Deleting space-based solar power
Hey Renergy, yeah, this is entirely possible. Let me give you "sysops" privileges, which allows you to move and delete pages, among some other things, and you can delete the page. I would do it for you, but I'd rather give you "sysops" and see you use it, and apply the know-how to other efforts as well. But, make sure to use "sysops" responsibly. Best, -- Brooks Lindsay 09:30, 4 August 2009 (CDT)
Thanks for your contributions Renergy. Only note: the "global warming" category is the "climate change" category. "Climate change" is a little bit more appropriate as a title because it does not tie the phenomena into the trap of being purely "warming" (as their are sporadic cooling effects that can occur). -- Brooks Lindsay 17:46, 2 August 2009 (CDT)
Ok, so I've added "Global warming" as a subcategory of "Climate change". Btw, It would be IMO good idea to have the Category list paginated by first letters of the category names. --Renergy 04:59, 3 August 2009 (CDT)
Good work on all the different debates, including your focus on the space category. I'm working on our next two Debate Digest articles: Debate: Colonization of the Moon and Debate: Manned mission to Mars, if you're interested in jumping in. Best, -- Brooks Lindsay 15:37, 4 August 2009 (CDT)
Space elevator video
So, try to document some arguments on this topic. It's a good topic for sure. I remember reading a serious Economist article about it a couple of years ago. I've featured it, and you creating it on the main page. Best, -- Brooks Lindsay 16:52, 5 August 2009 (CDT)
Nice video, thanks! I'll try to build the debate soon. Regards, -- Renergy 17:10, 5 August 2009 (CDT)
Going over your edits
Featured Debate: Space elevator
Hey, I've featured your work on "space elevator" on the site notice that appears at the top of every page and on the main page. Have a look. -- Brooks Lindsay 17:45, 12 August 2009 (CDT)
Yeah, I see it! :-) -- Renergy 18:52, 12 August 2009 (CDT)
You are heading arguments, sometimes, with a single word or title. But, they do not define the argument adequately. Have a look at our most recent Debate Digest article to see how "argument titles" are normally done. Debate: Manned mission to Mars. I've re-formatted a couple of your arguments. Give a try at reformatting the rest. Best, -- Brooks Lindsay 17:52, 12 August 2009 (CDT)
Hi, I've updated the argument titles, hopefully in the right way. Best regards, --Renergy 18:38, 12 August 2009 (CDT)
Well done on reformatting those argument titles. :) Best, -- Brooks Lindsay 14:49, 14 August 2009 (CDT)
Let's make this a Debate Digest article. I'm working on single-payer health care tomorrow and Friday, but then let's polish this article for the Debate Digest for next week. It's a great one. Thanks for pushing it forward. -- Brooks Lindsay 19:27, 19 August 2009 (CDT)
Thanks! I've accidentally hit the "rollback" button a short while ago. I wanted to rollback just my last change on Solar energy debate, but to my surprise it reverted _all_ the changes I've made to the debate, so I put them all back but for the last one. Just wanted to explain the "back and forth" editing. Sorry for the mess. --Renergy 04:42, 20 August 2009 (CDT)
Not a bad idea, I will look at it. --- Hey, could you correct this one as well? I have no idea how to. Thanks.
Lenka Habetinova 14:20, 28 August 2009
Oh yes, you are right. It was just my computer doing stupid things. I'll be more careful next time. Thanks. :) Best,
Lenka Habetinova 7 September 2009
Hey Renergy, I just wanted to say hi. I'm on vacation right now in Portugal, and was looking over recent changes and seeing your continued efforts. I just wanted to say how much I appreciate the quality of your work. I really appreciate your abilities. At this stage, what we're really trying to figure out is how to get more people like yourself involved in this project. Community-building is one of the main priorities in this effort to "clarify public debates and decision-making globally". So, one of the things I'm hoping to direct a portion of your efforts to in the coming months is just that - community-building. There are many elements to this, and we'll dive into the details later, but I just wanted to open your thoughts to this area of need on Debatepedia, and also to, again, just say thanks. Best, -- Brooks Lindsay 16:34, 10 September 2009 (CDT)
Hey, thanks Portugal is really beautiful
Hmmm. I think you're right Renergy, although the mass deletions will make it look - to our funders - like we created almost no content at all in our reporting period, which is obviously not the case. But, I'll try to explain to them the statistical anomaly. Let me get Lenka to continue the process of deleting empty argument pages. -- Brooks Lindsay 15:57, 28 September 2009 (CDT)
Yeah, it's a great idea on one level. Yet, a concern is the resulting ratings would rarely reflect the actual validity of the argumentation. And, there would be many issues surrounding abuse of the system, although I think these issues could be overcome. It's worth looking at soon, but right now we're trying to focus our limited Media Wiki programmer resources on a task that makes it harder for users to accidentally affect the code that makes the pro/con structure of the articles. -- Brooks Lindsay 16:56, 28 September 2009 (CDT)
Cute. Yeah, I wonder if we would profit from it. ;) As far as non-serious debates, we are trying to discourage them. I think this was more of a joke, right? Don't take this the wrong way. -- Brooks Lindsay 16:17, 10 October 2009 (CDT)
Hey, I saw your debate Debate: Abolition of the THBT category - I agree that this category is weird, but it is of same use/value as the Resolutions category. The question is, whether to delete them both, or leave them be. What do you think? Oh, and do you really want to keep the "THBT Debate"? I mean - I know why have you started it, but is it of great importance to have it on Debatepedia? Best, Lenka, 11 October, 22:04, 2009
Hi Renergy, yes I agree that it is good to have some debates that are the spice of Debatepedia. But, we gotta be careful, in that this does open a potential slippery slope to less desirable "playful" debates. I generally draw the line at, "substantive public debates" only. That is debates in which many people around the world or in a community are debating the topic, and in various written form online, and where the debate has real implications and importance in society. -- Brooks Lindsay 13:59, 18 October 2009 (CDT)
Re: Funny debates
Hah. Well, thanks Renergy. :) True, but you've been right before, so... :) Yeah, I'm interested in being flexible with the interpretation of the rule ("substantive public debates"), but we need to be able to say there's a rule, of course. In any case, the status quo is good...as we've been flexible and allowed funny debates (albeit with serious editors behind them) to proceed. -- Brooks Lindsay 14:45, 18 October 2009 (CDT)
Hey, I think you missed my point. I was talking not about just a "list of categories", I was pointing out that we should focus on a list of MAIN Categories Main categories and edit it in such a way that there are no categories of the same content.
User:Lenkahabetinova, 19th October 2009, 20:53
Thanks for cleaning up my debates and making the debates less messier. Thanks.--Voltaire 06:37, 28 October 2009 (CDT)
How's it going?
How's it going Renergy? Hope you're doing well. You still in the Czech Republic right now? Lenkahabetinova tells me the weather is very nice. -- Brooks Lindsay 14:56, 29 October 2009 (CDT)
Re: How's it going?
I know how it goes with work. And, yeah, better to have a job than not. I suppose that kind of appreciation of having a job - any job - is a positive consequence of the economic crisis. I've been, like you, just giving thanks recently to being able to put food in my stomach. Plenty people can't, and would do any job, however ugly, to be able to do so.
On my end, I've been working on the National Debate Series like a dog. Trying to get some more publicity for Debatepedia, which is a partner in the event, and thus improve the size and strength of the community. I think Debatepedia's involvement in things like this also just adds to its credibility, and the willingness of existing audiences to engage in it a little bit more. It looks like these efforts have been paying off, with traffic increasing recently. It was around 5,700 unique visitors yesterday, the highest since around April. Trying to reach 7,000 for a single day by the end of 2009.
Anyway, all the best...talk soon. -- Brooks Lindsay 18:30, 29 October 2009 (CDT)
Hey Renergy, I just accepted your friend request on Facebook, plus 14 others I hadn't gotten to for the past couple of weeks (I'm not a great Facebook-friend-confirmer :)). Anyway, I hope you're doing well. Good to hear from you, and always WONDERFUL to see your great activity on recent changes. I look at it every day, and it makes my day to see what you're up to on the site. -- Brooks Lindsay 11:13, 23 November 2009 (CST)
Your logic on the categories makes sense. I like the book that you're reading. Never read it, but I'm very interested to do so now. I'm reading Founding Brothers at the moment. You may be interested - it's one of the more famous founding fathers books on American history. -- Brooks Lindsay 15:27, 25 November 2009 (CST)
Hi Renergy, I've been following your most recent technical edits, and they are very good. One thing I want us to do is to outline the various kinds of tasks that exist and that need doing, so that we can get other editors involved in them. When you do a certain kind of edit, could you document that type of edit on Editing tasks? I'll probably need to explain a little bit better what I'm talking about. But...I think it's pretty intuitive. -- Brooks Lindsay 18:35, 25 November 2009 (CST)
Cool quotes Adam/Renergy. Thanks for posting them. -- Brooks Lindsay 16:20, 30 November 2009 (CST)
Thanks for the warm welcome :-) Expect a bunch of future edits from various new users to Debate: Geoengineering, my school is using it in a class project about Debates/Geoengineering! -Mquinn 9:30, 4 December 2009 (EST)
Hey, Renergy, I have kind of an emergency and I was wondering if you could help me?? I'm really sorry but I don't know who else to go to...Because of some of my coding-slow classmates, the Debate: Geoengineering page is pretty much a wreck right now. A lot of people did a lot of things that have messed it up. Is there any way you could help me get it back to normal? I don't know how to get the reference sections back or anything... The rest of my class has agreed to stop editing the page though, thank goodness! -Mquinn 1:07, 8 December 2009 (EST)
Thanks so much... and yeah Brooks has been so helpful! And yes, I agree, but I think it was a little problem for all 40 of us to be editing at once, haha...We'll probably go at it again in a more organized manner later! Mquinn 12:55, 11 December 2009 (EST)
Good work on the main page
Thanks for keeping the community activity section up-to-date. Could you keep doing that, whenever you're on recent changes, and see something somebody did that is noteworthy, and that I haven't yet already mentioned on that main page section. The more up-to-date that section is, the better. Best, -- Brooks Lindsay 13:31, 8 December 2009 (CST)
Good work deleting old or empty articles Renergy. -- Brooks Lindsay 12:28, 11 January 2010 (CST)