| Revision as of 02:54, 16 November 2013 editViriditas (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers169,729 edits →Plug and feather: re← Previous edit |
Revision as of 09:32, 17 November 2013 edit undoViriditas (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers169,729 edits archiveNext edit → |
| Line 12: |
Line 12: |
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
== :) == |
|
|
<nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki> |
|
|
Hi V! |
|
|
|
|
|
Welcome back! Wiki just got a little warmer... this must be the reason. |
|
|
|
|
|
How difficult would it be to make ] into one? '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 00:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:Not difficult, but probably too large and unwieldy if you used the current files. What we really need is a universal {{tl|playlist}} template, that allows anyone to stick a template in a section with multiple file type parameters. If they are images, then the playlist box contains file names in one column and a slideshow of images in another. If they are audio files, then those queue, if they are videos (like the above) then they play one after the other. So the question at hand is, how do we go about getting this done? ] (]) 03:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
], you can also try playing around with the collapse template: |
|
|
|
|
|
{{collapse top|title=2003 Sam Adams award presentation videos|bg=#F0F2F5}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm thinking something more along the lines of a file that would fit into one box, perhaps on the right side like an image with word-wrap, and would somehow play or link to all three videos. Right now, the article has only one image of the subject, and two other images that don't really hold much encyclopedic value. He has made firm the desire to stay out of media by refusing interviews. The world knows Snowden from his first video when he revealed himself as the source of the leaks and enumerated his reasons. Months later we get three video clips - totaling less than a minute. Visually, the video clips appear as still images when scanning the article. Even with these, the article is incredibly sparse and text-y. This is a function of the subject's ability to stay out of media. It also requires us to perhaps build the article in a way different from the usual. Much has been made of the beautiful new by the Guardian, where text, video and still images/files are displayed in a beautiful, flowing, fun yet extraordinarily informative fashion - and it's very new. I could imagine Misplaced Pages benefiting from a bit of this new form of journalism. As technology allows, we may be able to include little video clips here as a norm. For now, it does look a bit clunky but to collapse it all would still leave us with mostly text, and is not an improvement. If we had ample media files filling the page, then I would jump on this in a heartbeat. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 23:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yes, I agree. I filed a request for help, ]. You may want to join that discussion or help start a new one at the Village Pump. ] (]) 00:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::Cool. I've yet to visit the Village Pump, after all this time. Thanks for the reminder and for your help! '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 00:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Well, I've had nothing but frustrating experiences on the Village Pump, so I tend to avoid it. If you do go there, and you should, I would be very careful not to say anything ambiguous or easily misinterpreted. The people over there tend to see the world as black and white, good and bad, and very few shades of gray. Also, if you are trying to convince other people of your idea, be aware that they will try to shoot you down, so you will need to come up with counterarguments. And people wonder why Misplaced Pages hasn't advanced in the last decade. That's the reason. In my personal experience, they tend to advance bad ideas and ignore the good ones. ] (]) 00:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::To be entirely honest, I took a gander once and found that the most prolific contributor was also one of the most tendentious I'd run across at the time, so haven't had any desire to return. Your warnings don't change that. I am sure some techie folks will be inspired to improve our media viewing ability here, and help with this. Just need to ask the right crowd? '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 00:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Some of the most productive and helpful developers on this project have been blocked or run off the site, so good luck finding someone. Like I said, they reward mediocrity here and ban and block anyone and anything that actually improves the place. All they seem to be interested in doing here is creating more and more bureaucracy, the very thing we should be destroying. ] (]) 00:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I'm running into these sentiments a lot today, with regard to this website. I wonder if we are watching it die. Kind of feels that way. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 00:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::] said that nothing is permanent except change, but at the same time, to quote the great ], . The very idea of a universal encyclopedia is an idea that took hundreds, perhaps thousands of years to come to fruition. It is not over yet. ] (]) 00:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::No, I'm quite sure he said nothing is permanent except change... and taxes. No? Not him? Anyway, I like your style. Bum your visitors out completely, then slam them with a reason for renewed hope and expanded vision. Thoroughly exhausted now. And I like it. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 01:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::"You are the dreamer and the dream". We are at least 95% empty space. From my understanding of basic quantum physics, even that which we thought was 'solid', is actually energy too, just acting differently: a particle or a wave. But it turns out, the observer, the scientist behind the microscope, actually influences - indeed ''determines'' - how the energy appears. If s/he expects a particle, that is what will appear. So ancient mysticism is being proven by the most recent science. This is the very stuff Tibetan monks would discover by going deep into meditative states. ] writes about this in his ]. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 01:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::It's definitely a popular theme in fiction, specifically ''Star Trek'', with two of the best episodes (I'm sure there are more) devoted to the "dreamer and the dream", including the aforementioned DS9 episode '']'''' (1998) and TNG's '']'' (1992). I also like how authors and scientists like ] are trying to integrate mystical experiences into the human experience itself. At the end of the day, "mysticism" isn't really so mystical, we just treat it as such because we are so alienated from our own place in nature. We are conditioned by society to be at "war" with nature (look at the coverage of the latest typhoon as only one current example) rather than attempting to live ''with'' nature, in harmony. ] (]) 01:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::At the end of the day, if indeed no-thing exists but energy, then this is a mystical reality - no other way to slice it. There exists no division, no separation between any 'thing'. How can we be at war with our own selves? We do it regularly. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 20:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::The "mystery" itself (who are we, where did we come from, how did we get here, and where are we going?) is an active component of life, of living, and of being human. Our questioning nature is a process. Many things are wondrous, amazing, incredible, and breathtaking, but we really shouldn't hide it under a category of "mysticism". We need to take responsibility for our thoughts, and to begin ascribing a fundamental reality to how we act upon them. I'm not arguing for hardcore materialism or the antiquated notion of reductionism, I'm saying that we need to investigate our beliefs, our ideas, and our thoughts, and take responsibility for them. In my opinion, (and we may have to agree to disagree) talking about "mysticism" leads to and enforces the separation you and I are both trying to avoid. In this respect, I agree with the hardcore skeptics who refuse to believe anything without evidence, but I also disagree with them in that I believe that personal experience, intuition, dreams, insight, and thought itself can inform belief, which can sometimes be thought of as ineffable and not subject to close examination, not yet, anyway. ] (]) 01:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::Eeek, I didn't realize "mysticism" was such a loaded term. What I may have meant to say was, life is a trip. We do have hardcore evidence that there is not one solid thing in existence. We wear this earth suit that, through our senses, makes things appear solid, makes thing seem personal, makes things seem separate, makes things appear to be 'real', when in fact, no-thing is separate, no-thing exists. In "what the bleep do we know", they talk about scientists who have been able to isolate an object appearing in two places at the same time. They talk about the scientists observing in their microscopes a reality that just can't be - but it is. And then they drive home to their family. How do we simultaneously hold the trippy reality that quantum physics speaks to, and the mundane reality of our everyday lives? I wonder about this a lot. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 03:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::The reason mysticism is such a loaded term is because of films like ''What the bleep do we know'' which tend to muddle the science and spirituality. You can see from the article that it has been accused of "misrepresenting science and containing pseudoscience" and for promoting quantum mysticism. Considering that it is associated with ], you start to see other problems with the film. I'm sure they mean well and all, but this makes the problem worse. When we aren't exploring and experimenting, we need to think clearly about reality, and I'm not sure this film helps. So the question is, how do you think clearly and critically about reality, and at the same time explore it unconditionally, without falling into the trap of cults and religions? It's difficult to find anyone who has succeeded in a group, because most groups fall prey to this kind of problem. You certainly see it on Misplaced Pages, in many places, from admins banding together to fight the editors, to FRINGE theory crusading skeptics trying to fight the barbarians of belief, never minding the fact that that they are pushing their own crusade of ''scientism'' in the process. Nobody comes out of here with clean hands. What we are really dealing with has nothing to do with spirituality, religion, or even science, it's all primate dominance, animal psychology, on a very primitive, instinctual level. On the one hand you've got the my god can beat up your god crowd, while on the other, you've got the my nuke is bigger than your nuke crowd. The end result is the same; they are going to end up killing us both regardless of how big their gods or how big their nukes are. Superstitious monkeys with nukes confined to a small planet due to their obsession with shit flinging and territorial pissing. That about sums it up. ] (]) 03:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::With regard to the flick, you seem to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater (or maybe you saw no babies). I am using a single example from the film that is not disputed in order to make a larger point: life is a trip. If the materialists on Wiki have decided to slam this film, well, it makes me like it more, not less ;) '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 04:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::The organization behind the film is run by ] who has been accused of brain washing. The first thing they do is discourage critical thinking. As I said before, most groups devolve into this kind of a cult, and it doesn't have to be religious. You even see this in political groups. Russell Brand (who himself has been accused of being involved with a cult) said quite tellingly, "the left looks for traitors while the right looks for converts". That's very interesting and sort of shows what's at work. ] (]) 04:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::Found it myself! ] wrote: "Conservatives are always looking for converts, whereas liberals are always looking for heretics." Inform the palace guards, I shall create a WikiQuote entry at once! :) ] (]) 05:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::There isn't much available in the way of support for those who have had trippy experiences, like "near death". Having had one, I look for stories that help explain or that remind me of the formless bliss. But I am realizing that it's best to leave behind books and movies, opinions of the crowd, in the search for Truth. What I do know is that everything is made of atoms, and what we thought was solid inside them is not. There is nothing but energy, full stop. That is what I discovered when I died, too. I admit that I enjoy Rumi and others, as well as movies that have tried to speak to the notion that all is one, all is connected. Rumi calls it Love. Science calls it the Unified Field. Some call it God. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 05:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::Check out the ] and their website. They have a huge support group. ] (]) 07:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::::Interesting. Thanks again, V. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 21:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Re:Misplaced Pages profile== |
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you old friend. To add icing to the cake, I found out when I returned home that I was honored in a speech today in Guanica, Puerto Rico. See: [ |
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.facebook.com/notes/kenneth-d-mcclintock/mensaje-d%C3%ADa-del-veterano-guánica-2013/10151716515001338 Speech]. Not bad, right? ] (]) 03:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Hawaiian Royal Family == |
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to start taking a look at the following articles to begin with: |
|
|
|
|
|
*] |
|
|
|
|
|
*] |
|
|
|
|
|
*] |
|
|
|
|
|
I think overall the articles lack encyclopedic tone. I also seem to remember you mentioning somewhere that many o the articles are lifting from their sources word for word and even if they are public domain, it isn't right. I agree, as many of these sources are not written in a manner you would use on Misplaced Pages. Some of this wording appears to have been edited a few times to attempt some kind of copy editing and general editing of the prose, but it just seems to have made the text very confusing, and the history itself is not easy to keep up with and require secondary sourcing to summarize in a neutral and accurate way. Case in point...Keelikōlani. She had two fathers from a Hawaiian tradition of ]. OK...but that needs to first be explained better and then we need to really re-write that prose to be clear what her paternity issue was upfront and clearly and that means that we will have to include a good deal of the criticism of the figure as she was outright denied the throne from Kamehameha V on his death bed, but there is a great deal more documented and it does appear to be reliably sourced. The full reasoning behind the issue of her being denied the throne are complicated as it seems obscured in accusations of all kinds being made against a number of others. These seem to be among the principles involved in the passing from the Kamehameha Dynasty to the ]. I want to get to him next. |
|
|
|
|
|
What I hope to do is update, expand and begin getting them into GA or FA.--] (]) 13:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:It sounds to me like the articles will be vastly improved with your help. Please consider updating ] along the way, or creating style guidelines that other editors can draw upon for guidance. ] (]) 01:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:Thanks. Before I get too far into the articles, I noticed that ] needed cleanup as it supports a great deal of the other articles and there was an issue that was glaring about the paternity which is not so much a question, but a matter of which one. However, both accepted the figure as a son through the tradition of po'olua. The needed explanation for that tradition is also provided through a recent RS from 1990 that I believe is a solid source for the claims. I think people may get Ruth and him confused because of the "Two headed chief" thing, but Ruth's paternity had other issues.--] (]) 06:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''''UPDATE''''' OK, well, there seems to be a lot more than I first thought. It appears the family tree for the Royal family is in need of a great deal of work as it appears there may be more than a few mistakes. I don't know what is considered the official family tree (if one really exists) but unless there is anything to state otherwise I think I will stick to the official Hawaiian Supreme Court decisions on the genealogy of the royal family at the death of ] (which this document may help to expand as well) to start with for determining the legal heirs and legally recorded and recognized line of almost everyone including Keelikōlani (Ruth) and Bernice Bishop. It is, at the very least, an excellent resource to what is legally recognized as of these rulings. I don't know what may have changed if anything, as there was at least one more major case (this one was at the request of ] before he died. He specifically requested the Hawaiian Supreme Court oversee his estate. Since he died before his father, when ] did finally pass everything that was Lunalilo's which had passed to Kanaina was then handled by the court. It appears that, at that time, everyone in the royal family and sub families petitioned the court for a share of the estate (which had lands from before the Kamehameha Dynasty) and in doing so, had to prove their line. How great is that! So, there seems to be a huge amount of genealogy information from that period found in both the petitions (harder to find) and the decisions.--] (]) 05:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:By the way, don't worry about replies unless there is something you strongly disagree with or feel needs addressing. I'm going to use you as a sounding board with some of the issues I am finding and just keep you up to date with what I am doing. |
|
|
|
|
|
:I just got off the phone with the Bishop Museum because their Family tree shows Keelikōlani as a direct line to ], however, that is not actually sourceable to my knowledge as accurate, while it is sourecable that she was a blood relation to Moana, through her father ]. The Bishop Museum Archivist was very gracious and generouse with his time and spoke to me about a number of things. First, there is not official family tree nor any that the bishop Museum endorses over another. They are not considered an authority an the genealogy of the royal family, but have the largest depository of primary and some secondary sources. He named a source for me to look into that appears to be the most recent research and secondary source for the Kamehameha line. |
|
|
|
|
|
:At any rate, I am going to be changing Misplaced Pages's Hawaiian Royal Family Tree and Ruth's article to indicate a blood relation to her father through her petition on the estate of Charles Kanaina (that's the source which appears secondary in nature for this information). I will look for a reliable secondary source to explain her other poʻolua ancestry before I make any changes.--] (]) 22:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Sounds good. Just try to briefly document your changes on the corresponding talk pages, so that if and when you are challenged, you'll be able to go back and point people to the answer. ] (]) 01:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Big Fish == |
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry for my simplistic approach. I couldn't really take sides. Because of that, and that you were at an impasse, it just seemed that other eyes were the way to go. And the only way to do that would be KISS so others wouldn't avoid getting involved. |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm curious about Stella Papamichael of http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2004/06/01/big_fish_2004_dvd_review.shtml. She reviews for other sites. How does that work? Is that url an RS? |
|
|
|
|
|
Another solution is to contact those who brought it to GA and vetted it. Best, ] (]) 00:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:Anna, I am the one who did the GA review and vetted it, hence my concern with the disruption. Further, I have a number of high quality sources at my disposal that I can send to you by email if you prefer. Papamichael thought the film was funny and categorizes it as a comedy, but most reviewers don't see it that way. It's a film abut a father-son relationship told in the context of a fairy-tale adventure. The so-called "comedy" is, according to reviewers "played straight", and not intended to be laugh out hilarious, but rather a form of magical realism. I have read virtually every source on this subject and I haven't seen any source talk about the elements of comedy this is supposed to have, nor has the writer or director talked about any comedy at all. I suppose people "laugh out loud" at things they find strange, and that was the intention, but not as form of comedy but rather ''fantasy''. In other words, why do people cry when they are happy or laugh when they are sad? I think that question goes a long way towards putting this in context. ] (]) 00:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:'''Note''': the review by Stella Papamichael (and her reference to the review by Adrian Hennigan) are highly unrepresentative of the critical reviews on this subject. First of all, most critics did ''not'' say this was Burton's finest film, so for Papamichael and Hennigan to say that is definitely off the beaten path. Most critics said this was Burton's most ''personal'' film, not his finest. Second of all, most critics did not say it was a "laugh out loud" film, so that's strike two. Definitely an odd set of review(s) that appear out of touch with the others. As I already pointed out, the "laugh out loud" scenes were meant to be played "straight" (without joking) as a gothic fantasy. To me, this is like calling ''Star Wars'' a comedy because of the banter between Han Solo and Chewy, or calling ''Star Trek'' a comedy because Bones is always making jokes at Spock's expense. ] (]) 01:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Okay. I have to see it. I like Finney. He was great in The Dresser. Anyway, about the genre, ] has read the same sources as you and heard your arguments. You still don't agree. So, it's probably rough consensus time. I'd go with neutrally pointing a few GA and wikiproject people to the article talk thread and all will be solved in a few days. Sorry I can't take a side on this. It wouldn't be very DRish. Best, ] (]) 01:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Not asking you to take a side. I asked for your advice on how to proceed via DR, remember? :) You answered, thanks for your time. Anyway, I'm less interested in the outcome and more interested in the procedure, so I've asked the film project how to proceed. ] (]) 01:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::My apologies. I thought you were trying to persuade me personally. :) I'm sorry I wasn't more helpful. I like your post at the film project. I do indeed think it's the best way to proceed. I think people will agree that the content of reviews must outweigh categorization of dBase sites, etc. So, the outcome will likely help solve the Big Fish dispute and others as well. Nice. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Soooooooooo, I'd like to take back all the feedback I gave before and suggest "Post at the film project to figure out how genres in general should be determined. Then cite that outcome in the Big Fish dispute." (Reminder to self: work on the time machine) :) ] (]) 01:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Temporal police, ma'am. Gonna have to ask you to stop messing with the timeline... |
|
|
:::::::Good thing the temporal police aren't around. They'd would probably ask me to stop messing with the timeline. :) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
Do you remember that article I wrote years ago? I always imagined what the sound was like. I finally just heard it. It was a joy! ]]] |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 11:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:Thanks for sharing such an interesting video. I really enjoy stuff like this, so if you ever come across something like it again, please feel free to send it along. My only complaint (and it's probably more of a nitpick) is 1) the film appeared to have been shot with only one camera, and 2) the sound was not properly mixed. I realize that sounds a bit critical, but if they had made use of at least two cameras, each angle change would not have been a jump-cut and there would have been a seamless transition from step a to step b. As for the sound, the loudest part of the film was the sound of insects chirping, which tended to drown out the sound of the granite cracking (although you could hear it if you strained really hard with headphones on). For such an amazing event, they should have at least invested in two cameras and at least one external mic and a proper level mix. ] (]) 01:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::You're welcome. I didn't notice any of the one camera and sound issues. I just like the different sounds the hammer made. ] (]) 02:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Yes, that was interesting. He could almost play a tune on the plugs. I guess I notice stuff that most people don't see or never give a second thought to, so you will have to excuse my hyper-critical perspective. :) Using one camera in place of two is sort of a big no-no. And I guess my hearing is far more sensitive than yours!! ] (]) 02:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
