WikiSynergy:Community Roundtable

From WikiSynergy

Welcome to WikiSynergy's Community Roundtable

This is the place to discuss general tasks, the community, the universe and everything.

First bit of business

The first order of business is one of great and portentous moment: I have recently upgraded from a tiny CRT monitor to a 25.5 inch LCD. Any advice on adjusting the thing so as not to go blind would be appreciated (yes, I know to set the DPI), but more important I am likely to do something which ruins formatting or colors. So tell me. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 23:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Use its native format (x by y), or it will suck. Congrats, by the way. Human 03:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks (= And I am using the native resolution. It just seems like windows is not made for such large screens and does not look right. I think part of it is that it does not have enough pixels top to bottom, so seems grainy. I adjusted the sharpness, color, brightness, cleartype feature, etc... it is beginning to look better, or maybe I am changing myself. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 04:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You may need to upgrade/download drivers to get the rez to work - I had to, XP did not support the screen rez for my monitor, though I think I found something easily enough (like on the disc that came with the monitor, or on LG's website?) So, yeah, d/l drivers so the native rez is actually supported by your windows. Human 04:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I told windows to update the drivers for the monitor, but it said there was nothing more recent. The disk that came with the monitor said it was just for the web cam, so I didn't use it. The monitor's native resolution is 1920 x 1200 and in windows properties it sets to that, so I think I am fine. It is looking better and better as I tweak it. Setting the sharpness too high made all the fonts look sketchy. It is still too bright, and will not go lower. The problem will be figuring out what other people see, for web page design. But at any rate it is working pretty well now (it should be better out of the box don't you think?). What I can't figure out is how to permanently set the default zoom in firefox. Also, when you go to do a crossword puzzle on jigzone , the pieces are now to small (someone else wants that). It's nice of you to try and help (:

Oh, scrolling is also taking a lot of processor power and being slow. I do not know what that means. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 06:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah, I remember the rez issue - since the new monitor has higher resolution than the old, everything is smaller (more pixels per sq inch). It's so much sharper that it didn't really bother me, also I use reading glasses so they probably help make up for that. And, yeah, things should be better out of the box, but I guess what often happens is the OS or the mommyboard (etc.) were built before the new hardware was made/developed. IE, in my case, running a fairly old XP on an equally old machine, no monitors had the 9 x 16 (is it that?) aspect ratio, all were 3 x 4, so there weren't any good choices in my control panel. Certainly the native rez wasn't there, but I probably got the "fix" from the mfr's website. So in ff you're stuck hitting ctrl+ in every new window or tab? As I recall that can get weird, because the "text" all gets bigger but images stay the same. Oh well, keep tinkering... We just had a lovely rainbow, btw. Human 23:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

When I got my new big monitor I just kept playing about with it till I got something I liked. "Control +" in firefox is a great boon to my old eyes. If you, for whatever reason, want to make images bigger or smaller or force them to fit your screen then I recommend the firefox extension imagezoom.--Bob M 14:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed recently that my firefox now enlarges images as well as text on ctrl+. Human 01:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Binaural Beats

Does anyone know anything about them? I had asked at RW, but no one seemed to know. Sterile 01:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I remember hearing of them. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 01:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

different frequencies cancel eachother out - one in each ear... say a 120 hertz and 60 hertz will leave you with 60 hertz - - something like that - then it affects brain waves or something like that - so there could be theta - delta - or alpha waves - maybe some other sorts of waves and reportedly, i think, they all have different effects and correlations with different sorts of consciousnesses Wikademia

Now I remember. Look up the Monroe institute. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 00:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Might be a better place for explanation, I didn't see much on the main page at TMI to click on. Human 00:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, yeah, it is based on what I thought. When two frequencies that are close together interact, they result in a "beat" frequency that is slower and slower until the two original frequencies are the same. The "beat" frequency is not a "heard sound", it a perception of the loudness rising and falling at that frequency. (this is a way to tune musical instruments, by the way). Apparently, in the absence of interaction in a shared medium (like air on the way to your ears), the brain does the same thing. Human 00:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the article The Monroe Way. It will give you a sense of what Monroe did with binaural synchronization.Tom Butler 01:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Heck, I've got frequency generators and headphones, I'll have to try this. Odd that being "slightly out of tune" is better than being "in tune"... or is a 0 Hz beat something special? Human 04:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I won a iPod touch last year, and downloaded a binaural beats app. I can't decide if it's real. I think that there may be something to the change in brain waves, although I think the marketing of such products takes the claims to far, such as i-Doser making brains simulate the effects of drugs. Sterile 01:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually downloaded one off gnutella once, and it worked, with the tones in different ears generating another. That is the same thing, correct? P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 03:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The easiest (?) way to understand this is to get a guitar, or a friend with a guitar, and tune two strings together. As they get close, you here the sound of them together "beating" - getting louder and softer, more and more slowly as the strings come close to "being in tune". The frequencies have to be within a few percent or so of each other before the beat is apparent. By the way, the acoustic phenomenon is very simple physics. Human 04:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, my understanding is that you have to hear the separate tone in each ear for some reason. It doesn't entrain the brain otherwise. Sterile 00:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as the brain trip, maybe, but in reality, simple sounds, the effect is real. As I said, find a friend with a guitar and check it out. This is actually how I learned to cheat "not having a good ear" in order to tune my guitar. Human 05:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

People being nice

It has come to my attention that people are not really reading the documentation around here. They are thus being timid where they should not need to be. For example, I got a message wondering if it was okay to put links on a userpage. Of course it is, but it would often be better to put them in the article [1]. This wiki has a lot of levels. Just because we are currently focusing on the area of controversy between skeptics and believers does not mean we abandon the other levels. And our first level is a directory (or link farm if you prefer) for fringe subject areas like radical skepticism and CAM and paranormal. This graphic will tell you a lot. The other major principles are collegiality and fully expressing views in their own space, which is a little different from Wikipedia because Wikipedia tries to synthesize views into truth and create a single article where the weight of views is relative to the way they show up in the mainstream press, whereas we try to focus on and fully explain the controversy. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 23:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, every time I see this header I think it's going to be about the lack of collegiality presented by some editors in response to people like me and BobM, Sterile, and Gooniepunk. Human 04:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Yes, I wanted people to read it (; P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 04:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I've probably missed the point, but are you suggesting that we should be less nice? Personally I always try (though not always successfully I must admit) to respond to what people say rather than to the person. Ie "that was a silly comment" as opposed to "you are a silly person". Frankly, I think that this might be a good standard of etiquette here, as it tries to ensure that conversations are about issues rather then personalities.--Bob M 18:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You missed the point, which was that people are being more cautious than they need to be. In some instances they are attempting to be nice about the rules here when they should be diving in.

Miracles are scientifically impossible

Miracles are scientifically impossible. This is an article along the general theme of Vinstonas Wu's treatise. I would ask -or challenge if it helps- the skeptics here to go over it and improve it. If the arguments there are sound, I might ask you to sign it, if you are willing [2], or I might put up a template saying that the article is skeptic-approved. This could be our first signed/vetted general article per Policy#Reliability. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 23:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It's barely readable, in my opinion. It's hard to even tell what the author's premise or thesis is, likewise their conclusion. Don't mean to be mean, but really. I think I might have a guess what is trying to be said, but I suspect attempting to be logical is spoiling the author's ability to prove their point. In other words, they are working backwards from a conclusion or claim of some sort, and hoping that the logical steps make sense in the forward direction. But I'll look at it again and try to make further comments on the talk page. Human 04:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, it's hard to know where to begin responding to it. It makes such a series of unsupported assertions that it's hard to get a handle on.--Bob M 15:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I gave it my best shot. But I think the "sceptic approved" template (or for that matter the "making sense approved" template) is a long way off.--Bob M 15:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well what would you do with an article like that? There is no real thesis, except clear thinking about the concept. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 03:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but the article seems to me like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It's not "about" anything. Maybe a better article would be miracles versus the paranormal: how to distinguish them? Human 04:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright

Hi PS. see that your copyright policy is:

All the original material on this page as well as any changes or additions to this material is copyrighted to its original author(s), all rights reserved.

I wonder if you could you explain how this would work in practice as it seems a bit unworkable to me. Cheers.--Bob M 14:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, scratch that. It was just a template on one page. Now that I follow your WikiSynergy:Copyrights link I understand.--Bob M 14:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

(; But you were right [3] P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 21:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually articles with that template would still be a bit problematic, but as it's not generally used I guess it's not a big problem.--Bob M 22:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Back

I am back from a trip. I do not announce trips on wiki, as that is an open invitation to trolling. I will catch up on whatever happened tomorrow (; P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 01:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Back for the day and sorting things out. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 20:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back. Although, that was over a month ago. Wikademia

What is on the table right now?

?? Wikademia

I'm wondering when the site will come back to life myself. I think it basically lost all its editors. I check in every few days, if I see it's active again I'll tip off the people I know at RationalWiki. Also, can you sign using four tildes, so there is a timestamp added as well as your user ID? Human 01:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Human, the site is not doing much, but it does get some hits, and is linked quite a few places. So that is good. But I am simply unable to work with it now, and some others are on vacation apparently. So thank you, I will contact you if there is any action and you do not seem to be around. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 04:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! What this place needs is an influx of intelligent "proponents" willing to write great articles. In my opinion, anyway. Human 02:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, definitely. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 06:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Proponents? Proponents proponenting what? Wikademia

Proponents of "fringe" areas of study. Like Tom and his work on EVP. People who aren't just "interested" but who have devoted a lot of time and energy to studying and researching the fields. Human 21:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The best way I can think of to attract "intelligent 'proponents' willing to write great articles" is to show that this is a great place to have such articles. It is, but I think it would be good to chum for editors by having interesting article show up in the searches. I would think nothing would attract an editor in astrology, for instance, than to have something supportive but controversial show up in a search. You can't say "astrology is all wrong" and expect editors who know what they are talking about, only editors who agree. If you say "These are the pros and cons of astrology," then perhaps you will get a few subject matter experts. I suspect criticism only attracts critics. Tom Butler 16:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is all the synergy?

Isn't this wiki called "wiki synergy"? Where is all the synergy? Wikademia

Spam filter

The spam filter will not bother you, at least for now. When I tried to use the blacklist with the whitelist, it rejected links to Wikipedia. I don't know what went wrong, but I turned the blacklist off entirely for now. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 21:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It rejected links to WIKIPEDIA? I smell a conspiracy... it's the CABAL. waa Wikademia

LOL. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 21:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Bashing USA

I am concerned that Lucho, Moon Hoax‎ will be seen as USA bashing. The article is, in fact, political conspiracy and not frontier. I am pretty sure Lucho is User:Лъчезар here [4]

Rather than producing an article that informs, he is using the Internet as a bulletin board to paste his propaganda against the USA everywhere he can. Tom Butler 02:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And propaganda against the USA isn't controversial? If anyone cares, won't they come refute the article? Otherwise, let it spread till someone cares. It is like the immune system of the noosphere. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 03:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you about it being of concern, but I think it is controversial, and someone just needs to address it. Rather than censor it as is most likely on Wikipedia. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 03:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

First, the guy has that tripe on every wiki he can get on, so it is unlikely a rational person would accuse you of censoring him. My point is, do you really want this to turn into a conspiracy wiki?

He is apparently a Russian finding every little thing he can to support his argument that the USA lied. I would have a problem with that if it was a USA citizen writing about Russia is this kind of journalism was used. Why should I like giving him a platform to turn public opinion against my country when his argument is mostly based on hate for the USA? Look at his personal page in the simple wiki.

That is not frontier, it is a straight-forward flat-earth argument. You can't seriously think it is up to public opinion to address every crackpot who is willing to exaggerate the truth to tear down our country. He has 412 references, some of which are not in English. He is also using at least some of the references in a very selective way to twist the authors intended message to fit his. For instance, Reference 5, Did we go to the Moon?, mentions the change in German public opinion to illustrate the fact that there is wide-spread disbelief, but the article is about the validity of the argument and how it is bogus as well as anyone will ever know--for now. His inference that the article supports "...with public support for the latter growing" is disingenuous at best.

Your wiki, but I don't want to be associated with that kind of article so this is the public stamping out a virus. Tom Butler 18:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"USA bashing"??? I agree Lucho may be a little "odd" politically, but there are moon hoaxers here in the US. I don't see why you aren't welcoming of people with different belief systems to yours, Tom. Human 19:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's simply not my job to evaluate the truth or falsehood of the subjects posted. As long as they are legal, that is. If people want a more balanced view, they have to write it. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 20:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)