User talk:Who123

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please see Talk Page Help. When you begin a new message section here, I will respond to it here. Likewise, whenever I begin a message section on your Talk page, I will watch the page for your response. This helps maintain discussion threads and continuity.

Please try to keep a cool head when responding to comments on this user's talk page.

• Archive 1: Sept 21, 2006

Contents 1 Good work! 2 Smile 3 Power-assisted bicycles (PAB) 4 Not vanishing 5 A Course in Miracles versions 6 The Disappearance of the Universe 7 Motorized bicycle 8 your edits to S-Adenosyl methionine

[edit] Good work!

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded to Who123 for taking charge at A Course in Miracles with a commitment to common sense, quality, and collaboration. —Antireconciler ◊talk 04:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!—Who123 15:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smile

Æon ^{Insane Ward} 20:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Power-assisted bicycles (PAB)

Hello, just like cycling I'm very tenuous at all my activities. Assides from all my other endevours, studying Music, Database Programming, security job, arts admin job for the city callendar @ www.ottawa.ca/arts , I'm currently working on my regular PAB sunday protest. I ride on the 4 lane highway 174 because the government is lacking some administrative direction in inteligently and effectivelly defining a Power-assisted bicycle. Today the politicians are working to make it legal, that good, but we need more than good... we need excellent. An excellent inovative device like a PAB needs excellent support here in Canada Ontario. What I want is to have a product here from Canada, but unfortunatelly I will be forced to develop in underdeveloped countries because of market cost. This will allow for better market and to remain in competition. Assuming all responsibilities of a small business I hope it will remain my business, which is my passion... Power-assisted bicycles. I would like to be a world leader and I would like to be an administrator that can influence the world in a creative, imaginative way with a diversified business. Perhaps some 10 employees to start with, then 60, then many. Seing that I wish to learn and be the best, I am obliged and honored to answer any questions you may have in regards to this business, a formula based on a precious device that should be helpfull and assistive to a wide range of people. --CyclePat 01:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. As I live in the US, I am looking for a US source to convert my bike to a power-assisted bicycle. I am thinking about converting the front wheel on my current bike. Any suggestions for manufacturers or suppliers in the US would be appreciated.—Who123 12:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello. You may want to check out the Dominating company called Wilderness Energy[[1]]. I say this reluctantly though because I've had some bad experiences with them. They produce cheap stuff which breaks easily. You get what you pay for I guess! I have two of their kits. You got a be careful with their chargers that seem to burn out. Which is why I repackage it them with Canadian Engeneered Chargers from Soneil. You got a be careful with a lot of their stuff. You can also try ebay for Chrystalite [[2]]. It took me 5 to 6 months to decide what I wanted to buy for my first bike. Luckily, I assume you already know the benefits, you've chosen front wheel drive! And now you have different motors like Heinzman (Expensive German Import). And these guys [Freeenergystore.com], whome seem reputable but I've never dealt with them, offer better quality and disc brakes already installed, and better controllers so you can increase the voltage or Amps. I'm sure you'll want to do that after runing your first lead acid bike battery dead in about 2 years. (depending how much you use it, take care of it and charge it properly). Nycewheels.com... never suplied from them because they're a little pricey. Personally I prefer importing directly from china with a bunch of friends. But if you want to save all the trouble and feers of what you will get and not... go for www.bionx.ca. Sure it's almost 3 times the price from the cheap lets say 350$ Wilderness energy kit but you get one heck of a package plus Lithium batteries that you don't need to charge right away and give you great distances!. (but that's a rear wheel unfortunatelly) I would go for the chrystalite... You can alway check currie tech. I'm not sure how they're doing but last I heard they have some new prototype. (then again they're rear wheel I believe). Unfortunatelly your most accessible kit is probably Wilderness Energy or something through Ebay (which will offer you some wilderness energy kit). Good luck!

I own a wilderness energy kit myself and I've been happy with it. Quality of some of thier stuff is questionable, I had to replace the rack with a better one myself, my original controller burnt and had to replace my throttle. Other than that, the motor and the batteries(they are the most expensive part of the system) are surprisingly very hardy considering to what I put them through. For the money, Wilderness ios the best value. I got mine the brushless for less than $240 shipped. It's refurbished directly from the manufacturer. WE kits are also widely available.

A more upscaled version is the kit from Largo scooters called the go-Hub. Essentially the same configuration as the WE kit, but i think they use better racks, controllers and connections at around $600-$700(We kits brand new are about $400(and the discontinued brushless kit that I have can be obtained directly from the manufacturer[bargain bin] for about $300 brand new).

As for my preference for front or back hub motors, I only have experience with front hubs, and it is very elegant and simple to install. No problems so far(actually, they excel in meeting my needs) although I worry about my front fork integrity from time to time, but I have mild OCD, so(just make sure its steel! and inspect your forks before every ride for early signs of failure, just in case and steel has an advantage over aluminum in that they just don't snap out of the blue, they bend gradually). Back hub motor is preferred by some of the more "serious" electric bike junkies but some concede there is little difference. My bike shop mechanic don't recommend back hub motors since he said it is better to have weight evenly distributed throughout the bike(my battery pack is mounted on my rear rack).

Here is an excellent e-bike forum:

[3]

i think there is also one very active yahoo groups about electric bikes(motorized bikes in general) but I can't seem to find it. Hope this helps!--Chicbicyclist 23:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not vanishing

Hi, Who123 ^_^

I wanted to apologize for disappearing without saying anything. I'm glad you've continued working on A Course in Miracles. It's really changed! From reading it, it seems more stable now. I think the several quotes from Perry that describe the Course as a Christianaized version of non-dualistic vedanta says in a few lines what the old article took several pages to say. It makes it less technical and more straightforward than the older descriptions, and it turns out to be quite a bit better without so much original research. I don't think I would have thought so before though. Perhaps you know the feeling of looking back and realizing how much you didn't know? Anyway, it is very good to talk to you again. I won't be around often as I'm very busy with my studies, but I don't plan on vanishing either.

Take care, as always, —Antireconciler ◊talk 05:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Good to hear from you. No need to apologize. I was curious about what happened to you. Regarding ACIM, I do not know enough about non-dualistic Vedanta to say that ACIM is a Christianized version of it. For anyone that has studied ACIM, it is Christian. It corrects and expands on the Christian Bible in such a way that it may share some concepts with non-dualistic Vedanta. It is deeply psychological. I think it was good to delete the uncited material as no one seemed to know who wrote it or where it came from. I think the article is still lacking in the stub sections.

After working with WP I see some of the flaws in the system. People are working on subject material they know nothing about. I would not work on an article on non-dualistic Vedanta. It is so much easier to destroy than create. Why waste time on creating material just to have someone else come along and destroy it? People edit material referenced by books they have not read. I have talked to friends that have looked up articles on material they are very knowledgeable about and the WP material is often a poor representation. I think WP is very useful but I would not use it for my only source of material.

Once again, it is good to hear from you. If you would like my help on anything or wish to discuss anything, just let me know. All the best.

—Who123 13:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the way anyone would categorize ACIM depends on what they're familiar with. If you enjoy reading A Course in Miracles, try the Viveka Chudamani, that is, The Crest-Jewel of Wisdom, which I think is one of the best texts ever written, along with A Course In Miracles. It's a short work, but highly rewarding, and if you read it I think you'll find something so similar to A Course in Miracles that the only differences concern mere surface structure. It was written some 1200 years ago though, and is an important advaita (non-dual) vedanta text. When working on the ACIM article, I usually deemphasized the relationship between ACIM and Christianity because I'm more familiar with advaita. But you'll notice how often editors want to categorize ACIM within a Christian framework, not quite recognizing that Christianity could actually be fully characterized within an ACIM framework, and that there really isn't a meaningful difference between the two cases. I suppose it's quite understandable though.

Actually, a lot of the especially unsourced material was written by me, before it was evident that it would take more than that to save a sinking ship. In a way, I think you're right about WP, but that this lack of rigor is especially strong in exactly the area A Course in Miracles deals with, for exactly the same reason that people get the funky idea that faith and reason are two separate things. At this article and those of similar content, I think it's pretty unsurprising to find a high concentration of editors with axes to grind. But you probably already know what I think about that: people just want to contribute the way they think is right.

Again, it's good to hear from you. ^_^ Take care, —Antireconciler ◊talk 08:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Perry that ACIM, like many contemporary spiritual works, crosses categories. I find the concepts in ACIM are not unlike that expressed by Thomas Merton, a Catholic monk. I particularly like his "New Seeds of Contemplation." I think the unsourced material was on target but considering the controversy over the ACIM article everything written will now need to be sourced. Religion/spirituality is such a controversial area throughout. I agree that faith and reason are not mutually exclusive. I think one problem is that some people think that if something does not fit within science then it does not exist. Science, in many ways, has become a religion.—Who123 19:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Course in Miracles versions

Dear Who123,

          I wish I could better understand why you seem to me to have some sort of negative feelings about the FIP editions of ACIM, yet I do believe you when you explain that you are not associated with EA. If someone somehow came across an early draft of a Shakespear play, then wrote an article about Shakespear in which the early draft and the final work were treated as if there were no difference and essentially equal in quality and cultural impact, don't you think that that author would be doing his readers a disservice? I just cannot get my mind around why you seem to feel that the 2nd FIP edition and these early drafts ought to be treated similarly. I know that Robert Perry has expressed some personal reservations about Ken Wapnick's editorial abilities. Could this have anything to do with your views re the relationship between the FIP editions and the earlier drafts?

          I honestly do feel that unless the article clearly acknowledges the fact that the FIP editions have always been by far the most widely distributed version of the Course and as such are considered by the great majority of ACIM students to be the 'standard' editions, that unless this information is clearly and prominently incorporated into the article, then we will be doing a grave disservice to those who might be wanting to know more about ACIM. This seems to me that it would be like telling first year freshman english students that they should consider first reading early Shakespear drafts before they begin studying his finished works.

          Perhaps you are of the same mind as Robert Perry, but the fact that 1.5 million readers have voted with their wallets to support the FIP editions and not any other, seems to me to be proof enough that the FIP editions do stand out far above any of the earlier drafts. Still I wouldn't mind hearing why you feel otherwise.

Thanks,

-Scott P. 02:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Scott. I think we should be able to sort this out as well and feel a bit frustrated because I do not understand the conflict. I think this discussion would be more useful at the ACIM talk page so let's transfer it there. Thanks.—Who123 11:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Disappearance of the Universe

Please take care in your edit summaries. Your summary of "Shortened mention of spam involved" for this edit [4] is inaccurate/misleading. You didn't shorten anything, and instead added (the possibly POV) mention that the promotional method was "spam." Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It was shortened compared to the previous version that called the spam, spam. Spam does not need to be in quotes as it is defined here: spam. Perhaps best to discuss it on the article talk page? Thanks.—Who123 17:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motorized bicycle

Forums have a very iffy status as links. Going through the external links guideline, I think the review site is acceptable (though a bit iffy) but the forums are not. They do not meet any of the criteria for what should be linked to. And I feel iffy about the review site because that review site is there for commercial purposes, which is generally a no-no. But I can live with that. But forums definitely go under provision 10 of the "What should not be linked to" guideline on the External links site. "Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET." The forums are discussion forums above all else. If you agree to remove them, I'll drop the objection to the review site link. --Woohookitty^(meow) 00:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I did not add the first forum. It was already there. I just shortened the description and moved it to the bottom. I have been on the net for days trying to gather information about this topic and it is very, very difficult (I wish to buy a bike). The external links guideline is a guideline, not a policy. I think the section you are referring to is "Links normally to be avoided". I believe that this is not a normal situation as information is so sparse. I think in this case the forums are helpful to the reader. I leave the decision to remove the two forums up to you. Thanks for helping out with the article.—Who123 01:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Okey doke. Well my concern is an overproliferation of links. There was a time when the article had 15 or so links and I just don't want to see that happening again. Between Motorized bicycle and the overinflated Electric bicycle laws article, we have enough info on the topic already. :) I'll remove the forums for now. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

And. If you can take a look at electric bicycle laws and see if you can help to integrate the laws and the substance of the article, it would be wonderful. I've thought about editing it but it's just SUCH an incredible mess. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I will take a look at the electric bicycle laws article to see if I can contribute. I am fairly busy now so it may be just a little while.—Who123 13:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your edits to S-Adenosyl methionine

Hi, I see you have put a lot of time lately into S-Adenosyl methionine, great work. But may I ask you to use the edit summary a bit more elaborate, stating a bit more what you have done than 'add material' and 'edit' (these summaries are almost superfluous)? For the rest, keep up the good work! Happy editing, --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This article needed and still needs a lot of work. I thought my descriptions were OK and the details can be seen in the edit history. Is there an article on WP that has guidelines of how edit summaries should be done? I have spent most of the day on this article. Thanks for the encouragement!—Who123 22:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

A guideline is available in help:edit summary (though I don't think that copying what you have edited into the edit summary is a good plan). It is just nice to see a bit of a description of what goes on, some people (like me) check their watchlist quite often, and the word 'edit' is then, well, superfluous, and triggers to see what has then been edited. A descriptive edit summary then either does not give that urge, or may cause others to jump in to help, or to learn something. I have 4200 pages on my watchlist, and the last two days have been filled with reverting vandals (and that while my VandalProof is down :-( ), so empty or simple edit histories now trigger me more than ever (by now I got used to your name editing that article, so no worries there). By the way, if I do a major revamp on an article, I find it more convenient to move it to my sandbox, and do the major edits there (keeping an eye on the original in case someone else is also editing). When I am finished, I copy the my version over the original, add short description and a link to the talkpage in the edit summary, and save, and then give a short description of my intentions on the talkpage. It gives a bit more freedom in doing a major edit (the version in the sandbox may be a mess for a moment, but I don't have to take care I keep things in a readable format), and it does not pop up every so many minutes on the watchlist of others (who may revert your edits when it is inbetween two saves in a bad state). But that is also a personal choice.

As such, it is not a problem, but more a service to the other people. Hope this helps --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You have a lot of pages on your watchlist! I do not do vandalism. I just try to help when I can and have some time. I think I am close to the end of my editing on the article for now so probably no need for the sandbox but thanks for the suggestion. I will try to add more descriptive edit summaries. Thanks for your help and suggestions.—Who123 23:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, and when vandalproof is working again, I'll add you to my whitelist! See you around! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)