Jump to content

User talk:75.108.94.227/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

IAHE Update

Hello 75.108.94.227.

While I have been focused on my presidential campaign, I did receive a formal endorsement for president from T. Nejat Veziroglu, as well as a copy of his 93-page resume, most of which are publications, that can be accessed with http://www.telesio-galilei.com/tg/images/stories/photos/award2008/turhan_veziroglu_publication.pdf. Nejat's email address is veziroglu@iahe.org.

When you mentioned many people have proposed new energy options, it is important to note that the hydrogen energy option I am advocating is also being advocated by thousands of scientists and engineers like Nejat.

Also, I recall you wanted to know if I am spending most my time with the Phoenix Project Foundation. Actually, all of my income comes from my CEO position from my Mesa Wind LLC project company, which was the original developer of the 120 megawatt San Juan Mesa Wind project in eastern New Mexico. I no longer have any active duties at Mesa Wind, except for cashing the checks they will be sending as per our contract as long as the project is in commercial operation. I have also established the Science News Network (ScienceNewsNetwork.US) which archives a number of video policy discussions I have produced, including my Phoenix Project video that is based on my book.

While my presidential Wikipedia page indicates I am an energy "consultant" I have never worked as an "consultant" in my career. Prior to my work with Mesa Wind, I was the Chairman and CEO of Stirling Energy Systems (SES), which I established after I had acquired the rights to the solar Dish Stirling system developed by McDonnell Douglas in Hunnington Beach, California, which developed the point-focus concentrator and Kockums, a major Swedish defense contractor that modified the solarized Stirling cycle (i.e., external combustion) engines that were developed for Sweden's non-nuclear attack submarines.

The system set a new world's efficiency record of 30% for converting solar energy into three-phase grid-quality electricity when the system was first placed "on sun" in the 1980's, and that record may still remain unbroken. While SES was awarded a contract from Sandia National Laboratories that resulted in a $100 million pilot plant, SES was never able to raise the serious money needed to commercialize the technology, which was very similar to an automobile from a manufacturing perspective. When a automobile manufacturer changes a major design, it typically will cost up to $2 billion.

My campaign is making daily progress and I am working to have some major news coverage prior to the first scheduled debates on October 13th. Please let me know if I can assist with Nejat's Wikipedia article.Harry W Braun III (talk) 02:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Harry, glad things are going well. First, a syntax note:
  • [[this link|http://www.telesio-galilei.com/tg/images/stories/photos/award2008/turhan_veziroglu_publication.pdf]]
Should be:
  • [http://www.telesio-galilei.com/tg/images/stories/photos/award2008/turhan_veziroglu_publication.pdf this link]
Which looks like:
External links, aka hyperlinks, that have HTTP or HTTPS at the front, use singular-surrounding-brackets , and space as the separator. Hyperlink first, SPC, human-visible-text 2nd. Make sense? Compare with this wikilink aka internal link:
  • [[USPE, 2016 |kittens]]
Which looks like:
Internal wikilinks use double-brackets and the pipe-separator, with article-name-1st and visible-text-2nd. Make sense? Takes a bit of practice, but soon you'll be a pro at this wiki-markup-syntax. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


Q#2: What do you suggest, as a shorthand that is more exacting than "energy consultant"? Would it be preferable to say "energy analyst/entrepreneur" for instance? I picked that 'energy consultant' wording as a terse compromise-choice, based on the three sources linked to. For your convenience, those 3 sources were:
These are just the three sources that popped up, when I was trying to fix the 'perennial' thing (which is not supported by the WP:SOURCES and ought not have been put in, but wikipedia ain't perfect and allowing that mistakes will happen, but making them easy to fix as time goes by, is all part of the process). Anyways, in trying to fix the mistake, I appear to have also made a lesser mistake myself.  :-)     Because of space constraints in the table-layout being used on that page, whatever "job title" we give you should be reasonably short, a few words at most. There's not room to give a long resume-listing of all the positions you've held, and all the projects you've worked on. I picked energy consultant, because it seemed fairly close to the truth: you are an energy researcher, who is interested in commercializing various of your designs (stirling gensets and mesa wind and with sufficient capital the seamount windships). You've never made the transition to "professional politician" because for the most part, your political campaigns are an outgrowth of your dual interests in doing research, and in seeing that research put into practice on-the-ground, so to speak. You also have continued publication, including your 2008 paper about photobiology with double-digit-cites, which is vaguely related to your political goals, but only tangentially: it is a research project, part of your overall goals, just like your presidential campaigns are part of your overall goals. Anyways, I'm happy to update from "energy consultant" to something more incisive, but without going on for several sentences, I was at a loss what to say... so when I found the source that said "energy consultant" I must admit I grabbed it with both hands as a nice two-word summarization.  :-)   As with any two-word summarization of decades of work, it leaves a lot to be desired, so if you can come up with a better summarization, of two or three or four words preferably, I'll be happy to try and figure out a better phrasing with you. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


Q#3, "endorsement for president from T. Nejat Veziroglu" Congratulations, that is cool.  :-)     If some newspaper/teevee/radio station picks up on the endorsement, and prints a mention of it ("Veziroglu endorses Braun" is enough ... they don't have to go into great detail), please let me know and I'll add you a section on the appropriate wikipedia page. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


Q#4. "When you mentioned many people have proposed new energy options, it is important to note that the hydrogen energy option I am advocating is also being advocated by thousands of scientists and engineers like Nejat." Yes, absolutely, and I've read some of those other advocates, thanks to my own interest in solar thermal. So I knew that you were talking sensible science, and not proposing any kind of radical re-invention of physics. However, the reason I brought it up, was because wikipedia gets many proposals of both types, and for obvious reasons, we prefer sensible scientists talking about published work, and not radical cutting edge proposals.  :-)

chitchat about wikipedia's coverage of propulsion systems, and which ones are mainstream, alt-mainstream, questionable, exotic prototype, and elided as not-yet-proven-to-be-sensible

If wikipedia had existed back in 1983, when you were first making your pitch to the DoD for use of mass-produced hydrogen for jet engines, you probably would not have gotten a wikipedia article.  :-)     For one thing, at the time in 1983, you had not yet gotten enough press-coverage for your political campaigns, and published enough cited papers for your research work. But more pragmatically, back in 1983, using hydrogen as a fuel-source was very cutting edge. Sure, the Space Shuttle was powered by liquid hydrogen... but in 1983 the shuttle was pretty much the *definition* of cutting edge.

  Thirty years later, or so, there is a wikipedia BLP-article on Harry Braun, thanks partly to your research-publications over the years, and thanks partly to the press-coverage of your political efforts over the years. And not so coincidentally, the Space Shuttle has gone from being cutting-edge, to being retired from service. Plus, hydrogen fuel cells have become, if not exactly a household word per se, very much a serious option, considered by serious people. In a way, you've been right all along: mass-scale hydrogen-power is very much a viable path. That said, it is still an extremely cutting edge idea, in practice; hybrid cars#Power, for instance, which use a combination of conventional fossil-fuel-engines plus some alternative technology, have gone from cutting edge to being a pretty normal thing. But being "pretty normal" is a relative measure. Here is 2011 data,[1] which says that of ~1m light-duty alt-fuel-powered vehicles in the USA, there were 819k E85, 77k propane/LPG, 66k battery-electric, 66k CNG, 0.4k hydrogen. Now, these are actually-in-use vehicles; there were an additional 9127k E85-capable vehicles (which used regular gas instead of E85 due to choice or inconvenience or cost or distance), and an additional 2060k battery-fossil-hybrid vehicles, on the road. Biodiesel was also an important factor, especially for medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles. The numbers for 2014 are significantly higher, for instance plug-in vehicles are in the hundreds of thousands now... but are still below 1% of vehicles on the road. Outside the vehicle-use-category, there is a much broader pattern, of course; electricity generation is a completely different market, and military/aerospace vehicle propulsion is very unlike passenger cars/trucks/motorbikes, for example. But just looking at the retail-consumer-passenger-highway-vehicle-technologies, there are a lot of interesting things that have been attempted:

This is definitely an extremely long tail situation, where there is an uber-dominant technology at the top end of the automobile-infrastructure (87-octane gasoline), followed by an exponentially-decreasing number of smaller niche-players. And yet, as fast as the decrease is, once you get close to the bottom, there is a dramatic flattening of the curve, and you see things like a surprising number of purely-electric-vehicles (e.g. 13% of new-car sales in Norway during 2014... which is only 40k actual vehicles... but still, a shockingly large number). A very strange market, with a lot of multinationals and a lot of government regulators all exerting their considerable power to warp the outcome.

  Anyways, fortunately-or-unfortunately, I have to caution you to be stoic about the way wikipedians will treat your ideas. Most wikipedians, 95%+ of them, are simply not interested in energy technologies, and don't have the background. More importantly, most of the WP:SOURCES, which is to say 99%+ of what you find in mainstream newspapers/textbooks/television/etc, will treat hydrogen-vehicles as either a research-curiosity, or as not-even-worth-mentioning. Similarly, fossil-fuel-vehicles, and fossil-fuels-powered-economic-systems generally, will be treated as the normal, the typical, the expected... and in many cases, even treated as the-way-things-ought-to-be.

  Thus, wikipedia will primarily be all about the status quo. Wikipedia is a trailing indicator; it documents the history, of a success, after that success was already implemented, accomplished, reported about in newspapers, and (usually) analyzed in textbooks or history books or academia. At the end of the day, in other words, wikipedia can only reflect what the surrounding society looks like; wikipedia is not an agent of change, is just a mirror of our flawed reality, slightly behind the curve even... wikipedia is a mirror of 2011-to-2014 sources, at present, and by 2020, with any luck wikipedia will have been upgraded to be a mirror of the 2018-to-2019 sources... progress, right?  :-)



Q#5. "you wanted to know if I am spending most my time with the Phoenix Project Foundation." That is close, but my actual question is this: what is your official 'personal' website, with the most additional information about you, and your work? Specifically, is it okay to put this stuff:

  • [http://phoenixprojectfoundation.us/News.html Official website]

Which looks like:

onto the bottom of the Harry Braun wikipedia-article? If that is not the best pick, which website or URL is most appropriate? See also WP:ELOFFICIAL and the sections that follow it.

further discussion, of other websites you run, that I know about

Here are the options that I am aware of:

  • phoenixprojectfoundation.us , nonprofit organization which shared a title w/ your books and papers , specifically has page about Harry Braun
  • sciencenewsnetwork.us , policy papers and positions , specifically has an About (Harry Braun) page
  • harrybraunshow.com , information about 2012 campaign , somewhat outdated now
  • braunforpresident.us , campaign'16 website , mostly about 2016 and thus *will* be outdated come 2017
  • democracyamendmentusa.net , super-PAC website , mostly about raising money
  • braun2012.us , campaign'12 website , mostly about 2012 , outdated
  • p3amendments.us , super-PAC and state-by-state-amendment website , outdated and mostly about raising money
  • (forgotten the URL at the moment) , the H2 super-PAC website , outdated and mostly about raising money
  • sustainablepartners.com , publisher and renewable consulting website , outdated

You may also have other websites, that I do not happen to be aware of, such as a facebook page, or a google plus page, or something like that. If you do, and think they are a better pick for your Official Website, please let me know. The overall question is related to WP:ELOFFICIAL and subsections; wikipedia should just like your 'main' official website, and the one that will be around for the foreseeable future (i.e. not a campaign-2016-website that will be gone later), and so on. Also, per WP:NOTPROMOTION, wikipedia just lists *one* main website, not all the websites associated with the topic of the wikipedia-article. Ideally, the website should also cover your history, your publications, that sort of thing. I *think* that the link I am proposing,[2] covers the details about yourself and your work and your philosophy, but I'm checking with you to make sure I'm guessing correctly.

  I do fully realize that, at the moment, most of your efforts are devoted to Braun'16 work, and most of your cashflow is from the Mesa Wind royalties, but my question is not necessarily about what page you would most like people to visit, my question is about ... what will your "main" website be, when 2017 and 2018 roll around? I'm guessing that you will still be updating http://phoenixprojectfoundation.us (although it does not yet refer to http://braunforpresident.us , I assume that is because you only officially launched this month). There is a link on the top of phoenixprojectfoundation.us called 'Harry Braun' which points to http://phoenixprojectfoundation.us/News.html , and gives a short bio: "Harry Braun, Chairman & Senior Scientist. Harry W. Braun III has been working as an energy and environmental analyst...." And that is the sort of thing, that is pretty usual for an "Official Website" link from the wikipedia-article.

  In your case, though, because you are active in so many areas, there are quite a few choices available! So I figured I should ask first, before I was WP:BOLD and just stuck in the link myself. Let me know which website of yours, is the most appropriate as your WP:ELOFFICIAL external link, when you have a moment.


Q#6, you mentioned this tidbit from your history, I have added the wikilinks to our existing articles on those topics:

...Chairman and CEO of Stirling Energy Systems (SES), which I established after I had acquired the rights to the solar Dish Stirling system developed by McDonnell Douglas in Huntington Beach, California, which developed the point-focus concentrator and Kockums, a major Swedish defense contractor that modified the solarized Stirling cycle (i.e., external combustion) engines that were developed for Sweden's non-nuclear attack submarines. The system set a new world's efficiency record of 30% for converting solar energy into three-phase grid-quality electricity when the system was first placed "on sun" in the 1980's, and that record may still remain unbroken.

And indeed, it looks like the 30% record still stands... says Solar_thermal_energy#Dish_designs anyways... which is incidentally, how I got interested in solar-thermal, the impressively-high figures for energy-conversion efficiency, though I was more interested in aerospace-applications than in landlubber-applications.

chitchat about the price of solar thermal, versus other technologies, as the key limiting factor

Now to be fair, there are some multi-junction PV technologies (exorbitantly expensive and intended primarily for satellite use where the cost-per-ounce is the overriding concern) which achieve upwards of 40% in the laboratory, but typical PV performance is still merely 15% or 20% nowadays, just like twenty years ago.

The fundamental problem with solar-thermal is the price, see Cost_of_electricity_by_source#United_States which puts roughly the following nominal unit-cost-per-joule-produced type comparative numbers on the various generation-technologies for electric-grid-applications, my own glomming-together-pseudo-averaging-and-normalizing-of-the-dataset:

  • 1.00 Geotherm
  • 1.08 Wind
  • 1.11 NatgasCC
  • 1.15 DistribGen
  • 1.18 Hydro
  • 1.57 Coal
  • 1.57 Biomass
  • 1.62 Nuke
  • 1.80 SolarPV
  • 2.08 FuelCell
  • 2.72 OffshoreWind
  • 3.18 SolarThermal
  • 3.69 OceanPower

Thus, when the location is ideal for geothermal/hydrodams/windfarms, those are the "best" options, economically speaking. Combined cycle natural gas, is the cost-leader in fossil fuels nowadays. Due to regulations and the vast infrastructure required, nuclear power and coal-fired powerplants are as expensive as biomass, nowadays, according to the NREL and EIA, at least. SolarPV and fossil-fuel-extracted-fuelcells are roughly double the cost-per-joule of wind/hydro/geothermal/NGCC, which is why you don't see them on the newscasts.

Despite the high theoretical efficiency, nobody has solved the cost issues with solar thermal for landlubbers, nor the Hurricane FactorTM which makes offshore windfarms so expensive. Both of those technologies are feasible, and known to work, but they are three times the cost of wind/hydro/geothermal/NGCC, and thus are purely research-fodder, at present. Seasteading folks are interested in ocean power, which is approximately four times the cost of wind/hydro/geothermal/NGCC. (Nejat wrote some of the OTEC papers in the early days.)

Now, that is mostly chitchat about the future. Wikipedia is more about history, than about the future. Can you give me some WP:SOURCES, which mention you by name, and give your role in the work on the Dish Stirling stuff? Because that is what is needed, to add that material to the Harry Braun article, is some press-coverage (or academia-papers) which talks about the backstory of SES, McDonnell, and so on. You don't need to upload newspaper clippings, but if you can give the names and dates and publishers and authors, that will be helpful. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


Q#7. "Please let me know if I can assist with Nejat's Wikipedia article." Yes, you can check it for bugs. Please see the initial effort here -- Draft:T. Nejat Veziroğlu. Also, please email Nejat, and apologize to him in advance for any mistakes.  :-)     Because you are friends, and both are board-members of IAHE (plus he's endorsed your campaign), please do NOT directly make changes to the article about Nejat, to avoid the appearance of any conflict-of-interest. Same as with Harry Braun, where you should make suggestions on Talk:Harry Braun, anything that is wrong with Draft:T. Nejat Veziroğlu should be dealt with by clicking 'new section' and making a suggestion on the Draft_talk:T. Nejat Veziroğlu page, not by editing the body-prose yourselves. Make sense? Let me know if you have troubles or questions. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Good thing I put forth apologies in advance. Spelled his name wrong!     Sigh. Fixed now though. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Ron Schnell has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Ron Schnell. Thanks! LaMona (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ron Schnell has been accepted

Ron Schnell, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

LaMona (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks User:LaMona, appreciated. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey 75108. Good news on the AfC. Thanks for doing this. Btw, one of the attendees of the conference last week was able to find an online link to the UPI story (like, in a few minutes, despite my searching for years). It can be found at http://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/11/01/14-year-old-is-computer-whiz/3943373438800/. Not sure what to do about changes like this. Do I need to do a COI request like I did with Dunnet? Do you want to correct your own reference to add this? Ron Schnell 20:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Welcome.... but, ahem, you still owe me an airplane.  ;-)     A digipic of one, that is. Or maybe a pic taken from one whilst in flight? Next time you are flying with passenger(s) bring along a digicam, and get some pics, if you feel like it. Wikipedia always needs high-quality libre pics for one thing or another. Of course "not used in an article" is grounds for deletion, and so is "picture aesthetics insufficient" ... plus the byzantine wiki-commons-culture makes the enWiki look like a picnic, so maybe you should just upload your pics with a libre wikipedia-compatible-license to some new gallery-subfolder of your own homepage, in case your fine art is rejected by the natives.  ;-)
As for the ref-question, the UPI cite is already in the article, like this:
  • Lee Comegys, United Press International (October 18, 1981). "A computer genius at 14". The Record. p. E-10.
Which now needs to be updated like this:
However it would be best, if we updated it after performing WP:404#Web_archive_services pre-emptive archival of the contents. More on that in a moment.
  And yes, now that the article is mainspaced, you directly editing the article is verboten, except to revert blatant vandalism (like page-blanking), correct bone-headed typos, and remove obvious BLP violations (unsourced "Ron never eats anything but cheese" does not count... even a slap in the face like "Ron uses vi for all his editing needs" must be left intact... just things that are junior-high slurs on sexuality and/or allegations of illegal behavior are stuff you should do yourself... and really, if you pop into the IRC channel or the WP:TEAHOUSE or the WP:HELPDESK and say you noticed a serious problem, somebody will help you quickly enough... WP:BLPN is the 'official' place and prolly the best-practices place to start).
  So, just like with Dunnet, the procedure is to figure out the exact change you wish to make, write up an edit-request on Talk:Ron_Schnell, and then wait three days whilst it is ignored, before you seek help from a disinterested editor. Since User:LaMona was helpful to us at AfC, maybe she'll be willing to work with you on getting this offline ref converted to an online ref. Her userpage suggests she's a big fan of proper referencing.  :-)     If she's busy, follow the practical-practices.
  But first, o'course, do the pre-emptive archiving thing, in case the UPI website is reorganized, or the company bought out, or something like that. Specifically, Help:Using_the_Wayback_Machine#Initial_request or maybe WP:Using_WebCite#Website_form. There are some other web archiving services but some of them are blacklisted by abusefilter bots, for one reason or another (usually copyvio but sometimes due to their owners bucking the wiki-admins here on-wiki).[3] Downside to the upi.com version, versus the paper version... no telephoto of you with the Cray. After you perform the actual archival-step, pre-emptively, then you can add the |archive-url= param to your TBD edit-request, at the same time you ask for the |url= stuff to be inserted. Helpdocs are Template:Cite_web#archive-url for the syntax. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

ping from Ron Schnell 03:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Sitting in emacs now.

Ah, cool. Are you using the mediawiki.el stuff mentioned at WP:Text_editor_support#GNU_Emacs , or a custom flavor? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Also worth mentioning, http://wikipediafs.sourceforge.net/ (no maintainer but still A Keen Idea methinks). http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/WikiModes , which has a *much* more extensive list of possible architectures, including many options for sysadmin-work on corporate and personal mediawiki installs (i.e. off-wiki non-WMF wiki-servers... which as a strict subset might even be a local dump of en.wiki.x.io installed on your local RAID array in theory). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Still sitting in emacs... Ron Schnell 06:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The bulk of this list, ~444 orgs, minus the wiki-syntax, and with ~4 names I added, was originally published by HuffPo -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-salkever-/9-giant-banks-make-a-deal_b_8143356.html

However, the names themselves are not WP:COPYVIO, per Feist v RTS case before the SCOTUS, and also per double-checking myself with User:DragonflySixtyseven and User:Stabila711 via #wikipedia-en-help connect

extant wikipedia articles

Bluelinks, from the above listing:

  1. Bitcoin (Bloomberg_L.P. CNNMoney Adi_Shamir fincen.gov TechCrunch O'Reilly_Media Oxford_University_Press The_New_Yorker George_Mason_University WSJ Chronicle.com South_China_Morning_Post The_Telegraph Entrepreneur.com Electronic_Frontier_Foundation Thompson_Reuters NYT MIT_Technology_Review Wired.com Washington_Post Library_of_Congress CBS_News The_Federal_Reserve NYU Polytechnic School of Engineering The_Register The_Economist ... just in the first 50 refs out of over 300 total listed), 10+
  2. Dogecoin (Digital_Trends Fairfax_Media Australian_Broadcasting_Corporation Vice_Media Business_Insider Seattle_Post_Intelligencer International_Business_Times Washington_Examiner Heavy.com The_Daily_Dot Gizmodo TechCrunch LA_Times The_Guardian PBS Investing.com NBC_News USA_Today CNN The_Verge FOX_News ArsTechnica), 10+
  3. Ripple_(payment_protocol) (Fortune_Magazine Vice_Media Dow_Jones MIT_Technology_Review Linux_Journal NYT Springer IEEE VentureBeat Nielsen_Holdings_N.V. Fox_Business fincen.gov Yahoo_Finance Bloomberg PC_World WSJ CIO_(magazine) Fast_Company Esquire.com), 10+
  4. BitPay (WSJ PC_Magazine CNet Billboard_Magazine Bizjournals.com CNN Scientific_American Ars_Technica Forbes TechCrunch itworld.com LA_Times Business_Week Yahoo_Finance Reuters USA_Today ESPN CNBC Tampa_Bay_Times ZDNet PC_World MIT_Technology_Review), 10+
  5. Circle_(company) (Wired.com Boston_Globe Re/code WSJ Reuters ny.gov NYT... further research turns up Bizjournals.com USA_Today TechCrunch CNet The_Verge Business_Insider ArsTechnica The_Guardian VentureBeat Xconomy Engadget Bloomberg Fortune_(magazine) CNBC Inc.com IEEE LA_Times), 10+
  6. Bitcoin_Foundation (Forbes The_New_Yorker Wired.com Washington_Post Vice_Media WSJ The_Verge Reuters Business_Insider), 9
  7. CoinDesk (TechCrunch Reuters WSJ BBC NYT CNBC Bloomberg Re/code Business_Insider), 9
  8. Coinbase (BusinessWeek NYT WSJ WaPo VentureBeat TechCrunch Bloomberg Re/code Cnet), 9
  9. ANX_(Hong_Kong_company) (CNN Business_Insider International_Business_Times South_China_Morning_Post Bloomberg WSJ CNBC The_Straits_Times), 8
  10. SatoshiDice (Forbes BusinessWeek Ars_Technica NPR ft.com sec.gov ACM_SIGCOMM), 7
  11. Stellar_(payment_network) (WSJ Wired.com Business_Insider TechCrunch Fortune_(magazine) qz.com MIT_Technology_Review), 7
  12. Titcoin (Cosmopolitan_Magazine Gizmodo Vice_Magazine Daily_Dot The_Daily_Mirror Playboy_Magazine GQ), 7
  13. Coinfloor (Wired.com The_Sunday_Times TechCrunch CNBC WSJ The_Independent ft.com), 7
  14. Peercoin (Wired.com NYT Heavy.com MIT_Technology_Review The_Guardian ArsTechnica TechCrunch), 7
  15. Xapo (NYT WSJ Bizjournals.com Re/code ABC_News The_Verge), 6
  16. ItBit (The_Independent TechCrunch International_Business_Times Bizjournals.com CNBC NYT), 6
  17. BitGo (Wired.com WSJ Forbes TechCrunch CNet KING-TV Forbes-userblogs-times-deux), 6
  18. ChangeTip (Wired.com NYT The_Register Fortune_(magazine) TIME), 5
  19. Augur_(software) (WSJ International_Business_Times Politico TechCrunch NYT), 5
  20. Pantera_Capital (NYT WSJ Fortune_(magazine) Bloomberg Reuters), 5
  21. BitGive_Foundation (PanAm_Post Entrepreneur.com WSJ US_News Bizjournals.com), 5
  22. Ethereum (Bloomberg Wired.com Globe_and_Mail Al_Jazeera The_Telegraph), 5
  23. Bitreserve (CNBC TechCrunch WSJ CIO_(magazine) Fortune_(magazine)), 5
  24. Ven_(currency)/Pavilion/Hub_Culture (CNN Wired.com WSJ Financial_News Thomson_Reuters Forbes-userblog), 5
  25. Blockchain.info (Wired.com WSJ NYT sky.com), 4
  26. BTC_China (WSJ Forbes Reuters TechCrunch), 4
  27. Gatecoin (The_Economist Yahoo_Finance NYT South_China_Morning_Post), 4
  28. P2P_Foundation (New_Scientist TechCrunch PC_World NBC_News), 4
  29. Nxt (International_Business_Times Springer_IFCA Yahoo_Finance University_of_Lyon Forbes-userblog), 4
  30. LocalBitcoins (Wired.com NYT Business_Insider), 3
  31. AlphaPoint (USA_Today US_News The_West_Australian), 3
  32. BTCJam (TechCrunch Business_Insider Fox_Business), 3
  33. Proof_of_Existence (ComputerWorld O'Reilly_Media Business_Insider), 3
  34. Volabit (Bizjournals.com WSJ El_Economista), 3
  35. Ghash.io (TechCrunch ArsTechnica International_Business_Times Bloomberg-userblog), 3
  36. Zerocash (IEEE New_Scientist IACR), 3
  37. Coins.ph (BBC inquirer.net Yahoo_Finance some deleted[4]), 3~~
  38. OpenBazaar (Wired.com The_Guardian), 2
  39. Bitmarkets (The_Guardian Reason.com), 2
  40. BitPesa (WSJ Bloomberg), 2
  41. Buttercoin (Bloomberg Techcrunch), 2
  42. BTC-e (Marketwatch-aka-WSJ book-by-Benjamin_Guttmann), 2
  43. CryptoNote (International_Business_Times book-by-Andreas_Antonopoulos Forbes-userblog The_Costa_Rica_Star-republished-press-release), as well as child-article Monero_(cryptocurrency) (Reuters-userblog), 2
  44. NeuCoin (TechCrunch VentureBeat), 2
  45. Dash_(cryptocurrency)-fka-Darkcoin (Wired.com City_AM), 2
  46. Litecoin (International_Business_Times Ars_Technica Forbes-userblog), 2
  47. Namecoin (Techworld ... quick search turns up Observer.com Digital_Trends canada.com Ars_Technica Fortune_(magazine) eWeek Fast_Company Gizmodo Reason.com Business_Insider etc), 1to11
  48. 37coins (Yahoo Finance in article... plus a bit of manual searching finds mentions in TechCrunch WSJ) 1to3
  49. MaidSafe (Forbes), 1
  50. OKCoin (WSJ), 1
  51. Bitstamp (Zdnet-aka-CBS), 1
  52. LibraTax (PC_World), 1
  53. Counterparty_(technology) (trade-rags only in the wikipedia article at present... but mentioned in e.g. Academic_Press by Chuen et al in 2015 plus also O'Reilly_Media by Swan in 2015), 0to2
  54. E-coin (trade-rags only), 0
  55. Armory_(software) (deleted Sep'15)
  56. Gemini_(company)/BitInstant/Winklevii (TBD), NNN
  57. Bitcoin_XT (TBD), NNN
  58. Coinsecure (TBD), NNN
  59. Huobi (TBD), NNN

No doubt I missed some orgs that wikipedia has, or recently deleted, or will soon have. Also no doubt some of the redlinks are blue, I didn't search exhaustively. Ping User:1Wiki8, and maybe some talkstalk folks might also be interested. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 22 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, 75.108.94.227. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test.
Message added 21:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

APerson (talk!) 21:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, 75.108.94.227. You have new messages at Aviators99's talk page.
Message added 21:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stabila711 (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Ping

Ping... :) in response to your ping... Wscribner (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

How do I "tag" your name in wikipedia, so I know you will be notified of changes to the talk page, so I don't have to keep going back and forth from one to another? There has to be a simpler way... Wscribner (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Because I edit without a username, the wiki-deities have decreed that I cannot be pinged/echoed/etc. There is a way to say User:Wscribner and a way to say @Wscribner: but those are purposely made only to work for people who have registered. This is part of the goal of 'encouraging' people to register before they can edit. I think that's the wrong kind of encouragement to give. In any case, I think the easiest thing you can do is bookmark the following URL in your browser:
If you remember to login before you click that browser_bookmark, it will help, of course. The second easiest way is for us to have conversations here, on this my very own talkpage, because anything posted here will send me a ping, and you can WP:WATCHLIST this page. However, you may get more "alerts" than you bargained for, since sometimes this is a relatively busy page. The third easiest way is for us to locate a wikiproject where somebody who has a long-term interest in the fire-safety industry, or in the testing-lab industry, or in the ISO-compliance industry, can be located. I found one such person, and left them a note, but from what I can tell they retired from wikipedia in 2014. There is also hypothetically a fourth easier way... the non-prof foundation which runs wikipedia had been working on WP:FLOW fka Liquid Threads for many moons, which was supposed to completely revolutionize talkpage wiki-technology. Instead the project seems to have become the victim of the revolution, rather than the harbinger thereof.
  Anyways, I'll peek over at your reply. One last note though, about the reason most folks on the 'pedia are not super-concerned about the talkpage hoops... part of the "charm" of wikipedia is our 2002-era technology. Surprisingly enough; the weird talkpage-conventions, and the strange wiki-syntax, tend to make the uncommitted vandal eventually give up and find an easier sort of target for their lulz. Wikipedia is too *slow* for most vandals to enjoy it, in other words. Faster communication is not always a good thing! That does mean that conversations here on-wiki take time, but it also keeps them, well, as conversations rather than as WP:NOTFORUM. Can be annoying, until you get used to the laid-back WP:NORUSH approach. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

ping from Wscribner (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Before I post this as an edit-request, could you please check it for me, if you have a few moments?

Dear edit-request-reviewer, please insert the following new sentence and corresponding new source:

References

  1. ^ "Green standards set for RV/Park model industry". April 10, 2009. NTA Inc., a 35-year-old consulting engineering firm in Nappanee, this year established green building standards for the park model and RV industries, based on rules in other kinds of construction.

The establishment date is next to the byline, and the information about what was established is in the first paragraph. The new text about the green standards, should go at the end of the NTA_(company)#Company section, by creating a new paragraph, please. I believe that South Bend Tribune is a reliable source per WP:SOURCE, the paper was founded in 1872. Thanks, Wscribner (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure the paper is wiki-reliable? They ought to have a bluelink, right?
And what's with all the capitalizations? (Technology note: you can just say recreational vehicle which then automagically redirects to Recreational vehicle.) (Second technology note: you can say [[Park Model|model park]] using the 'pipe trick' aka that little vertical-bar character on the keyboard by the backslash, which looks like this, model park, but when clicked sends you to Park Model.)
Third complaint, where is the author, it looks like you are trying to list them, but they are invisible. (Hint: they are not 'admin' ... that was the username being used in the woodallsCM ref, and is not applicable to newspapers refs.  :-)
Fourth: always put a ref after every sentence. Which means, to avoid pasting the same ref in multiple places, you need to use the name= trick, like this:
  •   Sentence#1.<ref name=sbTrib09>{{cite web |url=blah |title=blah |author=Gene Stowe, Tribune Correspondent |quote=blah }}</ref> Sentence#2.<ref name=sbTrib09 />
Fifth, it's a little wordy, but pretty neutral and just-the-facts. Nice work. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed that this had a response. I will work on getting this shaped up per your suggestions. Sorry :/ Wscribner (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, User:75.108.94.227 Here I am - trying again!

Dear edit-request-reviewer, please insert the following new sentence and corresponding new source:

References

The establishment date is next to the byline, and the information about what was established is in the first paragraph. The new text about the green standards, should go at the end of the NTA_(company)#Company section, by creating a new paragraph, please. I believe that South Bend Tribune is a reliable source per WP:SOURCE, the paper was founded in 1872. Thanks, (I would add my signature here)

I am not sure what you mean by capitalization?? Only what needs to be capitalized is capitalized, or is there some Wikipedia faux pas to capitalization I am committing? Wscribner (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for the watchlist tip! I also discovered this handy little heart with kittens to send to nice people like you who help those of us who are sadly lacking in wiki-speak :)

Wscribner (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Timtrent/Chris W. Allen (academic)

Thank you, my friend, for your hard work. I incline towards the fact that my friend Chris Allen is interesting but tends to avoid notability. But how??? What I do not really wish to do is to email him and ask. He is self effacing, part of the reason he seems to have avoided WP:ACADEMIC, and would not contribute to his own article I think. Time is on our side.

I shall continue, quietly, on this from time to time. Academics are hard. Fiddle Faddle 20:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a famous computer-paper with that song, see Worse is better (ping User:Aviators99 who may also be interested in that proprietary-UNIX-versus-LispM paper). If you don't want to email the professor, then the next best thing is to continue bugging User:DGG for assistance with the search for cite-counts. There must be some kind of resource which lists publications *only* in the journalism field, unlike scholar.google.com which has Chris Allen the astrophysicist and Chris Allen the marketing professor and Chris Allen the native american history prof all mixed in with the Chris Allen we actually want. But yes, writing about academics *is* hard, unless they are like Draft:Brian Boxer Wachler and seek the television-spotlight.
  p.s. As for the answer to your larger question, which is how an actually-interesting person can fail to become wiki-notable, I can only point to larger problems in humanity: Paris Hilton and Bazinga will always trump Chris W. Allen (academic) and Jack Shelley (journalist),[5] methinks, until and unless humanity as a whole improves. Wikipedia reflects what the sources say, and the sources suck nowadays. Now, that said, I think you have plenty of coverage...
...if you want to work on Draft:Jack Shelley (journalist), which is who Allen wrote about in their PhD thesis. We have some extant John_Shelley_(disambiguation) articles, including Jack Shelley_the_mayor, but not one about the WHO Radio broadcaster that I can see. Professor Allen might even be enticed to participate, in *that* draft-article, since Allen is an expert on the subject of Shelley. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
GS is probably the best database for such citations in this field, but I will check. (In Google Scholar, citations to an article can be searched for by article title. I'll add the information about where the articles from the university database were actually published--they were in fact published--they're not just online , & verify your numbers). It will be somewhat harder to find references to his work in journalism. The only likely indexI know of is Journalism and mass communication abstracts
But considering that he has published only 5 articles, of which only 2 are in widely read journals, I'm a little dubious about meeting the usual WP:PROF requirements. This does not surprise me, for he is more of a practicing journalist than specifically a scholar, and the only secure way of showing notability in that field is major national level awards--a Fulbright is not sufficient). I'm not going to work on this beyond what I said, unless you find something else really substantial
However, as you suggest, Jack Shelly is very likely to be notable, and shouldn't be difficult to do. As a general matter, when adding articles in a field, I think it much more productive to work from most notable still uncovered people. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

ping from Wscribner (talk) 12:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Wscribner (talk) 12:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Recognition of your good, quasi-anonymous work

Hello 75108, I thought you might like to know that you're one of the IP users identified on my user page as "longstanding editors who use a static IP address rather than a Wikipedia account yet make many valuable contributions to Wikipedia". Thanks for all you do to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia and a better place. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 02:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm honoured, thanks much. p.s. Your username gave me a good chuckle... but siriuzlee, please be aware, I know another wikipedian who is the Grammar Police... not sure I want to watch *that* wiki-movie unfold!  ;-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 06:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome for the honour and I thank you in turn for saying you were amused by my choice of username. I don't think your friend and I would have a problem, as I am definitely not the police, grammar or otherwise, and when I have a disagreement with other editors on grammar matters we settle it by consensus like anything else. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 14:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Arr.

  • Nr 74, what a sad time to come back. And you are not even saying hello to your old friends, you little ... monkey. Your perfume is giving you away... By the way, poor Yngv is lurking on IRC - waiting for you to get in touch. Hafspajen (talk) 10:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Hello User:Hafspajen, you must have me confused with somebody else, it says 75108 right on the tin, not Mandy! And yes, when I was re-in-wiki-carnated under my latest incarnation, strong-hearted Y had already retired, see her usertalk March 2015, which is one of the reasons I didn't resume contact with anybody. And now both her and Drmies are to be missed, perhaps? Too sad. But fundamentally, I just don't make contact betwixt and acroxt my IPs, as they rotate under the inscrutable orders of the ISP-deities. (Zeroth of all, it is a means of avoiding WP:ADDICTED wikipedholism.) First of all, technically it is not permitted under strictest interpretation of SOCK, and second of all, wikipedia is a small world, and getting smaller quick. It seems the usual folks will run across me in my wiki-travels, whether I contact them specifically or not... thus why go seeking old wiki-friends, when I can run across them serendiptously? Adds some spice of adventure. You are the third or fourth to ping my new talkpage. Still, you are the first to solve the puzzle, and connect the dots without being told the answer, that I can remember, which is a lot of IP addresses indeed, over many years. As for IRC, though I'm on there from time to time, but I am now user75108 instead, and would be happy to jabber thereon; I'll see if I can find my old notes, there has been a push to delete IP-user-talk pages recently so it might not be visible anymore. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • No of course Yngvadottir won't marry me, she's the wrong species. Or maybe you meant getting married to *you* but you have to remember that Scandinavian is not a "species" so much as it is a higher state of being. No no, I'm dreaming of someday finding a nice macaque, or even maybe a spider monkey, and settling down in the trees someplace. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • CONFUSED. Joseph Heller is no good guide. Catching that 22 has never worked.... About Yngv not marrying you.... not to sure. She has a serious crush on you, Mandy ... :) I meant the real-live-girl you left us for, - you infidel - cos infidelity is your middle name. We were constantly heartbroken. Hafspajen (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Tell me about the years you were gone. Hafspajen (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I was tortured. With cold eels. Doctor Blofeld was there. Also, it involved some secret bizniz that I dast not spake of. Dast. Not. But I did miss having my own personal decorator. Speaking of which, I just rescued corn cob, and the picture captions were all messed up. Can you alert wiki-project trashcan, or whatever deals with the leftovers, maybe wikiproject compost heap, or somebody who deals with the refuse from wikiproject dinnertime?  :-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Nice rescue of corn cob, - calling in the professionals. Northamerica1000 (professional food editor) - this is Mandy, who doesn't like to have an account. He is the freedom fighter of the IPs. Nice experienced editor, you are just as crazy both, say hello. As for the .... torture - what torture? Hafspajen (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

ping from Wscribner (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Heh heh... User:Wscribner, meet User:Hafspajen, who sometimes takes time off from decorating the Iceland-Sweden land bridge to put 'relevant' photographical arrangements onto usertalk pages.  :-)     If you would like a make-over for your own usertalk, they are probably willing to oblige, but be aware you will see a large increase in 'you-have-new-messages' should you seek such a decorator arrangement. Other than that, price is no object, see the objet-de-artiste-ical over at Hafspajen's own userpage which *is* seriously amazing. Anyways, don't worry about the zebra; I don't get the joke either!  :-)   75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I received your message about adding a new section and the !nosign!, but I don't know what that means. I searched it, but found references to Buddhist villages and Samsung, but no wiki speak?? Dtompos has provided his WP:COI, and for reference, he is the son of the founder. He and his brother, Eric, became co-owners in 2002. I have added an edit-request draft to the talk page and I was wondering if you had time to review it, please? I am hoping this is the last one I have to request a review of. I think I have everything in there, that should be there... Wscribner (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

So, to briefly address your questions in order:
  • the little !nosign! thing , was because I was editing the page without ~~~~ , and did not want the automated User:Sinebot robot to later come add 'previous unsigned message by 75.108' for me. In other words, ignore that, it was a programming-instruction for a wikipedia robot I'm friendly with, not meant for you, Wscribner.  :-)
  • noticed that Dtompos had created a userpage, thanks. Once we have had a brief chat, so I'm clear that User:Dtompos understands the rules about WP:NOTPROMOTION and about WP:LINKSPAM and the other WP:COI stuff like using the talkpages rather than directly editing, that will go a long ways towards removing one of the tags on the article.
  • I can start reviewing your edit-request sure, but actually I'll just be the critique-giver rather than the 'official' reviewer. We'll let somebody like DGG or Earwig give the final go-ahead, when we get a version everybody is happy with.
  • Sorry to dash your hopes, but there is almost always more work to be done here on wikipedia.  :-)     Your edit-request provides the NREL ref, which is good, but since one of the co-authors is E.Tompos, whether that NREL cite will count towards wiki-notability is unclear (some wikipedians think WP:SCHOLARSHIP is a good guideline and others think it is only a good guideline for article-content and not for wiki-notability).
Cleaning up the small bits like this, is helpful and shows good faith effort, but wiki-notability is very simple: to demonstrate that the article on NTA belongs in wikipedia, the best and only way is through WP:SOURCES. That means, newspapers and magazines and television and radio and government agencies and academia and books and trade-mags and such, which specifically talk about NTA, in some reasonable amount of depth. What do we have so far?
Which parts of these count towards wiki-notability? They all help *some* of course. But only the sbTrib cite really has much depth. If you or Dtompos knows about other press-coverage, newspapers/television/etc, over the years since 1976, now is the time to dig out the old scrapbooks. It doesn't matter if the coverage is on the web; as long as a librarian like DGG can look it up on microfiche, or otherwise find the published source somewhere, that is what is needed. See WP:42. If you have questions about any particular *wording* used in WP:42, or are not sure what the rules about 'independent' and 'wiki-reliable' and the other jargon means, let me know that as well. In a nutshell, right now we have one reasonably in-depth article from a newspaper in 2009. But three sources is usually the minimum to satisfy WP:42, though sometimes exceptions are made. For commercial firms, which are typically not found in encyclopedias like Britannica, wikipedians are more likely to take a hard look. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Userpage?

Hi 75.108 - independent of the other issue, would you like me to create a userpage for you? You appear to have a long-term static IP address with close to 2k edits to ENWP, and to be generally well-informed. No worries if you don't, but since an IP alone can't create (but can edit) their own userpage,) I'd be happy to create a userpage for you to do with as you please if you'd like. Please ping me in a response, my watchlist is a bit overwhelmed atm. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

ping from Wscribner (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I have a lot of information that has been found, it will add to what is on the NTA page, and also create a new section or two. Please help!! I am putting everything I have found on my talk page. Thank you ahead of time!! Wscribner (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you!
Thank you for all your help! Wscribner (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Genesis Mining

I have now deleted it and protected as a probably orangemoody re-creation. Further explanation here. I think this particular article has already had more discussion than it is worth. Further discussion of how to handle articles in the field can best be done for an article without Orangemoody ancestry. Further discussion of how to handle sock-related articles can best be done with one that is about a clearly notable subject. We already have an established practice on dealing with articles related to this particular group of sockpuppets.

But, fwiw, I regard all sources o from trade journals devoted to that particular industry as unreliable because undiscriminating. Assuming impeccable ancestry, I think it would not have passed AfD. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for a thoughtful comment

... in an RfA, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure Gerda, and thank you for thanking me.  :-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

... and another one on my talk regarding arbitration enforcement, appreciated, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, 75.108.94.227. You have new messages at Kevin Gorman's talk page.
Message added 18:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

.. before you mentioned them, I had gotten used enough to things like ping that I had almost forgotten tl is still a thing. Oh, how time flies. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

template question

Here is an example-use (currently buggy) of Template:edit:

Rightclick and open in a new tab, to see the results. The problem is that preload=User_talk:75.108.94.227/talklink_preload is not working as I wish. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

BLING PING

PING PING PING
Very Male fawn Boxer

PING: Hafspajen (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Mandy, I really I want to wash the carpet. Hafspajen (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
You... you... you say you don't like the kittens? Wha..? Wha....? Whaaaaaaa.. Discombobulation! Okay fine, no more cats for you. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I liked them .. once. I had like 5 of them too. But I don't like them any more as much, because the neibourgs is running in my place and I want to wash the carpet. Hafspajen (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Practopoiesis

Thank you very much for taking the time to figure out what to do with practopoiesis. I have now answered your questions. Best (Danko (talk) 10:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC))

My questions were answered, that is true. But since my questions were not well-posed questions, the answers only lead to more questions.  ;-)
some wikipedia articles , that give a flavor for how wikipedia is organized by field-of-inquiry .. which of course makes pigeonholing interdisciplinary concepts tough
  • Behavioral neuroscience / Biological psychology aka Psychobiology. (Neuro)biology applied to the study of mechanisms (physiological/genetic/developmental) underlying human behavior. Research is typically on animals (mice/monkeys/etc), at the level of neurons/neurotransmitters and brain-circuitry. Started philosophically by Rene Descartes and William James, see Mind-body problem. Psychobiology coined 1914, cross between neuroscience and psychology (plasticity / neurons / etc and how these physiological functionality interconnect to mental processes).
User:Dankonikolic, over at the AfD page, you suggested the following articles, as plausibly helpful to define the ontological hierarchy, and find out where practopoiesis belongs therein. However, you are thinking that because practopoiesis has a very broad applicability and a very interdisciplinary scope, that it belongs VERY HIGH UP in the wikipedia ontology. That is not correct; practopoiesis is a "leaf article" down at the very slenderest branches of the wikipedia-tree-of-knowledge, and is probably going to be merged (as a section within the 'parent' article). The disconnect here, is that wikipedia is organized according to AMOUNT of press-coverage and amount of academic work. That practopoiesis has broad applicability and interdisciplinary scope, does not mean it will move up the wikipedia-tree-of-knowledge to thicker branches and more 'famous' articles that are widely seen by the readership. I've taken your suggested ongology-members (parents/uncles/cousins/siblings), and re-ordered them into an amount-of-coverage-in-the-WP:SOURCES type of arrangement.
topics in wikipedia , ordered from most-coverage to least-coverage
  • #_C Brain, practopoeisis has empirical predictions about brains
  • #_B Mind, because practopoeisis is a theory of how mind comes out of the brain
  • #_E adaptive system, as a special case of the explanatory-mechnism of practopoeisis (which generalizes the processes of adaptive biological systems... to such an abstract level that practopoeisis can attempt to use one mechanism for thought/behavior/learning/evolutionaryGenetics/etc... and explain the interaction between the biological-evolutionary-genetic-level and then thought&behavior level)
  • #03 Homeostasis
  • #21 Wisconsin Card Sorting Test
  • #05 Abductive reasoning
  • #99 Higher-order_theories_of_consciousness
  • #12 Poiesis , greek concept that 'might' encompass both Allopoiesis && Autopoiesis. see also to practopoiesis , incongruous top-posted sentence about practopoiesis (ref'd to Nikolic paper)
  • #08 Esthesic and poietic , semiotics terms ... misplaced see-also to practopoiesis && friends
  • #XX topics that WP:FAILN but have at least some WP:NOTEWORTHY coverage ... not suitable for dedicated articles, but if at least one WP:RS exists, can be included as content of an appropriate existing article
  • #YY material that is not yet published, e.g. private communications -- not suitable for wikipedia , see WP:V
  • #ZZ material that is made up on the spot, and is not even about to be published -- not suitable for wikipedia , see WP:PROVEIT
  • #!! material that is only available as inexpressible mental states not suited to linguistic expression -- inherently not suitable for wikipedia
Now, this is just a rough ordering, but hopefully it gives you the flavor of what is being sought here. Mind cannot be the direct parent of practopoiesis, because wikipedia is organized based on amount of coverage, and practopoiesis has relatively little, whereas the mind has been discussed to death for centuries. It would be WP:UNDUE to have even a sentence about practopoiesis in that top-level high-traffic article. It would be a violation of WP:NOTPROMOTION to put this novel theory, practopoiesis, into such an article, whether as a wikilink in the see-also section, or as an external link (see WP:ELNO and WP:LINKSPAM). I realize that you understand these things, because of your comment at AfD about the timescale involved:

I hope that one day it will form a prominent part of the Wikipedia entry on mind. ...I am completely aware that if this ever happens, it will take years.

But just so you understand, with crystal clarity, it will be at least a decade or two, before practopoiesis has enough press-coverage to merit a one-sentence mention in the article mind or brain. At the moment, the status of practopoiesis is "just a theory" which has not been widely covered by independent wiki-reliable sources. As the years go by, and papers about it are written, reviews of those papers, book-chapters, entire books, the graduate-level AI textbooks have a footnote about it, the undergraduate-level psychology textbooks have a page about it, the high school psych textbooks have a chapter about it... that is how practopoiesis will get more ink here on wikipedia. That is the ONLY way it can happen, I will stress. For instance, this is not wiki-proper behavior:

Some of the ['sibling' articles of concepts somewhat-related to practopoiesis] already have links to practopoiesis, or had them but were meanwhile deleted by editors.

You have been sprinkling see-also links to practopoiesis, on the basis that it is a related concept. But that is not enough: you could just as easily have put your own name, or the name of your university, because *those* are also related, right? By some loose definition of 'being related' in some tangential fashion. Wikipedia, of necessity, has extremely tough strict tight rules about what can be in the WP:SEEALSO section, and what can be in the WP:ELNO section.
  Now, because you are still learning to be a wikipedian-in-good-standing, you did not know these rules about see-also pages. But you need to learn them, ASAP, and then please go clean up the mistakes. Practopoiesis is a new theory, and must not use wikipedia as a way to make itself more popular/famous/widespread. It has to spread outside wikipedia, through the normal channels of academia, through the normal channels of science journalism (teevee and radio and newspapers and magazines and popularized-books and the like). You are putting links to practopoiesis where they do not yet belong, becuase practopoiesis does not have sufficient press-coverage, just yet. Make sense?
  So my understanding of practopoiesis, as a concept that needs to be put somewhere, is still fuzzy. But I'm getting closer. What will help me next, is if you give me an idea of what the position of practopoiesis might be, within neurocybernetics (and if not why practopoiesis does not fit), plus an explanation of how specifically practopoiesis fits within autopoiesis, and what relationship practopoiesis has with Allostasis specifically, as opposed to Heterostasis_(cybernetics), and why not heterostatis. Also, if you can give me the 'nearest neighbors' to the concept of downward causation, what sub-subfield of philosophy/AI it is within and what sub-subfield of biology/complexityTheory it is within, plus what the main three competing explanations are. On that same line of thinking, besides the connnectionism-paradigm, what are the other main competitors to practopoiesis. Thanks for your efforts, sorry about the large number of questions, your field is complex but I'm trying to come up to speed as fast as my wiki-feet can paddle.  :-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I cannot tell you how much I appreciate you taking the time to fix this. It must have taken time to write all these explanations for me.
I think I understand now the situation better. Yes, it seems that for now practopoiesis has to be a lief in the tree of knowledge. The only question is where this leaf is located. Being an overarching theory, the situation for practopoiesis is such that it can form a leaf on multiple branches (biology, psychology, AI, philosophy of mind, etc). I guess that I could find 10 or 20 leaf positions. Therefore, one has to pick one of those. I think that, in principle, it does not matter which one will be picked. There is probably no special one that is a much better fit than any other. So, one can as well take Downward Causation as a place for the leaf. Adaptive system is maybe another one (if it can be considered a leaf at all).
Perhaps your questions were geared towards finding that leaf. Let me answer them then:
I would say that nearest neighbors to Downward causation are Emergence and Self-organization and perhaps also Supervenience.
Relationship to Autopoiesis: Autopoiesis states that a biologicl organism creates itself. It is contrasted to allopoiesis, which means "created by other". Practopoiesis explains how autopoiesis of an organism takes place: It states that the relationships between certain components of an organism (more precisely between the components of a living cell) are allopoietic. This means that some parts of a cell create others, but not the other way around (e.g., genes create proteins, but proteins do not create genes). Practopoiesis is partly inspired by the theory of autopoiesis (hence the appearance of "poiesis" in both names) but is also a different theory. This puts the two theories also a little bit into competition (hence mentioned also bellow in competition).
Allostasis and Heterostasis refer more or less to the same thing. Practopoiesis relates to both of them by i) explaining how they work and ii) generalizing their ideas. Allostasis and heterostasis assume regulations made on a regulator. Practopoeisis generalizes by being able to deal with any depth of a hierarchy of adaptive regulation e.g., regulations made on a regulator which regulates yet another regulator, and so on. It also explains advantages of such hierarchies, principles of their operations as well as the limitations.
Neurocyberentics, as far as I understand it, is a bit of a specific field because it has a strong emphasis on interactions between human and machines and more specifically on brain-machine interfaces (BMI). So, I would say that some aspects of neurocybernetics could be consider a sub-class of practopoietic systems. But other aspects of neurocyberentics would have nothing to do with practopoiesis, but instead more with classical engineering.
Competitors other than connectionism: Computationalism is its most powerful competitor, judged by the influence it has on the field of neuroscience and AI. Basically, every other theory of mind or AI that is founded in computationalism is a competitor to practopoiesis (and there are many: neural nets, Bayesian, Markov chains, ...). Another competitor would be Prototype theory, as the two explain in very different ways how we get categories and concepts. As I mentioned Autopoiesis is about half a collaborator and half a competitor.
There are also approaches to cognition that are largely friends or collaborators to practopoiesis: Important ones not mentioned yet are Situated cognition and Embodied embedded cognition. Practopoiesis tells us how to implement those approaches towards explaining cognition.
I hope that this time I have given you more useful information.(Danko (talk) 12:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC))

Practopoiesis_2

Note about wiki-technology , you should add colons in front of your paragraphs, I've done it for you, see WP:INDENT and WP:WIKIQUETTE helpdocs.
You gave me good info the first time you replied at the AfD, and further good info here.  :-)     Many folks on wikipedia are allergic to long conversations, but I'm not one of them, so please keep the good info coming. However, although I appreciate you thanking me for the help at AfD, and the time spent figuring out where practopoiesis belongs in wikipedia per WP:NOTEWORTHY mention in various academic journals plus IEET, the reason I'm doing so is because I have an ulterior motive. Gasp!  :-)     Specifically, one of the things I specialize in doing, here on wikipedia, is helping WP:EXPERT contributors not get blocked. You are in danger of being blocked as a spammer, because you do NOT yet understand wikipedia guidelines, and are making WP:COI-encumbered edits to mainspace like this.[6] My goal is to teach you the ropes of wikipedia, so you stop violating the wiki-rules, and can thus continue to contribute your expertise, and continue to improve wikipedia... without violating the strict anti-spam wiki-culture.
  Do you understand my goal here? I'm not really interested in practopoiesis, or downward causation, or neuroscience generally speaking... I'm interested in having MORE wikipedians that konw something about neurobiology, and that means you, as a neuroscientist slash cyberneticist, are thus a WP:EXPERT contributor, whom I want to keep contributing here. To that end, I would very much like for you to become a wikipedian-in-good-standing, but for that to happen, you need to start understanding the anti-spam policies here, which are vastly stricter than on any other website you might be accustomed unto.
  Please read WP:PSCOI, WP:LINKSPAM, and WP:ELNO. Ask questions here, if anything is the least bit unclear. You can also use WP:Q, for faster response (I'm just one person) if you like. The reason you think it is "okay" to add a sentence about practopoiesis, an extremely obscure-in-the-literature neologism that you invented personally, to an article on a competing theory computational neuroscience, is because you don't understand the meaning of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV and WP:SPIP fully enough. I plan to educate you about hte wiki-rules, while you educate me about cutting-edge neuroscience-slash-philosophy-of-mind.
  Now, to be fair, you obviously have *some* clue about how wikipedia works, when it comes to WP:COI... for instance you have not yet added a sentence about practopoiesis to the article Earth, even though practopoiesis is a kind of unifying "explanation of the world" type of theory. Why not? Well, because even to the untutored eye of the wikipedia-novice, ignorant of all the subtle wiki-bureaucracy hidden inside WP:PAG, pretty clearly practopoiesis has very little to do wth the article about Earth, even though the only place you find practopoiesis mentioned happens to be on Earth. But wikipedia actually revolves around WP:RS and not around logic aka WP:SYNTH, which means the logical argument only takes you so far. To get further in your wiki-knowledge, here is the gedanken experiment that you need to go though: if I pick up a textbook entitled "Earth" is there going to be a chapter on practopoiesis? or a page on practopoiesis? or a sentence on practopoiesis? Or a footnote that namedrops practopoiesis? Or no mention of practopoiesis whatsoever?
  Well, as of 2015, it is "no mention" and thus wikipedia's article Earth also necessarily makes no mention, because what WP:NPOV means in practice is that wikipedians are supposed to reflect what the wiki-reliable sources actually say about any given topic. Guess what? Run the same series of questions, about a textbook on computational neuroscience, and you will get the same answer: no mention whatsoever, as of 2015 anyways. Until and unless that answer changes, *me* inserting practopoiesis-sentences and practopoiesis-refs and practopoiesis-links into the article about computational neuroscience would be an NPOV violation per WP:UNDUE.
  But although me inserting that would be a mistake, it would not be a *big* mistake, because of who I am and especially because of who I am not. What would be a small mistake (albeit embarrassing since I pride myself on understanding the wiki-policies pretty well), when I did it, would be very different for yourself. In particular, *you* inserting such things, not only would violate WP:UNDUE, but also would violate WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:TOS and WP:PSCOI and WP:SPIP and maybe WP:LINKSPAM and WP:ELNO, those are just off the top of my head. Many of those are blockable offenses, should some admin happen to notice the rules-violation (while in a bad mood), which neither of us wants. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, in theory; you can always ask politiely to be unblocked, and if you show you understand what wiki-policy you violated, and swear on a stack of wiki-bibles not to violate the wiki-policy again, then you are again free to be a wikipedian-in-good-standing. But it is easier for all concerned, if you don't get blocked in the first place, but instead find somebody to give you good advice.
  Okay, so the wiki-rules-discussion out of the way for the moment (but please ask if you have any questions about it or don't understnad what I am talking about ... and be aware that there is little relationship between wiki-reliable and real-world reliable, ditto for wiki-notable and real-world notable, andvery little relationship between wiki-COI and real-world COI)... let us get back to business. Here are my attempts to clasify practopoiesis, within three different fields of inquiry, as a leaf node:
I am sure I've made some mistakes.  ;-)   Cannot be helped, wikipedia is mostly written by amateurs, not by experts. Please correct me, by offering improved ontology chains of your own. Maybe there is even a fourth field of inquiry, that I have not mentioned? Personally, these are how I'm imagining things at the moment. Now, as wth everything on wikipedia, picking a leaf-node should be decided based on what the WP:SOURCES actually say, and how *they* pigeonhole the new theory. In the case of practopoiesis, we can look at the names of the journals, and the abstracts of the places where it has been cited, for our clues. Here is your interview with Nick Bostrom's think tank the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies in 2014,[7] which was re-published in August 2015,[8] under the following IEET-specific ontology chain:
  • IEET > Life > Brain–computer-interface > Innovation > Neuroscience > Vision > AI > Psychology.
Here are some other 'sources'[9][10] that do NOT necessarily qualify as wiki-reliable per WP:RS and WP:SOURCES.
  • 11 cites, Semantic mechanisms may be responsible for developing synesthesia. A Mroczko-Wąsowicz, D Nikolić - Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2014 - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  • 4 cites, Practopoiesis: Or how life fosters a mind. D Nikolić - Journal of theoretical biology, 2015 - Elsevier
  • 0 cites, On the Design of a User-in-the-Loop Channel. With Application to Emergency Egress. C Dumitrescu - arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.03204, 2015 - arxiv.org
  • 0 cites, Only T3-AI can reach human-level intelligence: A variety argument. D Nikolić - arXiv preprint arXiv:1505.00775, 2015 - arxiv.org
  • 0 cites, Die Kunst Der Sinne-Die Sinne Der Kunst, Digitale Synästhesie 'als Modell für eine Kybernetik der Ästhetik. S Jeschke, R Schmitt, A Dröge - katharinagsoellpointner.at
  • 0 cites, Control theory. IL Chevrolet - ilovechevrolet.tk
  • 0 cites, Super‐intelligent AI: How it needs to be organized. D Nikolić - danko-nikolic.com
Now, just counting noses roughly, we have 'sources' that indicate the topic of practopoiesis is neuroscience/psychology/theoreticalBiology in 3 sources, AI in 2 sources, and systemsThoery/cybernetics in 3 sources. But this is not a nose-counting contest. First of all, only wiki-reliable sources can be counted, and the publisher at ilovechevrolet.tk probably does not pass WP:RS, to pick an obvious example. Your own blog about how a super-intelligent AI would need to be organized, falls mostly under WP:BLOGS ... though an argument could be made that, because you are a university researcher in the field of neuroscience, your specific blog should qualify as WP:EXPERT and be an exception to WP:BLOGS. But for the moment let us concentrate on the 100%-independent 100%-wiki-reliable publishers. The journal-article in the neuroscience journal by Mroczko-Wąsowicz (and yourself as co-author) counts as WP:RS because of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, even though you were one of the authors, the review-process of the journal ought to make that source count as wiki-reliable. Similarly, Elsevier's journal of theoretical biology makes your sole-author paper from 2014 count as a legit WP:RS (though because you are the author the cite may not help much with demonstrating wiki-notability and passing WP:42 as a *dedicate* article... but Elsevier's stamp on the paper means it satisfies WP:NOTEWORTHY for inclusion into a suitable parent-article). The interview with the IEET staffer is 100% independent of yourself, and IEET the publisher is also 100% independent, but the piece is not necessarily WP:RS since it is unclear if IEET exercises sufficient editorial oversight. Also, as an interview, it counts less towards wiki-notability than a piece entirely in the journalists's voice reviewing your work. That said, assuming IEET qualifies as a wiki-reliable publisher (we can see their video received several thousand hits but that is not enough), IEET lists your interview under the life/neuroscience/psychology tags (plus also mentions AI in the middle there).
  So at the end of the day, when we just look at the WP:RS most-cited WP:SOURCES, and the usage therein, it is a pretty clear lean towards the categorization-scheme that practopoiesis is a psychobiology-and-neuroscience concept primarily, and an AI/philosophy concept secondarily, with little mention of cybernetics/systemsTheory outside of WP:BLOGS. I'm pretty sure that is incorrect, per WP:THETRUTH, and that it would be better for wikipedia's purposes to treat practopoiesis as primarily a cybernetics concept, with see-also linkage to the AI-leafnodes and the neurobiology/psychobiology-leafnodes. But as more WP:SOURCES become available it will become clear which place practopoiesis truly belongs. In the short run, we have to pick one place, but as you say, it is not super-crucial that we get it 'right' because we can always move it elsewhere, later, per WP:NORUSH. So in the short term, please give me your ontology-trees that you think are closest to the truth, and your opinion on the primary ontology-tree that makes sense for practopoiesis, aka best represents the main thrust of the "home" field of inquiry, for the new concept.
  Practopoiesis draws on all three (biology/psychology and philosophy/AI and systems/cybernetics), but where is the *top* area of applicability slash innovation? Or to put it another way, although you hope that professionals in the fields of biology, neurology, philosophy, computer science, and systems theory will be interested in your work... which subgroup of the readership working in those fields, will have the most people likely to be interested in reading about practopoiesis? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks again for all this work and the detailed explanations. I leaned a lot. Here is the answer to your question: It is biology that is the most important filed for practopoiesis. Reasons: The original paper is published in a biological journal and the theory has been developed mostly from my studies in (neuro)biology. It should be biologists who should be most interested in reading the paper.
And no, you did not make any big mistakes in your classifications--as far as I can tell. You made only small ones (e.g., neurology is something different from neuroscience; neurology is a part of medicine).
I understand that I should not have made links to practopoiesis on other pages. By reading the links that you suggested, I should have probably written suggestions to the editors of those pages and then waited until they decide to include such references, or not include. Perhaps, this is what I should do: Remove the texts that I entered and then ask the editors to put them back. I just don't know what is the best way of doing it. Maybe you can advice me there. Should I do it on the talk-page of the page in question or on the page of an editor that seems relevant to me? Or both? Or is there some other option?
Best (Danko (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC))
Okay, so for the purposes of AfD, you think that a merge of practopoiesis into the biology-related parent is best, which to my eyes, seems to be a new subsection of Allostasis#Theoretical_biology_variations. Does that sound correct? At the moment, of course, practopoiesis is the only 'variation' we know to exist, but perhaps there are others that can be added. In any case, calling the subsection 'practopoiesis' would also make sense, but would not convey anything to the biology-oriented readership of that extant wikipedia-article (unless they *already* knew what practopoiesis meant :-)     The reason not to opt for Autopoiesis#Theoretical_biology_variations, is because although practopoiesis has *impact* in the artificial-intelligence-and-philosophy-of-mind field-of-inquiry, the primary thrust (and most-cited sources) are in the neurobiology field-of-inquiry. Same argument for Heterostasis_(cybernetics)#Modern_theoretical_biology_variations, although practopoiesis is an *expansion* of cybernetic concepts, it is more grounded (and more cited) in biology-circles than in cybernetics-circles. So at the end of the day, is the correct merge-target Allostasis#Theoretical_biology_variations, for most of the material currently at practopoiesis?
the nutshell answers to your questions about COI-encumbrance, and the best practices to follow
  So the fundamental way that wikipedia works, is that it is always an improvement to let other editors (which includes 'anybody on the internet' basically) review your contributions. However, in cases where there is a very close connection, especially a reputational or a financial stake, wikipedia has more formal wiki-rules about how one should explicitly seek out "peer review" from one's fellow wikipedians. And yes, for purposes of WP:COI, there are plenty of instructions you can follow. Wikipedia is very touchy about people adding information about themselves, or adding links to their websites, or similar such things. As you can see from the reaction of the wikipedia admins that commented at the AfD and the COIN noticeboard. My best advice is to keep doing what you are doing: learn fast, and ask questions when you are unsure.  :-)
  To answer your particular questions, in brief: yes, you goofed when you personally added external links to danko-nikolic.com to various wikipedia pages. Click here, Special:Contributions/Dankonikolic, and start going over your past edits, looking for places where you violated some of the wikipedia-rules I've introduced you to. Removing your own mistakes is considered extra-wiki-honourable, it keeps other people from having to do the work, and is called a "self-revert" in the wikipedia jargon. You can also just search mainspace for the link, like this way,[11] or instead thisaway.[12] Same thing for links to practopoesis/ideasthesia/downwardCausation/etc.
  Now, although you have COI-encumbrance, as the originator (or at least co-originator) of many such ideas, you are not really a spammer, trying to sell trinkets or whatever, you are a neuroscience WP:EXPERT and wikipedia needs you.  :-)     But you have to be extra-super-careful to avoid even the appearance of bias/conflict-of-interest/etc. So yes, you are correct, the best way to add your WP:SCHOLARSHIP links to the papers you've written in scientific journals, or to add a see-also link from some broader article to ideasthesia, is to make a proposal on article-talkpage. Sometimes this works, and you get an answer immediately. Other times, nobody is home, and your question sits unanswered; in such cases, the best next step is to seek out a member of the appropriate wikiproject (usually listed at the top of the article-talkpage but also generally pretty obvious... practopoiesis being the exception where most folks cannot figure out *which* wikiproject it belongs under due to the interdisciplinary nature of the thing :-)
  Point being, if you make a suggestion, and you wait a week per WP:NORUSH, and you get the answer 'yes' then go for it, and if you get the answer 'no' then try again next year when more sources covering the topic have come out... but if you get *silence* then you will probably need to seek out the usertalk page of a specific wikipedian (me or DGG or whomever you are wiki-friendly with ... or some wikiproject member since joining a wikiproject is tantamount to saying please-ask-me-for-help-in-this-area). You can also seek disinterested eyeballs to check your suggestion, at WP:TEAHOUSE and at various other on-wiki venues, listed in WP:Q. Make sense?
  So in a nutshell, the answers are: don't add links or wikilinks or refs involving yourself (and if you do ... self-revert them to clean up the mistake), instead propose a suggestion on Talk:Computational_neuroscience (or whatever the article-talkpage in question might be), and if you get 'no' for an answer, wait a year and then try again. If you get silence, nobody responding for a week, then see WP:Q and the various wikiprojects (a good starting point is WP:WikiProject_Cognitive_science#Related_WikiProjects which has a long list). So it is neither one, nor the other, nor even both... the correct answer is to try the article-talkpage first and then if you get no response then seek out individual wikipedians. Make sense?
  For all the gory details, please skim my instructions to User_talk:Wscribner and the page they are associated with at Talk:NTA_(company). Your situation is different, since you are 'in' the field but not really an employee of some group (however if you ever decide to edit the articles about the Max Planck facilities -- even the ones you are not personally at -- that type of edit would count as an 'employee' WP:COI type of situation). You should read the instructions at {{connected_contributor}}, and the relatively-new helpdocs at WP:TOS that explain how to disclose a 'close connection' such as the ones you have to practopoiesis and ideasthesia ... add the connected-contributor thing at the top of those article-talkpages for starters, and create User:dankonikolic with links to pages about the ideas you originated and co-originated, so that other editors will understand your talkpage requests.
  If you have questions about how to hop through these wiki-hoops, with the curlycurly things, you can use WP:TEAHOUSE or #wikipedia-en-help connect for instant gratification, folks there are friendly and know the mechanics. Anyways, it looks to me like you are well on your way to becoming a wikipedian-in-truly-good-standing, and I'm glad about that.  :-)     Please see WP:5, if I haven't mentioned it before; they are subtle, read them a few times and mull over the details of what they mean, and how they work in practice. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll prepare a text as you suggested.(Danko (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC))

Storyline

User:75.108.94.227 Have you seen the T5, I'll be back, yet? It was a great movie. As far as changing the storyline, they did it in the best way possible, time travel! Similar to the Star Trek reboot, which I was very iffy on, but absolutely loved once I watched it (I used to watch TOS (Star Trek: The Original Series) with my dad when I was little). Also, I hear talk of a new Aliens movie, with Signourney Weaver. Awesome!! Wscribner (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Although I like Christian Bale, I've refused to see T4, let alone T5... everything after T2 seemed a let-down. And the time-travel gimmick is not my favorite! But I may yet be drawn back, just like Ahhnahhld.  ;-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Turhan Nejat Veziroğlu has been accepted

Turhan Nejat Veziroğlu, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, 75.108.94.227. You have new messages at Samtar's talk page.
Message added 15:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Answered your thought-provoking questions samtar {t} 15:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: request for help with Turkish sources

Hey there. Saw your message on my talk page. I'd be glad to help! I'll have a look at the article linked in Veziroğlu's talk page and provide a translation. Crusoe704 (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Much appreciated, User:Crusoe704. Though please note, I don't actually need a full-blown translation of the source, for my own edification, as much as I just need somebody who can read Turkish, to please go through the source, and pull out any WP:NOTEWORTHY facts (written in wiki-neutral English), and shove those factoids into mainspace. Up to you, of course, if you'd rather do a quick translation, then have me write up some mainspace-sentences from that, I am happy to do it thataway. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:75.108.94.227/Archive_3&oldid=1144126118"