User talk:Graeme E. Smith

On this page, sections containing at least 2 signed contributions are automatically archived, if the last contribution is at least 30 days old.

Or at least that's the theory... Doesn't seem to work too well!--Graeme E. Smith 06:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, I have logged on however I can't seem to access the original discusson page 10:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It is here: Topic talk:Artificial consciousness.--Juandev 08:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, it is me again. I see you have started with editing. Here we see it: [1]. Lets have a look:

• Artificial Consciousness - great job
• You have some problems to watch pages you are editing? - lets try this "when you are log in click on" MY PREFERENCES --> WATCHLIST --> than "Add pages I create to my watchlist" and "Add pages I edit to my watchlist" should be ticked
• (AC) - what is this? page Artificial Consciousness is not enough?
• and one more thing try to put appropriate categories. Just add in on the en of the page this: [[Category:something]], note that "something" is the subject of the category.

Hope I help you and have a good time in here.--Juandev 09:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I made a couple of changes to Artificial Consciousness/Philosophy of Mind. The "#REDIRECT" may have been causing a problem, though mostly it is just unneeded. I see that you have {{/Philosophy of Mind/}} in Artificial Consciousness. That complicates the page, without really gaining you much. You might also find that you need to purge the cache when viewing Artificial Consciousness to see any changes that were made to Artificial Consciousness/Philosophy of Mind. This can be done using: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Artificial_Consciousness?action=purge That is, just add ?action=purge to the end of the url in your browswer. Let me know if you have any more questions, or need help. If you leave a note on my talk page just include the name of the page you are editing so I can find where you are having problems. --mikeu ^talk 23:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

ping--Juandev 23:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Huh, I am amazed how big and interesting structure you are building here. But I would like to ask you a few questions:

• Do you think that color combination is nice? its up to you, but...
• could you create there also some category system and conect it with general category tree, please? the categories can be hidden
• where would you like to create that scientific paper? and what will be the license?
• if you are writing about the library, note that there is something like Wikibooks and Wikipedia, which has some free data
• in the case of repository, library and forums, be free to use your imagination. I think they can stay in the main ns or you can add there a "prefix:"

--Juan de Vojníkov 01:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Juan, The color combination was partly chosen by me being lazy, and using the color combination that came with the tabbed portal It is arbitrary but care should be taken when changing it, because there is a complex interrelationship between different parts of the page especially at the bottom of the tabs.

I don't know much about the category system, except how to link to it... I see that the main page has been categorized, and I could probably do the same thing for other pages, but it sounds like you had something different in mind?

The idea of a repository, is that it will hold a number of scientific papers at different levels of completion. The idea is that our budding scientists can develop the skills to write papers of merit here, and then publish them in journals. The problem might be in the GDFL license requireing them not to copyright under a different license I am not a legal mind, and there might be a problem with that, and the journals involved. I don't know the specifics of the GDFL but on other systems that use free licensing provisions there is sometimes that caveat built in, which would be a distinct limitation for the student scientist.

The scientific papers involved will probably be created in the normal namespace as articles, I might develop a Template to build them from, that links them to a listing in the portal there is no reason why I can't put a self type message into the template, or prefix the filename with something to indicate it is in the GreySmith Institute Repository. Maybe create a GreySmith Institute Repository page in the standard name space and link the articles as sub-pages to it....

Thanks for the links, I will be looking into a library right after I finish fleshing out my Departmental structure, and write the repository and forum pages. I think you are right though, the discussions should be in the standard name space so that they can be searched.

Huh, last point to the licenses. You are right, many papers call authors to allow their work for their speciall license, which doesnt allow open distribution. But it is a time to break ice. Maybe you know PubMed, they already offer some paper under open licenses.--Juan de Vojníkov 02:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

You are of course right, some publishers are more open than others. The problem is that the market for this type of information is extremely limited, and Elsevier for one does not seem to have as liberal an attitude. I know of at least two publications by them that would be potential targets for the students once their quality is high enough, and if the students aren't reminded that their work is done under a public license they might mistakenly try to sell it to one of those less open publishers and get the mistaken impression that there was a quality issue not a licensing issue.

I have seen how quickly and hard you've been working on the Institute, and some of the subpages. My work and coursework take up time, and so I can only do WV part time. Thanks for telling me about the Courseware page, I'll be interested to see what courses you develop. By the way, are you interested in any of the courses I've started or am working on?

Well, I'll have to skim through your Neuroscience courses some day.--Graeme E. Smith 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please do. Just to let you know, they still need a LOT of work, as do most courses on WV. --AFriedman 01:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

The WikiEducator course does not cost money to sign up for, and will put you in touch with other people in the educational wiki community. Some of them are awesome. Say hi to Nellie, Patricia and Gladys for me! --AFriedman 20:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, I'll look into it the next time I have a few minutes to rub together.--Graeme E. Smith 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hope to see you there! --AFriedman 01:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well written, and good level of detail. Keep the good work up. AC --Sunstar NW XP 23:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for replying; I'm not sure how I can help with your modules, but they are coming on well. As regards AC, well, that's my initials (I can't really give out my personal details, since it's the Internet, and safety's an issue etc.). Thanks anyway regarding artificial consciousness, will read it anyway though. AC --Sunstar NW XP 18:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, no need for personal details, Well, the way I have it set up, if you want to contribute, and know something about one of the subjects that I have listed, you can substitute in a page on that subject simply by replacing the black ink, with an anchor for your own page. I am planning to get around to expanding the links myself someday but as my portal gets larger, the number of possible links to populate gets larger as well, and if they branch out, which they often do, the number of links that they create just adds to the problem. This is a labor of love, so I will be at it for a while, but the more the merrier as they say.--Graeme E. Smith 21:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

• No worries, I'll feel free to help out on your project if you want. Thanks, AC. --Sunstar NW XP 17:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Graeme, I was thinking about you and I decided to try and create a way for people like you to be recognized for research of merit. I would appreciate your help and feedback on Wikiversity:Mentors and Research Mentoring Program. --AFriedman 18:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

So, if I get this right, I could be a Course Mentor on either Non-Genetic Darwinism or Artificial Consciousness, A Subject Mentor on Non-Genetic Darwinism, and a Research Apprentice?--Graeme E. Smith 18:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

A research apprentice and a course mentor on your 2 courses, yes. My thinking was that subject mentorship could be in broader categories than what you were proposing, e.g. you could be a subject mentor in complexity theory. What do you think? --AFriedman 19:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Actually I don't feel qualified to be a subject mentor on complexity theory, it is after all a subject area in Artificial Intelligence that I have not fully investigated.

I was thinking that this mentorship stuff could be quite useful for my GreySmith Institute Portal, in that I could gather together some mentors to help my advanced students advance through the status levels, but was wondering why you hadn't included something like a "Research Director" level? as that is the level that I personally aspire towards, or I would not be building nearly as large a portal as I am.--Graeme E. Smith 19:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Suppose Research Director is a higher level of mentorship that includes mentoring in several related fields. Go ahead and add that to the page I started if you like it. --AFriedman 19:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I was thinking more like a Research Director would direct a Laboratory or Institute that had mentored doctors of research in several related fields.--Graeme E. Smith 19:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, I'll take a look at what you've done. --AFriedman 19:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've made some changes but I like what you wrote overall. IMO since Director of Research implies supervising others, I would consider it a Mentoring role. --AFriedman 20:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I see how you have changed the page, the list however seems daunting when compared to the minimal requirements for Mentor, and the "Supervisor" role is not explained unless that is a role in publication. Perhaps we need some intervening status rules, such as a master mentor who has a slightly less daunting set of tasks?--Graeme E. Smith 20:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I added the mentor role of professor as an intermediate role, check the qualifications, they might not be steep enough--Graeme E. Smith 20:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, the rules about how supervisors and supervised are recognized as such still need work. I would appreciate your input. They're on the main page of Wikiversity:Mentors. --AFriedman 20:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hmmmm.... Maybe I am blind I didn't actually see the mentor role supervisor on that page.--Graeme E. Smith 21:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

The section I'm talking about is the section about how mentors and mentees agree to make their mentoring relationship official. It's important if we're going to give higher level certifications to people who have supervised a certain number of students. --AFriedman 21:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Do you want to join the Friedman Lab? I'm happy to be your research mentor. I'm fixing my Userpage right now so there would be a place for you to put yourself in, and what you say will affect how I write it. --AFriedman 17:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I see you have changed your labs direction slightly from evolutionary biology to evolutionary Neuroscience and Marine Biology. The problem I have, is that while there is room in my Institute for such research, I am not myself, a biologist. I see you have tried to open up your lab, to leave room for me, and I have nothing against you as a course mentor, but it is one thing to be a course mentor, and another thing to be a research mentor. Furthermore the lab itself is underdeveloped, as far as I can tell, since it has no infrastructure for storing papers while they are being worked on. On the other hand, although I have placed the infrastructure the actual paper repository on my Institute is as yet un-developed so there is room to work together to build such a structure. I think this is an interesting option, but I think we should look at a couple of other options, such as linking your lab to the institute, so that it can make use of the repository if I ever get it working, etc. Another alternative, is, if you are up to running a second laboratory, creating a laboratory in the Institute that focusses in on comparative neuroscience or some such topic that is more directed towards the aims of the Institute.--Graeme E. Smith 21:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'll tell you where I'm coming from. My short-term goal is to change my Userpage so it is presentable to people I know in real life. Rather than being primarily a fictional world, I'm revising it to be a place where real people have a way to participate. This, more than the change of focus from evolutionary biology to Neuroscience/marine biology, is the real change in direction. The research program is the same plus "Non-genetic Darwinism" (I'm working on other projects besides yours). Once I'm done with that, I'd like to try and show "Non-Genetic Darwinism" to a trained physicist because I can't check the physics part of it for accuracy. I'll probably be interested in joining the GreySmith Institute soon, but the Institute's mission, as you have formulated it, feels more like a single research lab than like a research department. Joining my lab as a volunteer would not require a change in your Wikiversity focus, since your interests are close enough to mine, and will help make the case that the Friedman Lab (and by extension the GreySmith Institute) is a real place that offers research resources to real people. I also suggest that you change "religion" (referring to Unit Field) to "untestable hypothesis" or something of the sort, at least on your main Userpage, because it looks crazy to call it "religion." --AFriedman 20:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well I told you I had mental health issues, so if I act crazy from time to time, I have an excuse and Unit field really is my religion. Actually Unit field fanaticism or UFF is what I call it on official forms. I understand that you think GreySmith Institute is a lab, but what it really is, is a research institute where I envision a number of laboratories. I may have failed to express that adequately in the infrastructure I have created so far, but that is just a lack of foresight, in how to present my ideas. While I would normally say go for it, as far as presenting the physics of self-organization to a physicist, I have to admit that I tend to fall on the maverick side of science, no matter how hard I try to conform so too hidebound a physicist would just reject my work out of hand. A new kind of science, is not considered mainstream so my choice of supporting information might be taken badly.--Graeme E. Smith 00:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just curious, what specific mental illness do you have? You don't have to answer this question if you don't want to. I do suggest you restructure the Institute to make it closer to the intent you described. A couple of other things. First of all, no one says you should put your religion over here. I don't know the religion of most other people in the WV community and perhaps you could just leave it out, or say that you call it a religion as opposed to describing it outright as a "my religion." Just a thought. Why do you have it on your page at all? Second of all, science isn't about conforming to the establishment. It's about finding what is true or not true, regardless of whether it's in agreement with the establishment. I just looked at what "A new kind of science" is and to me at least, it looks serious enough to not be embarrassed about. For me, that would mean it seems to have reasonable scientific intentions even if its scholarship may be flawed. Perhaps a real physicist might explain the field better, or help contextualize what you are trying to get out of "A new kind of science." --AFriedman 01:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

As to my mental illness, I have at least one, and possibly a number of personality disorders some of which are not treatable by today's science. My main personality disorder seems to be related to a childhood disease that blocked an important milestone in my development that was required to make me adaptable socially. As a result of this condition, my upbringing in an attempt to respond to the way it made me unmanageable, overshot in some regards creating other possible personality disorders which have complicated the mix. Added to that, it is normal for people with my first personality disorder to become depressed and suffer low motivation, and they tend to become loners, unable to work with others. This has made me what we used to call in the CB days a closet extrovert.

As to religion, I am proud of my religion, I thought it up myself, while I was very sick, It's mine, all mine (Hysteric Laughter) and I won't give it up even if it makes me look weird!

So now that we have that out of the way, Lets get back to physics. I am pretty sure of the classical interpretation of entropy and equilibrium, and the Second Law. What I see as questionable is the energy/entropy balance and precipitation of order concepts. Those are possibly influenced by my religion, although I try to keep science and my religion separate. There might be a similar effect that physicists have called inflation, but this theory would make it more prevalent than the theories I have heard about inflation. An interesting reinforcement for my concepts would be the Edge of Chaos concept but that has already had some negative press, possibly because of an expectation of a rule rather than an equilibrium. However the Energy/Entropy Equilibrium argument changes the nature of the expectations of the edge of chaos, from a midpoint calculation that would not hold up statistically if there were much variation to an Oscillation that might.--Graeme E. Smith 06:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Interesting. What specific questions do you have about the energy/entropy balance and precipitation of order concepts? I'm not going to comment on your mental illness, except to say that whatever you haven't been able to do in the rest of your life, you're now in a place where the things you do are good and worthwhile. I hope this makes you happy. --AFriedman 14:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, as someone who is perpetually depressed, happiness is not something I expect anymore, but, enough about that, I think you misunderstood what I was saying, the questions I have, are whether energy/entropy balance and precipitation of order are provable. They are a nice theory, but can they be proven? ah, there's the rub. It is easy to disprove a law, all you need is one counter example, but when you try to find a new solution that fits the data, well, there may be many solutions that fit some of the data it is only after you are sure that they fit all the data that you can call them laws. The second law of thermodynamics is thought to be a law because at the time it was created, it fit all the data. It is only now that we have Quantum Uncertainty, and the Hubble Telescope that we wonder if it still fits all the data.--142.59.227.199 16:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Sorry about that, lost my Session--Graeme E. Smith 16:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't know the answer to that question. This is why I want to talk to a physicist.  :) --AFriedman 02:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well don't be surprised if the first few physicists you talk to about it, are dismissive, not all of them are into the deep questions about basic self-organization, and if they aren't then they won't even want to look at it. I get that reaction a lot ;)--Graeme E. Smith 05:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Its easy: {{delete|reason}}. Not "{{delete: --Graeme E. Smith 19:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)}} error in nomenclature!" Better {{delete|error in nomenclature --Graeme E. Smith 19:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)}}. So for the next time:-)--Juan de Vojníkov 08:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry Juan, if I get the time, I will actually take a course in Wiki-language instead of guessing

but as you can probably see, my Portal is keeping me very busy right now, just building the infrastructure on which to base my institute. I am afraid you can expect me to make more errors before I am done, did you get all the bad deletes? there should have been three or four. I only did them when I got caught in a cul-de-sac, so there might be a few orphaned pages out there that didn't actually get a delete recommendation as well.--Graeme E. Smith 13:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I like that you divided the study of brain evolution by taxonomical categories. Perhaps the section about "brain evolution" could be deleted, because it's certainly interesting to study the nervous systems of organisms without brains? Instead, it could be replaced with a section about the various approaches to studying the evolution of the brain (e.g., through functional physiology, functional genetics, construction and analysis of phylogenetic trees, development, etc.) --AFriedman 18:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

You are certainly welcome to study organisms without brains in your section on Neural Evolution, but what I wanted to capture since it is a part of what I am trying to do, is some sense of how the brain evolved through these taxonomical stages, many of which either precede human brains, or are alternative routes that evolution could have taken. Give me an idea of what type of sections might be good for Neural Evolution, and I will flesh out the infrastructure for you. For instance do you want to do research on micro-organisms? They certainly don't have brains but some have sensory systems and some can steer themselves towards food, etc. Or, are you more oriented towards biological organisms that are more complex, but still don't have brains?--Graeme E. Smith 19:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Part of my work involves studying the transition from a radially symmetrical nervous system without a brain, to a bilaterally symmetrical nervous system. This would mean the early evolution of the brain. Currently, I'm not studying perception in organisms without nervous systems. --AFriedman 22:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok, so we don't need to worry about micro-organisms. Is there a link between bilateral symmetry in it's earliest form, and vertebrates, or does this all fit into the non-vertebrate Taxonomy?

--Graeme E. Smith 22:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Vertebrates and their relatives are all bilaterally symmetrical. The transitions to and from bilateral symmetry occurred in invertebrates. --AFriedman 23:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, I thought so, I have been laying in the infrastructure, for an invertebrates section under Evolutionary Neuroscience I thought I might set up the tabs so that they say, Laboratories, Theories, Results, or something like that, how does that sound?--Graeme E. Smith 23:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

How about "Species," "Questions," "Approaches" instead? --AFriedman 02:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Works for me, but then you wouldn't be able to have a link directly to your lab, unless I put it on the previous page. Would you mind having a second lab, or is it perhaps that you will publish your results once in your own lab, and once on the Institute?--Graeme E. Smith 03:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't quite understanding what you were thinking. How about keeping "Laboratories", and I'll put a link to my lab over there. The second tab could be "Areas of Study" and the third could be "Resources and Techniques." Results could be on the main page because that's the most visible. I'm working on changing my lab so my projects and approaches can be in the subpages. What are your thoghts? --AFriedman 03:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hmmmm..... Caught me making the changes.... How about a 4 tab page instead of a three tab page? I could put Laboratories, Areas of Studies, Resources and Techniques, and Results, all on the same page, It just works better the way I have the infrastructure set up already, otherwise I have a snarl to try to overcome.--Graeme E. Smith 03:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

ok. --AFriedman 17:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Have you taken a look at it? I put a tenative link to your lab there already--Graeme E. Smith 17:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes and thanks for sharing the link, I might not have known where the page was otherwise. I just wrote back to you on my Userpage. --AFriedman 17:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is to let you know I've responded to a recent comment of yours in case your not watching it. -- darklama  14:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry for making you confused, here is some explanation of what I meant:

1- The basic word I used for translation is when I append a corresponding article in Arabic to a similar article in English of the same Title. This doesn't necessarily mean having the same contents but at least titles should be available in other language as in Wikipedia.

2- In case I would like to translate the contents of an English written article, it is because most of the English site articles, particularly at wikipedia are more reliable resources (i.e: having more than a reference). This is not the same in Arabic, in which our articles are still very rare (according to the last statistics, we've just exceeded the 100,000 articles). Regarding wikiversity, I'm still new to this site and would like to participate in the Arabic articles (although Arabic hasn't been decided to be part of the main wikiversity due to the lack of voters). I still believe there are articles that should be word for word translated such as guides, rules and policies of the site because they are part of wikimedia foundation policies.

3- I might be specialized in one or more few scientific issues and in this case I may make new articles or modify existing ones easily without the need to read some more in English site. However if the articles are relivant to culture, religion, history or any similar subjects then I either have to give up or translate an existing article. Which do you recommend me? If I give up, then Arabic site will lack for many features. Of course there are subjects as in the language and religion which should be specified independently according to each culture rather than translated or even created in a similar way.

Anyhow if you feel this behavior might be wrong, I'd be glad to know.

I hope that you also give me a link to the location(s) I translated so I can understand your statement. --Email4mobile 15:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've just received a welcome message from Wikiversity (after I wrote you a reply) which lead me to the Babel page. I read it their but still couldn't get the point. I visited another page (Multilingualism) which is discussing whether or not translate the Wikiversity articles and the reasons for against. Thank you very much.. Email4mobile 16:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, sorry I took so long to answer, I was busy reading an article by Gary Marcus. It was my impression that in most cases rather than mix languages on any one site, we were putting together language specific sites. That is why I commented. I can understand your frustration with the fact that the Arabic Language site is limited in topics. The English Language Wikiversity is older, and English has been the language of science for a considerable period of time, allowing us to gather much more data quickly, than your language could without translation. I was just noting that generally we do not see direct translation on the English site, and making sure you were aware of the other options. If you want to add some related material, it is usually added in a section called See Also: For instance I have seen references to the German wikiversity and French Wikiversity done in that manner. Usually the references are in English, even though the articles they reference are in the language of the site that is referenced. You can do this by using the alternate label ability of the interwiki to put an English label on an Arabic reference. I was so surprised to see the Arabic phrase on the Historical Introduction to Philosophy page that I thought I should mention the other options to you.--Graeme E. Smith 18:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure if there is a seasonal spike in vandalism. In this case it looks like a cross-wiki vandal who has been persistant in hitting a number of wikimedia projects. --mikeu ^talk 16:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, I don't think it's the same account being used, and my second vandal attack was a little bit more creative than the first that only changed a single word. The fact that they used the chaquacabra as the template for the vandalism in the second attack suggests a possible latin-american source and the fact that the account name was red, suggested inter-wiki. Would this user have multiple accounts? Is that why a Block was requested?--Graeme E. Smith 04:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps I'm thinking of a different instance of vandalism. Could you show me a link? Ok, I think I see the one you are talking about. The user was blocked because of harasement. --mikeu ^talk 15:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well the second attack was aimed at my user page, if you look in the history of that page you will perhaps see that I undid the damage. The vandal tried to change my introduction to incorporate an article on the chackacobra. Implying that I was some dread beast. The first attack was on a course I was working on with AFreidman Fundamentals of Neuroscience where someone changed one word in the quiz module on the basic electrical theory module. I documented it in the talk page because I wasn't sure that it had been actually vandalism. However the fact that the user did not attempt to defend his change suggests that in fact either it was or they accepted my edit. Recently I had to remove some useless edits from User:Wikademia, which might be what you thought was harrassment.

I was wondering about the seasonal nature of vandalism, perhaps because of the seasonal nature of education where people get too involved in their own work to attack others work. I thought that maybe I had been blessed with a slow period of vandalism while I was first learning to edit, and now maybe there was an increase. The other possibility is that now my work is better publicized and so catches more negative attention.Of course it could be random, and therefore the increase is due to the volume of my work.--Graeme E. Smith 18:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I consider edits like these [2] [3] on someone's user page to be harassement (in addition to vandalism) and would block the account, as Juan did. The way you handled the elecron wavefront edit was fine. --mikeu ^talk 15:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks it is difficult to know how best to approach something like this. I hesitate to take offense too early, but when I tried to contact Wikademia, he ignored my entry in his talk page, so I felt I had to react more negatively, even though I hadn't felt harrassed originally. Perhaps what he is doing with his useless edits, and so on, is not harrassment by your definition, but it is certainly annoying as the negative comments on his user page indicate. I guess I had thought harrassment would be more like Wikademia's useless edits, and Vandalism more like the chakacobra incident. It sounds like you see them in an inverted relationship where vandalism is more like the electron wavefront edit, and harrassment more like the chakacobra incident?--Graeme E. Smith 19:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would define harassment to be a personal attack, like modifying the text on a user's home page to include a disparaging or insulting remark. Notice that our WV:CIVIL policy specifically lists "personal attacks" and "defacing user pages" as more serious examples of incivility. The electon edit might have been someone who was trying to be overly technical in defining wave/particle or possibly a confused new user making a test edit. I didn't see that edit as being as malicious as the vulgrar comments left on the Pomerane user page. It might be annoying or frustrating, but I wouldn't take it personally. Just to put it in perspective, compare that edit to this one. --mikeu ^talk 20:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I can see why that last one is offensive enough to have a stronger category. So Wikademia in comparison is rather tame and lame. Is there even a category for what he is doing? or is the category of useless edits good enough? I was wondering if (the numbers might be a clue) he was collecting edits to inflate his statistics. I have seen that type of thing used as a selling point in elections.--Graeme E. Smith 20:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Graeme,

Could you remove [[Category:Psychology]] from your user subpages?

This will make the category much friendlier to navigate e.g., see Psychology.

Sincerely, James - -- Jtneill - Talk - c 14:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

My appologies, I am trying to meet the requirements of the wiki that I classify everything so that it can be found multiple ways. Would there be a better classification still within the psychology rubric that would work, say Neuropsychology or Psychology research papers? Alternately I could move the location into portal GreySmith Institutes repository, if that would look better? or wait to classify them psychology until they are completed and moved to a different site? I don't see removing the classification by itself as being the proper path to take because they are a part of a Neuropsychological theoretical model. But I don't want to screw up your psychology page either. Unless there is an obscure little corner for obscure little research papers, how will there be room in Wikiversity for research?--Graeme E. Smith 17:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, yes, this makes sense. I haven't look closely at the content of those pages, I'm sorry, but in principle I'd suggest categorising them as belonging to one or more learning projects, then categorising those project(s) within relevant psychological categories. Generally, however, user subpages aren't categorised within the main categories. You can use user categories or move the content into the main space and put in the mainspace categories.... hope this makes sense, if not let me know. Sincerely, James. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 18:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok, lets see what you think of this idea, I class them as GreySmith/Psychology, suggesting that they are part of the Portal:GreySmith Institute research project, and classified as psychology.

That way they don't register as psychology on the main page. The main reason that they are part of my user pages, is that I want to edit them a bit before I release them into the wild. Otherwise I would have built them in the GreySmith Repository in the first place. I fully intend to place them there once I am sure that they are presentable. I'll try changing them and then look back at your psychology page to see if it made a difference.--Graeme E. Smith 23:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

That sounds excellent, Graeme, thanks a lot - and I see you're well underway. Appreciate it. Sincerely, James - -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

That's all fine, Graeme, no problem. You are better off adding things to a general category than not at all - then at least someone can add them to a more specific category later on. I should have been keeping a closer eye myself on Category:Psychology. Have returned just now to pay some particular attention to the categories because I have 350 first year psychology students next semester whom I hope to introduce to Wikiversity ! Thanks for your contributions. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, well, Artificial Consciousness is a large course, and when I started out on it, I didn't know about subfiles, so many of its menus open up onto separate pages that aren't linked back to the original site. I notice that in these cases you are setting the categories for the nature of the file, and may not be recognizing their role in the course.--Graeme E. Smith 02:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure, but it sounds like you might want the bot to automatically archive your talk page? The template to use is Template:Auto archive But, just doing a simple copy and paste should work fine. It looks like you have added a link on your talk page to User talk:Graeme E. Smith/Archive July 2009 but that the page does not exist yet. Let me know if you want it done automatically, or if you prefer to do it by hand, and I'll give you detailed instructions. --mikeu ^talk 18:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

One more thing - don't worry too much about the "speed limit warning" thing. It is often a good idea to prevent a page from growing too long, but you are not required to keep it under that limit. There is no hurry to "fix" this. You can choose to archive the talk page in any way that suits you. --mikeu ^talk 18:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the tip about Auto archive. The simple copy and paste didn't work because for some reason even though I selected the contents I wanted to copy, it wouldn't store the text, I tried two different browsers, FireFox 3.0/3.5 and Explorer 6 and neither would copy, this either means I have been jammed in some setting on my home computer or that that page is not responding to the copy request. Cut removed the text but left me with no options because it too did not retain the text. I even tried drag and drop without any effect, so it looks like the only option I have other than rebuilding my computer software from scratch, is to Auto archive. Go figure.--Graeme E. Smith 18:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps there is a limit to how much text you can cut and paste? Maybe try cutting a smaller amount, paste and save, then try moving some more? --mikeu ^talk 19:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

No I wasn't cutting that much. It is definitely some unwillingness to enter the text into the clipboard. I added the Auto archive template according to its documentation, is there a bot registration step needed, or do I just wait for the bot to recognize it?--Graeme E. Smith 19:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is no need to register. According to the instructions at User:ArchiveBot: "I run everyday at 5 am and at 2 pm (UTC)" So, give it a half day to see how it works. --mikeu ^talk 19:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I left a message for the bot operator. Maybe there is something more that needs to get done to activate it. --mikeu ^talk 00:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Maybe the bot ages its own entries, and the 30 days setting is holding it up. If so we might expect to see some activity after about August 7th.--Graeme E. Smith 06:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

i figrd that s.b... would figure out it. he prolly did. oh well. banz me i guess. :shrug: oh wellz. Jack

Please ignore the previous line, it is an attempt to disrupt the service--Graeme E. Smith 14:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

		The shooting barnstar
		For virtually single-handedly creating extensive research and course materials on this wiki. --AFriedman 04:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks I think, but you just about blew my e-mail away--Graeme E. Smith 04:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, I didn't know what I was doing because I'd never given a barnstar before, and the barnstar page kept giving me all the wrong instructions. But you deserve one. My page is set to only send an email for the first Userpage change, so I didn't realize about your email. Despite the exploding email were you ok? --AFriedman 05:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

yeah I'm fine.... just a little shook up is all. I guess there is a reason it is called a shooting barnstar eh?--Graeme E. Smith 05:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well I tried really hard for you to get this. --AFriedman 13:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Haven't heard from you in a couple of days--how was your weekend? --AFriedman 02:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Not bad, I helped my mom out with respite so she could go to the singing group in her building on saturday, and helped put in a brick patio on sunday. Friday there were at least 5 people at my computer club, and we discussed some ideas for fundraising, and projects we could try if we ever get any funds. All in all a pretty productive weekend.--Graeme E. Smith 03:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nice. How is your computer club going? I was away for this past weekend, and also took (and did very well on) a major standardized test. Are you going to archive your Talk page any time soon? It's getting long. --AFriedman 00:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I tried to get it to autoarchive, and the bot seems broken. I am not sure what is going on with my computer, but it doesn't seem to want to deal with large cut and paste jobs. So I am at a bit of a loss as to how to archive it. The computer club is going well, but I spend so much time kibitzing that I am not achieving anything of my own. I recently got in contact with someone who has Medical and Technical writing as one of her specialties, and she has looked over a chapter or two from a couple of my books, and given me some pointers on how to approach writing a technical book. Hopefully she won't find me so hopeless as to quit responding to me.--Graeme E. Smith 21:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Good luck! I wonder if you could copy and paste your User talk code into a .txt document so it doesn't get lost. Hope that helps. I just finished a homework assignment (yay) and it's off (yay). Regarding kibitzing, some people do like to serve a more advisory role and I know how hard it can be to get things done when there are other people around. --AFriedman 22:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well in one sense, I feel like I am the glue that is keeping the group together, and in another sense I can't handle the sheer number of people that are showing up. Worse, we are stuck in a small area, and only have two plug-ins to work from, none of which have a 20 amp breaker. So I can't really install a full 4 computing node and one front-end node network without risking tripping the breaker.--Graeme E. Smith 04:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Wow, I guess your club is going pretty well...how many people are coming? What are you trying to do with them? --AFriedman 16:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

there is about 5 or 6 people involved, especially now that we are open from 10 to about 4:30, the main problem is that we only have the two plug-ins and the room we are in is a little small.

--Graeme E. Smith 20:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

well, if you can do good things maybe someone else will realize the problem and fix it...good luck --AFriedman 20:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just wondering how your real life is going, and if you're able to start one with your computer club. Hope you're doing well. --AFriedman 22:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

See my entries: Reflective Thinking and Multidisciplinary Studies Genezistan 11:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi! How are you? Happy New Year. I'm pretty excited--I just got probationary custodianship for this site. Actually, this is one of the first messages I'm posting since this happened. Hope your research and real life are going well. How are they? BTW, do you like my new signature? --AFriedman (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations, sorry I took so long to respond, I was away, looking at my brothers new townhouse, I managed to break his florescent light in the Kitchen right after we had successfully replaced its ballast. Darn thing threw itself at the floor twice, and the second time, managed to turn into millions of tiny bits and pieces. He was beside himself, thought it had scarred his perfect, engineered floor, I didn't have the heart to tell him it was no real loss, since laminate flooring is just paper with a plastic coating on it, anyway. My research has taken a twist recently, I find myself linking hypnotism to my memory theory now, so I am starting a new section in my GreySmith Institute Portal. You might want to look into my blog on ResearchGate.org.

I am currently trying to start an international project on implicit memory as an A.I. topic, I have managed to cobble together a breadboard proof of feasibility that I understand CAM memory well enough to implement a 4 bit CAM array, and have proposed a Satisfycing gate for it. (a 2 or more gate).

But I can't demonstrate it yet, because I burnt out at least two chips putting it together, so I am not getting the right signals until I replace the two chips, and I really should do a mesh analysis so that I can calculate the right resistors and capacitors to keep the circuit working in its optimal range. anyway I am pretty well peopled out this christmas, members of my group are stressing me out, and I think I missed my november drop in activity, and got it in December this year. The last week or so, I have been getting really fuzzy headed, and have reached into my pocket at least twice this week only to find, that I had lost one of my gloves. I have been missing appointments, and so on, which is usually a sign that I am out of sorts.

However this christmas I have a SADS light (borrowed from my program) and I am considering buying the where-withal to build my own so I can give it back. ( I understand how to design it, and have specified the software, but the current version, isn't practical for my needs,) so I am already working on specifying a variation on the original that might work better. I think That I need to link the light duration to the solar cycle. On this version, I need 40 minutes at winter solstice to treat myself, and probably 0 minutes at summer solstice. at 50% power (more seems to create glare effects) If I design a 12 month sine wave, and link the duration to the sine wave, I think I can design a machine that works better for me. I had been thinking of modulating the brightness, but now that I have tried a profesional quality machine I can see that that is the wrong choice.

Wow, I just figured out the formula, so I can program it into the computer that will run the light, and be able to calculate the right light durations. Anyway, merry New Year!--Graeme E. Smith 10:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Last night, I was trying the admin tools on a "sandbox" account to see how they work, and I think I've figured them out for the most part. Any research results yet? --AFriedman (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

On which project?

I have a feasible circuit for a CAM nibble just waiting for cash to repair a few flaky chips, I have designed the circuit for the SADS light and will be able to offer a Sinusoidal Duration mechanism so that people like me don't have to be constantly adjusting their lights. People keep rating my Blogs on ResearchGATE, and I have done 2 experimental inductions of hypnotism in order to gather information on how the neurological systems below the hypnotic trance work. Are these the results you are looking for, or were you hoping for a few more articles, and maybe a mouse or fruit-fly tabulation?

By the way it is nice to see you back, I missed you while you were busy doing other stuff. --Graeme E. Smith 02:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

It is nice to see you again. Even when I was busy, BTW, I was checking the site just about daily, sometimes more than once a day, but didn't see any messages from you. So I figured you must be busy too. Thanks for the messages in ResearchGate. Your blog looks really interesting and I see people have written some nice things about it. I'd like to know whether you've made any discoveries and what findings you've got to support those discoveries. Research always takes awhile, so if you don't, I understand. Most grad students wouldn't have much in the way of results after this amount of time, either. I'll be away for the weekend and actually, expect to have even more time to be on Wikiversity after this week. Then it's one week and back to classes. Oh, and I just went to a series of short talks about different commercial websites that have been developed. Very interesting stuff. Educational wikis, in my opinion, need a lot of work before they can fulfill what I think is their promise --AFriedman (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, when I left messages on your talk page, and you didn't respond, I figured you for busy, since it is proabably the case that the watchpage defaults to a state where they wouldn't show up if you didn't check regularly. I have mine set up so I get an email when my talk page changes which is why I know to check it. I do have results, of course, but because of financial limitations, not many and few and far apart, as I have to pace myself or I don't eat properly.

However the main results right now are in extending my model to hypnosis and simulation using TTL logic, of a partial implicit memory system. I am working up a page on hypnosis on GSI as part of my research, but it is slow going, if only because of the heavy time commitment I am making to CMHA. It will be nice to see more of you again, please feel free to drop me a line anytime.--Graeme E. Smith 16:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

which message were you thinking of, that i didn't respond to? i looked through my talk page and there was only one, a long one that i thought you'd left mostly for genezistan. i wrote to you on oct. 19 and didn't hear back from you (see the section on your talk page "Hello again"). I get email when my talk page changes too, but I check my watchlist just about every day anyway. research is slow going even without financial constraints. --AFriedman (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok, so we missed each other... ;)

I know research is slow going, but you are looking for results, while I am looking just to progress the research one more stage, as I can achieve it without financing. The difference is that I have to be accepting of a lesser measure of success, I don't have that wonderful data yet, if only because my experiences are limited to feasibility studies. I suppose I could write them up, but it hardly seems useful when I am working with a circuit that has already proven feasible for others. The primary purpose of doing a feasibility study is to have my own experimental circuit I can build from. I am trying to figure out how to capture the schematic of the circuit in a CAD program, but being rusty on CAD, and just getting a free cad package, I am not familiar with, I am somewhat limited in my ability to present the circuit in a useful manner.

In other words there is a lot going on, but because it is only me doing it, there isn't much in the way of results to see--Graeme E. Smith 17:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I feel the same way about the OR I'm doing. Part of it is that I have real school/jobs. I wonder if there could be a WV resource about finding the time to do research? --AFriedman (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Collaboration is, I think the key, if you can find people to collaborate with you, the group gets ahead further than the individual would on their own. My problem is that OR that I am doing is so far from existing research that people are unable to connect to it.--Graeme E. Smith 01:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think you're probably right. Collaboration also motivates people to stay online :). I'm away for the weekend but should have more time this coming week. Hope you're having a good one. --AFriedman (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the comment. I'm just spurring discussion of what style guidelines should be and how to avoid duplication of material across Projects. I don't have any personal opinion about how to resolve those issues, but local policies and guidelines should be clarified. –SJ+> 06:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply