User talk:Sparkygravity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Kardashev scale

Please review reliable sources and Wikipedia:Undue Weight. The article is just fine without long paragraphs of whole-cloth discussion of one person's ideas. Please don't add back the material unless you have consensus for putting it back (which you will most likely not get). Michaelbusch (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Sparkygravity, I'll take a look in an hour or so. Thanks for the alert. —Viriditas | Talk 09:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kardashev Scale citations

For the citation needed for calculated power output of Types 0-III, I've had a couple of people swear to me that the articles exist but I haven't had time to google them. Do you know anyone who would want to do it?--Sparkygravity (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Not in particular. If I don't have a source myself, I usually just leave the "citation needed" tags until someone who cares comes across them, or the material gets removed. -- Beland (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

hmm, that sucks. I think the page doesn't really have a lot of people adding solid evidence of research, and that's why so much of the content has been removed. I really believe the studies are out there but I need help in looking for all of it.--Sparkygravity (talk) 21:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I can help if you give me all the information in one place to look at. The talk page is pretty jumbled. —Viriditas | Talk 21:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well unfortunately it's not in one place, but supposedly Kardashev did the power modeling himself, so if you could find that journal article it could be used.--Sparkygravity (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You can also try the people listed at WP:LIBRARY or ask a question at WP:REFDESK. —Viriditas | Talk 21:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kardashev Scale

Hi, recently the Kardashev scale entry has gone through some major reverts, I'd like to talk about the reinstatement of the material. I've looked around and have seen that you've made some major contributions to the article and are interested in it's progress. I feel we need to talk about the reverts and reinstatement and talk about whether either are justified. Talk:Kardashev scale If you could help or add your two cents I'd really appreciate it. Thanks--Sparkygravity (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've left my thoughts on the talk page. -- Beland (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, great edits, totally approved of revisions as of 21:49, 31 December 2007. Especially the Retitle section: Classifying fictional civilizations, it always bothered me cause the books describe advanced civilizations, but don't use the Kardashev scale to describe them. It's like the viewpoint was backwards, writers use science to describe science fiction... not sci-fi to describe science.--Sparkygravity (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. 8) -- Beland (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Future Energy Worldwide energy consumption and production

Hi, Sparkygravity, and a Happy New Year! Unfortunately I don't have the "World Energy Outlook" book at home, so can't help with this right now. The IEA makes its publications free of charge available after two years, so the latest you could find in the web is "World Energy Outlook 2005". Concerning converting different energy units, I would suggest to look IEA's publication Key World Energy Statistics 2007. At the page 58 it has rules how to convert energy units (including Btu). Beagel (talk) 07:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

So basically the "World Energy Outlook 2005" is under GFDL copyrights?--Sparkygravity (talk) 11:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's under GFDL copyrights.Beagel (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Kardashev scale

Hi, how do I go to the Talk archive for the page... not the peer review archive, but the stuff you archived. Can we provide a link on Talk:Kardashev scale page?--Sparkygravity (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to add a link at the top of the talk page. Fixed now. -- Beland (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Good deal! Thanks.--Sparkygravity (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

Please do not ask any user to peer review. One is enough. Thank you and happy editing, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems that something is missing from my previous sentence and changed its meaning. I did not meant say "any user" but "any user in Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers". I did spotted your notices as they repeatedly come up while vandal patrolling :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I didn't rolled back your notices, and I hope one or more of these users will get back to you with the 3rd part feedback you need :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool, cool, thx--Sparkygravity (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think perhaps the first sentence there should be "do no request reviews from every user on the list"? I'm afraid I don't have time to help just now, but hopefully one of the others you've asked will be of service. – Scartol • Tok 19:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, every. Even the correction wasn't ok :( ;-) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

We all fumble from time to time--Sparkygravity (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] stealling table from user:Fir0002 since I hate going to his page each time I want to use it.

`{{Subst:User:Fir0002/Support}}`	= Support
`{{Subst:User:Fir0002/Weak Support}}`	= Weak Support
`{{Subst:User:Fir0002/Weak Oppose}}`	= Weak Oppose
`{{Subst:User:Fir0002/Oppose}}`	= Oppose
`{{Subst:User:Fir0002/Neutral}}`	= Neutral

[edit] Kardashev again

Hi Sparkgravity. I don't have time to do a full review now. My immediate comment: take the details of the three types out of the lead and move them to a full section immediately after the lead. It's too much detail. Summarize the types in a couple of sentences instead in the lead. Marskell (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

On your suggestion of trimming the antimatter section, I think it's a good idea. There's way too much detail there now, even after I moved the Tsar Bomba stuff to the intro. [If you follow Marskell's suggestion, you would need to put it in the new section, of course. Probably it should be attached to the discussion of Type I] Ben Standeven (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it all to megatons; that way the paragraph isn't cluttered by exponents, and the power usage of the hypothetical Type I civilization is just a simple unit conversion.Ben Standeven (talk) 08:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your comment to me on the 28th. Basically, I'm saying take the three bullets out of the lead and leave a shorter summary instead. Create a new section immediately below and move the bullets there. Marskell (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Future energy

The nuclear section was long ago merged into the energy development article. The rest of the article has been replaced with a redirect. The nuclear power article uses the word future 8 or 9 times, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and editors are cautioned not to speculate about the future. 199.125.109.64 (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

the article has been tagged for merge for quite a long time. ostensibly all the appropriate info was moved into the energy development article. 199.125.109.64 is confused about WP:CRYSTAL. if reliable sources speculate about future events, there's absolutely no preclusion to them. WP editors are enjoined from speculating. the future energy development article did have a lot of WP:OR and commentary in it about possible future energy sources (ranging into the realm of speculations about star trek 'technologies') which i and others culled from it some time back. Anastrophe (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good job!

I just want to say good job on that article you made from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Most wanted page! However I removed the link of it under 'completed goals' in the wikiproject missing articles. The pages get added to that list once all the articles are completed (redirected/made/removed etc). But feel free once you have worked on the entire page Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Most wanted to then add it back to the completed goal list ;). Cheers!Calaka (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC Bot

Not only did I fix your RFC, I fixed everyone else's! See, the bot mysteriously dropped offline. I propped it back to life. MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 23:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, it just might have done that. It kept talking all about this "President Gore". MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 01:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] From CG

I've responded to your message, back on User talk:CharlesGillingham. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page background

This page background Rocks BTW, makes me want to steal the idea--Sparkygravity (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. I “stole” it from someone else. ;) --Loremaster (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Darwin Among the Machines

I created an article on Darwin Among the Machines, using your (well written, well researched and interesting) material that appeared in History of AI. It's all you, and you might be interested in developing the article further (a second source would be nice.) I realized afterwards that I probably should have run this by you before I went ahead and boldly carried this out, but I think you agree that this subject is interesting and important enough to deserve its own article. I'm also working on shortening History of AI and AI down to the correct length of 10 printed pages (not counting footnotes, references, ex. links, etc.) This means a few things have to be cut and branched into new articles. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Funny, about Kellogg. There's no hurry on Butler. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Duh, I believe Charles cut-and-pasted material that I had added to AI, but no matter. I like the new page and have added to it a quote from a review of George B. Dyson's Darwin Among the Machines: The Evolution of Global Intelligence (1998) ISBN 0-7382-0030-1; See Also; Categories; and links to other articles. Pawyilee (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

PS. O! Boy, did I ever find a much better review of Dyson! It's an interesting-people message and concludes:

Dyson weaves together all of this and more, skillfully but sketchily. Exclusive of the front matter, notes, and index, the book is only 228 pages. There are many parts I can't summarize without trivializing them. I don't know if the book has an identifiable thesis, but a central idea is this:

       "In the game of life and evolution there are three players
        at the table: human beings, nature, and machines. I am
        firmly on the side of nature. But nature, I suspect, is on
        the side of the machines."

This is a deep book. There is not much point to reading it unless you want to think about the issues it raises. Most of us are usually too busy to do that. If you have a little free time this summer, reading and thinking about this book might be a good way to spend it.

Pawyilee (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I just realized (a month later) that I had confused you two. I orginally meant to tell Pawyilee that I had created Darwin Among the Machines -- not you, Sparkygravity. So much for doing accurate research (ha). That's embarassing. Sorry guys. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia talk:Adopt-a-User. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Your tribute to the Ramones does not belong on that talk page. Put it on one of your userspaces instead. _contribs STYROFOAM☭1994^TALK 16:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see STYROFOAM☭1994 discussion page for details.Thx--Sparkygravity (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:82.47.141.134

Following discussion with the blocking admin I have upped the block to 3 months. Permanent bans are not done implemented for IPs since the IP address may be reallocated but hopefully this longer period may mean he gets bored and finds another hobby. TerriersFan (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adoption

I saw on your userpage about adoption do you want to be adoopted? - J.Naven 19:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with science so you might want a different user for that and I must say that your work on that article is great - J.Naven 15:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adoption by me

Hello, Sparkygravity. I noticed that you put a tag saying you wished to be adopted. Would it be all right for me to adopt you? STYROFOAM1994^talk Review me! 23:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speculations on writing style

Short answer: short logical steps = not rambling.

Thanks for taking my suggestions re Kardashev seriously, of course they are only suggestions and rather general in some ways.

Re being concise. Here are some further reflections from me on the topic. "Concise" can be used subjectively and objectively. When I read a book that aims to explain a technical subject to a popular audience, it can feel drawn-out and long winded. That's my personal, subjective impression, explained by my expertise in the subject, not by any failing in the text I'm reading. When I read an academic journal article outside my field of study, I can sometimes feel exactly the same thing -- the article goes on and on about things that seem to be details and irrelevant to me. In this case it is my ignorance, not the text that gives me the impression of lack of conciseness (concision?).

A reader will describe text as tangential, meandering and not concise when there is substantial text that does not address the reader's questions. This can be an objective fact. Authors often include asides that are not really necessary to progressing a point they're making. Sometimes, however, assides are there to assist novices to "stay on board" with the flow, or to provide experts with additional information. I tend to put the first in parentheses in the body of text and the second in footnotes.

Examples:

Backgammon is played with board, chequers and dice, which are normally thrown from shakers. [The last clause is rather trivial.]
A "doubling" cube can also be used (the six faces marked 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 and 64). [The aside is for novices, and may or may not help people visualise the extra piece of equipment.]
A player will "double" when she thinks a win is sufficiently likely. Footnote: 75% in money games, but higher or lower than this in tournament play. [Consideration of the actual percentages is complex and distracting for people learning the basics.]

I guess I've not been very concise here! ;) All I'm saying is that all readers are different, they have different knowledge and different interests. You can't please all the people, all the time! However, novices do not read footnotes, so put text they don't need out of the way in footnotes (there are other strategies). Experts will criticise oversimplified text, raising all sorts of wierd and wonderful exceptions. By footnoting such things, experts are satisfied that accuracy and precision are satisfied.

A good backgammon article will have a logical structure like: history, equipment, rules, tournaments, money games, strategy, famous players, literature. Experts will not read the equipment and rules sections. Novices need to read the rules before they read about strategy. Strategy is so complex, only the main principles can be explained, exceptions and detailed explanations really need to be consigned to links or references.

I don't know enough about literature that interacts with Kardashev to know where to draw the lines in that article. I tried to suggest broad ways of thinking about the article to help editors like yourself work towards being comfortable with a text that has a high level of logical structure, working like an index so readers can skim it for the information they want.

When I don't read the bits I'm not interested in, I am much less likely to feel things are not concise.

Guessing what readers want to know is not an exact science, and feedback, even broad feedback will only tell you what those readers want. Personally, I kind of enjoy the challenge of producing text that will not suit everyone perfectly, but accomodates the widest possible range of people with a high degree of comfort.

The vocabulary and grammar of the Kardashev article flow very well. There is a clear logic in the table of contents. However, I guess we could work out a series of questions that are answered step by step and improve it further.

For example, I don't think it would hurt to explain that "Many features considered to be distinctive of civilization require energy. For example, even as far back as the invention of writing, workers needed to spend time producing materials to be used in the production of documents, and others needed to actually do the writing. The printing press allowed less energy to be expended for higher output. The industrial revolution automated even more of the printing process, but started using energy sources other than physical human labour. Twenty first century technology allows text to be produced and distributed electronically. It is a tiny fraction of what is known as the energy budget of contemporary society."

The kind of text I'm proposing is obviously for novices. I think many would actually appreciate having it spelled out for them (also, children read and learn from Wiki). Experts (and adults) know how to skim and will correctly see where all this text is going, just from the first sentence. They will skip (fast-forward) to the next para. They will like the text, because its logic allows them to read (including skimming) easily.

There we go, that's my point, concise is technically a term describing density of information. It is not always a good thing. Who reads the phone book cover to cover? In practice, people complain that something is "not concise", when it includes asides they consider irrelevant to their questions. This problem can often be bypassed by using predictable logical development, or by using footnotes and parentheses. There are other strategies too. The article makes good use of bullet points and diagrams, these suggest a lot of information implicitly, without the reader expending much effort to interpret them.

Cheers, Alastair Haines (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sparky, you are doing great work. I am learning to write for other people, and it is a challenging service to learn. People are so diverse and not uniformly appreciative. Your feedback on my feedback shows two qualities I value highly in people. You treat what I offer with a thoughtfulness evident from your comments. It shows a respect for other people and an inquiring mind. I also suspect I detect an enthusiastic wonder at the marvels of the world, and a passion to extend the bounds of human knowledge, both by discovery and by sharing those discoveries. I wish I could offer to work more closely with you, but I really must apply my time elsewhere just now. Do feel free to alert me if you think I can be of further service. Forgive me if I'm slow to respond. I hope to be checking back on this article from time to time, whether invited or not! ;) Bravo Sparky! Wiki's a great project to participate in, isn't it? :) Alastair Haines (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adopt offer

I'd be happy to adopt you! Let me know if your interested. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 16:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you decided if you want me to adopt you? - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 21:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)