-picture instead of the macro-picture. I've explained already that I have a sort of vision of the article, where it may need to evolve etc. and I'm fairly confident right now that that vision is congruent with the basic principles of WP and the recommended possibilities for article growth. My dilemma presently is creating a place where I can nurture that vison, delineate its problems/advantages, work with some of the details, but keep my own versions of my work safe from any editing not my own, so that my vision (and its depending details) remain(s) secure until I put it/them out for discussion or propose an edit.

So I'm going to need some feedback from time to time, to improve the learning curve or maybe avoid dead-end solutions that others might warn me of. So, this may, in part, be a warning that I'm needy, though I don't want to be a pain. I can see you are very active by your user page, talk page, and the talk page for AS, and I do realize that everyone ends up having to make their own way through the "mire", but I hope that you can occasionally point me in the direction I need. That said, specifically, does or can a sandbox function in the way I describe, giving me the organizational hierarchy I need. I'm trying to figure out all the concepts at play in the process: stubs, sections, content forks, templates, linking intricacies - the list goes on. So, might a user sandbox be where I could or should start, or perhaps just a sub-page? Any parameters you would recommend? Please feel free to answer on my user talk, but on the AS discussion page would be fine as well - others may appreciate and learn. That would also allow me to encounter others whose opinions I trust to be as confirming of my direction (and here I do not mean agreeing with anything other than keeping to the basic WP principles/guidelines/recommendations etc.) as I have felt yours to be. I guess that makes me sound a little bit insecure here, but I can admit to that. I thank you. Bearpa 20:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

My response from Bearpa's talk page
Bearpa, I'm glad to offer any assistance I can. My solution to the problem you're having regarding editing space is to create a new page in my user space. For an example, see User:Renice/Caduceator where I've started collecting information that I will eventually begin organizing into an article. If you look at the page's history, you can see that I used the same space to edit half of the African Rite article.
One way to start a new page is at Help:Starting_a_new_page. Another is to simply create a link, e.g., User:Bearpa/Asperger syndrome. Click it, and there you are.
I'm still reading about AS and autism, and there's a lot to sort through. In his NYTimes op-ed piece, Baron-Cohen summarizes some of his theories and directions of inquiry (I need to read his books now of course). I think his idea of brain types, which he has called Type E, and Type S (with Type B as a combination of the 2 extremes) is basically the same idea I've been getting at about "healthy Aspies".
It seems biochemical research is trying to answer what levels cause a healthy Type S to become dysfunctional. Of course defining 'dysfunctional' is an enormous quagmire, but I think a lot of people have missed the brain-type discussion altogether, as I had.
I think the idea is, certain hormonal and neurotransmitter deficiencies result in certain pathologies, with Autism as a pathology of Type S brains. It seems to me that confusion has arisen when people, esp physicians, see anyone with a Type S brain and pronounce them "Asperger victim/patient/etc.", or environmental stressors specific to minority thinking styles actually cause pathology (e.g., depression). (Other areas of inquiry have spawned confusing debates on where Type S comes from (Neanderthals?), and why they persist (assortative mating?).
However, I believe we must tease out what is pathology and what isn't. For example, Aspies have been described as having heightened auditory or visual senses. Is that pathology? They are also known for literal thinking. Is that pathology?! On the other hand, depression and ADD probably are pathologies (i.e., having outside-of-optimal levels of specific biochemicals), and they probably look different for each different brain type.
I'm writing sci-fi at the moment (which is how I started reading all this in the first place), and I can imagine a future when there will not be pathologies called "autism" and "aspergers", or even "sociopath" and "depression". Instead, we will say "He is a Type S, Oxytocin- and Endocannabinoid-deficient." (Re endocannabinoid research and AS, see http://renice.com/chakrabarti_et_al_2006pdf.pdf.) In my future, a simple breath test will reveal a child's individual metabolome and parents will be given a 'manual' that includes a list of substances the child cannot metabolize without injuring its systems (much like PKU now, but on a grander scale). The consequences of such a future is the fun stuff of fiction, while we continue in our time to struggle to merely grasp, and actually embrace, the beauty of diversity and polymorphism.
--Renice 14:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Renice, I've been taking a break - the winter, the firewood, the mile-long driveway, the teen-ager, the college senior, the two boomerang kids(one an Aspie), and a few smashed cars (no injuries) have all gotten to me. Anyway, I hope to ease back into to this project and get it to some point. Maybe a reasonable goal would be an overview outline, perhaps with stubs, of the "layered" article I envision (including topics possibly ready to become new articles), AND a blocked out version of the summary (lead) section. The focus must be to embrace the balance of the many points of view. It's encouraging to have something that clear to guide by; it sounds simple but the effort can quickly dissemble into foggy turmoil.
The next obstacle for me may well be the lack of high-speed connection in our rural area. Wiki-based resourses in text are reasonably fast, but consulting other sites to verify sources and citations gets into that frustrating zone of time-loss. I'm about thirty miles from the Univ. of Virginia and am in Charlottesville weekly, so, as a citizen of VA, I could use their many libraries as well as their public-access computers. This will also help me break the task into do-able chunks and even set milestone-like goals to achieve. This may seem elementary to most, but at times I fall prey to depressions and avoidance syndromes which sabotage "normal" mental constructs for decision-making, for seeing a clear path. So, in an effort to nurture some structural framework, I return from time to time, to academic endeavors, which seem to be clearly defined - a path I can negotiate by myself - and which can, by a sort of sympathetic resonance, strengthen my mental capacities.
By the way, I read those articles and research reports about brain type and endo-cannabinoids. Very interesting. I know that I'm on the short end of that receptor capacity for reward. The research article makes you realize how long good research takes when every little step presents further diverging pathways, iteration after iteration. Not to mention applying for funding. Also, it's intriguing that you are writing sci-fi. I have been a real fanatic, at times, since my youth; that means forty plus years (I'm 53). It never ceases to amaze me how under-rated sci-fi is as a form of literature. It is so conducive to imagining and constructing scenarios to explore questions of human nature, ethics, history (past and future) and philosophy, not to mention the opportunity for scientific speculations, that I find some sci-fi writing among the most influential literature I've read. Bearpa 19:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey, Renice

Remember the great controversy that brewed when the Wiki category Wikipedians from Texas was at first threatened with deletion, then ended up getting renamed "Wikipedians born in Texas" as a compromise? Well, um, yeah, the original category is back. And it looks like it's here to stay. Pls to applaud VegaDark for doing this.... (Krushsister 03:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

Aw, you're welcome. Glad to see it made your bleak late midwest winter day brighter.  :) Think of Texas, hon. Think of those always-delightful 100-plus degree summers. Let that memory warm you up. Heh. (Krushsister 06:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] User Category for Discussion

A category created by you or to which you have significantly contributed is being considered for deletion, rename, move or merge in accordance with Wikipedia's Categories for Discussion policies. This does not mean that any of the userpages in the category will be deleted. They may, however, be recategorized.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the User categories for discussion page.
Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 01:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Age category

Hello! If you are receiving this message, that means that your user page is in a specific year category. Per a recent user-category per deletion, all specific year categories are to be deleted. If you wish to continue using year categories, you have two options:

If you wish, you may do both. Hopefully, this change in categorization will be quick and painless. Happy editing! --An automated message from MessedRobot 12:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Healthy multiplicity

Hello Renice, and thank you for your inquiry after the Healthy Multiplicity article. Unfortunately the powers that be voted to delete the article because it was considered to not have sufficient sources to back it up. They were right, too, we don't have the kinds of sources that are considered reliable and verifiable by Wikipedia terms -- it's all anecdotal so far. I've been saying for years that we need some kind of a bigshot on our side, preferably a singlet bigshot with a psychiatric degree, if for no other reason than to reassure the general population that we are people with a genuine but subjective experience -- like spiritualists for whom conversing with the dead is a daily fact of life as well as an article of faith -- and that we're not all Sybil, let alone psychotic axe-wielding maniacs.

The problem with multiple personality in general, "disorder" or not, is its subjective nature. I experience many persons co-existing in (actually near) my mental space, who take turns using this body, but since there is no objective proof (never mind those so-called "brainwave tests" -- those were MRI scans done on one individual without a control group) there is really no way to verify my experience or that of any other group. --Bluejay Young 04:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to thank you for your ideas and suggestions as to how to legitimize the article on healthy multiplicity. I don't know, at this point, if it will do much good, since it appears that all the articles mentioning the idea that multiplicity might be a simple fact of some people's lives are being edited to "remove nonsense" and the very concept wiped off of Wikipedia by skeptics under the aegis of NPOV. While I can definitely see some of their point particularly where it concerns the original research, I think what we need at this point is a singlet, disinterested and hopefully "professional" advocate. Or several. I liked the philosophy ideas you proposed and wonder if you would be interested in writing an article or two about this either for your own website or for ours.
This is part of what's happening -- we run the largest resource page for non-disordered multiplicity on line and contribute to two others, so it makes it look bad if we link to those sites.
What I wish is that people would contact us, as you did, either through our talk page or through the discussion pages of the articles in question, to negotiate with us and help us make such articles more NPOV rather than simply editing them to remove "spam" and so on, or wiping them out completely. Too many people get to thinking that NPOV=skepticism=complete disbelief of anything nonmaterial and therefore snarking and "hipster" behavior are warranted. (I'm not necessarily saying that's where DreamGuy is coming from, although he has expressed impatience in the past with "true believers of alters".) I don't really know what to do at this point nor do Sethrenn. If you want to continue this conversation through email I'd be happy to -- use the form on the website, and give me an address. --Bluejay Young 04:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Words to live by

Your comment in the talk:asperger's is the most powerful and eloquent expression of aspie pride I have ever seen :

If 'having Aspergers' means choosing reason over dogma, honesty over etiquette, respect over self-interest, loving correction over 'the rod', art over war, global visual thinking over linear language thinking, then I'd be a cheerful 'martyr' for that injurious label. --Renice

CeilingCrash 08:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fishes

There is a new proposal on naming conventions for fish being discussed at WikiProject Fishes. As a member of said project your feedback would be appreciated at the WikiProject Fishes talk page here. Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ 07:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/n/User_talk%7ERenice_297b.html"