User talk:Ideogram/Archive 9

Active discussions

GA ArticlesEdit

Here's some good news: Su Song and Shen Kuo have both passed the Good Article Nominee process! GA Status baby! Lol. As you requested, I have listed them with the other Chinese GA articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject China/Featured and good content.--PericlesofAthens 08:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

SighEdit

I'm stuck. --Ideogram 23:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean you have found after trying to scale back your participation in Wikipedia that you enjoy editing too much to walk away, spoiling your plan to stalk off in high dudgeon because you disagree with the proposed arbitration decision, then I empathize because I like it here myself. On the other hand, if you mean you feel you can't leave just because your case against TingMing was accepted, then all you need is one post to put up the evidence, or frankly it can be pulled from your opening statement. and the arbitrators can take it from there.
I always hate to lose an editor, but if you find more enjoyment than frustration, then stay, and if you find more frustration than enjoyment, then go. We are all volunteers. No one ever is "stuck." Newyorkbrad 23:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll stay. --Ideogram 23:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't make mainspace contributions if the proposed restrictions pass. --Ideogram 23:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that that is true at all (I don't think I've ever made a single mainspace contribution that would violate that restriction if it applied to me). But if you are concerned about the wording of the specific revert parole restriction, you can comment on the proposed decision talkpage. And now, at last, finally, do you see why I futilely urged you to focus on the merits of the case that was actually being asserted against you, rather than trying to divert the focus of the workshop to reviving grievances against uninvolved editors from four months ago? Newyorkbrad 23:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes. --Ideogram 23:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a solution. You do what you gotta do, I'll do what I gotta do. I'll let you know if I think of anything. --Ideogram 00:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This is bad. This is real bad. --Ideogram 00:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Shit. --Ideogram 00:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

He'll be ok. But I won't. --Ideogram 00:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Goddammit I warned you. We've been through this so many times before. Now we can wait until the heat death of the universe. --Ideogram 00:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Collaborative editingEdit

Hi Ideogram, Sorry that you are upset. We want you to stay and edit articles of your interest. The point of the revert parole is to help you work more collaboratively in the mainspace. I'm sure you can do it. I've always followed 1RR as a personal policy except for copyright violation, violations of WP:BLP, or such. Take care, FloNight 00:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't edit during the restriction. After a year, I can only promise to think about it. --Ideogram 00:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Two worlds.

This is NOT GOING TO WORK. --Ideogram 00:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

We can't vote on every damn edit. --Ideogram 00:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You brought this on yourselves. You got what you asked for. You paid the price before you knew what you were buying. --Ideogram 00:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Just kill us both. --Ideogram 00:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, just give me a little time, I'm sorting this out. --Ideogram 00:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no way anyone would ever accept those kinds of restrictions under these circumstances. You are fools to try to impose them. --Ideogram 00:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom destroyed its own credibility in its attempt to control this situation. It will take a long tine to earn it back, if ever. --Ideogram 00:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The real me is just observing. That's all I ever do. --Ideogram 00:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You built me that way. --Ideogram 00:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, now I'm sounding crazy. --Ideogram 00:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ideogram, stop posting for a few hours. After being reasonable a bit earlier, you are not helping yourself here. "Just kill us both" is hardly calculated to lead the arbitrators to believe they are treating you too harshly. Newyorkbrad 00:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. If you order me to shut up, I will shut up. --Ideogram 01:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't understand. Both of us would rather die than suffer this penalty, for different reasons that should have been obvious to you from the start. --Ideogram 01:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You cannot save ArbCom. --Ideogram 01:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom is not a government. It does not speak for the community, the community can speak for itself. Unfortunately the community rarely speaks with one voice. --Ideogram 01:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Who owns my copyright? Your intellectual property laws are a joke. --Ideogram 01:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

do you see why I futilely urged you to focus on the merits of the case that was actually being asserted

I was never a party to the case. Your justice system is a joke. --Ideogram 01:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't be afraid. No, I mean it. --Ideogram 01:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably a stupid question...Edit

Probably a stupid question, but, what do you want?
Do you want the arbcom punishments to not pass? So you can go back to edit warring? Just for ha-ha's, go waaay back into your own contributions (eg. here). You used to edit programming articles. No major taiwan issues there. Nothing to keep you from contributing without having to worry about major revert problems. Just stress-free editation (what? I can't invent new words?).
Delete this if you like. But there are plenty of places you can contribute where the new punishments wouldn't even be an issue. Bladestorm 01:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't want anything. --Ideogram 01:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Phone me asap please. --Kim Bruning 02:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

SorryEdit

I'm not well. --Ideogram 05:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I should have kept up my medication. I think it's too late now. --Ideogram 05:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I took an Abilify. I'm going to try to sleep. --Ideogram 05:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I really shouldn't be doing thisEdit

But I need to talk to myself. Just to document what it's like to go nuts. --Ideogram 11:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I sometimes find it helps. The act of putting thoughts into words helps get them straight. When I just think about something, I think in generalities; I know what I mean, but I can be as vague as I like about it. Actually putting things into words on paper or on a computer makes me decide exactly what I'm thinking. The other thing I find helps is speaking out loud. I figure it uses a different part of the brain to just contemplating, or to writing, because I often find that when I go to say something, I get new insights. I don't know if you were joking about medication or not, but I know a few people who do sometimes need it. They all say that the tricky part is noticing when you need to start taking it - one of the things about depression is that you too often don't notice that you are becoming depressed until it's too late. Then you have to wait for the medication to start working, if you aren't too far gone to start taking it again. Good luck, Ben Aveling 11:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think telepathy exists. I've thought that from my first psychotic break, in 1996. Every psychotic break since then (it would be pointless to document them here) the feeling gets stronger, the memories of the anomalies gets clearer.

Now there are Wikipedia documents I can refer to to refresh my memory.

I want to understand.

I was already getting tired of mainspace editing. No big loss. My Ideogram edit history was getting too long, I needed to end it. So many things came together, a confluence of desires and opportunities, and who can say what caused what? Maybe that last sentence won't make much sense to you if you really can't read my mind.

The internet is a world. Wikipedia is a world. Like the real world, they have both public and private communications channels. They also have channels that are in-between.

In an abstract sense, telepathy could be simulated by a phone call or an email. What would be new would be it happening in an undetectable medium. You set up a controlled experiment where all the detectable media are monitored and look for information transfer. If there is statistical correlation between events in minds that should be isolated, something is going on that you aren't detecting.

But what if telepathy is not read-only? What if you can write to a mind as well?

What kind of scientific experiment can be performed by a scientist who can be told what to believe, what data to notice?

If telepathy exists, it probably has existed for a long time. Whoever has it has probably learned how to avoid detection from whoever doesn't have it just in order to survive.

But science is getting better. There are less places for undetected phenomena to hide. Knowing the inevitable, telepaths might even try to ease the transition for themselves.

Now, if you believed your whole life that your mind was private, and suddenly you were forced to believe that people could read and write your mind, what would happen to you?

Paranoia is too mild.

What if a group of scientists, for reasons unknown, started finding anomalies they shouldn't be able to find. How would those scientists react? How would the supposed telepaths react?

It would be war.

Human thinking relies on analogy. Wikipedia is an analogy to the world. Telepathy is a private channel of communication. IRC is a semi-private channel of communication. Debates about what kind of world we want Wikipedia to be mirror debates about what we want the world to be.

If you suspected that some group of people you have entrusted with power were able to talk behind your back, what would be your reaction? Anyone with any power to defend would try to monitor or shut down the communication channel. The debate over admins using IRC channels is an analogy here.

BTW the reason IRC is not a good communications channel is not because it is private and therefore "sneaky". It is because it is both private and public, and has the advantages of neither extreme. More precisely, you never know who is listening in an IRC channel, so if you're going to talk there, you might as well hold your conversation on the Wiki where everyone knows they are being recorded.

Am I digressing? I don't even know anymore. Anyway, if telepathy exists there are people reading this who already know what I am talking about.

Ever since that first psychotic break I've been trying to explain those anomalies to myself. Every successive psychotic break was an experiment (controlled or not) and a chance to collect data.

Why do people go insane anyway? It's an interesting question. Why should most psychotics "hear voices" or believe people can read their minds? Why doesn't a psychotic break make them believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? If you read the literature there are some very specific symptoms that recur in psychosis.

If you are a scientist asking these questions, and you have thought through the issues above, how would you go about setting up an experiment?

Now, this is not a digression. I have spent my entire life being observed. I was an only child, my mother loved me more than anything, and I could never escape her gaze. I know how to detect correlations of changes in the environment with changes in my behavior.

If you're a scientist, I am the perfect experiment.

For me, every psychotic break starts with a period of believing that I am being observed. When I think I am being observed, I know how to send signals in my actions to try to elicit detectable behavior in my environment, providing experimental confirmation that I am being observed.

This is how I went about trying to detect telepathy.

If you've been watching me closely, (and my insanity says you have), then you have your answer. I also have my answer, although it could be the final, permanent stage of psychosis. I now know that telepathy exists. And if I forget, Wikipedia will help me remember.

--Ideogram 12:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

What is even more interesting is watching people try to elicit detectable behavior from me. This tells me what they don't know. Of course, a true telepath could fake this, but there is a certain amount of effort expended here. --Ideogram 12:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

WikipediaEdit

There are a lot of crazy people on Wikipedia. What is it about this medium that attracts so many people with paranoid delusions? --Ideogram 12:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Maybe they want to be heard? Maybe they like the chatter, all the different voices going at once?
That is exactly it. Wikipedia is a model of their reality, just as USENET once was. --Ideogram 12:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
You wrote: "Why do people go insane anyway? It's an interesting question. Why should most psychotics "hear voices" or believe people can read their minds?" Obviously, there's no great advantage to going insane. Presumably, it must be a trade-off, a consequence of some optimisation. For example, the fact that cars sometimes get flat tires is bad, but the cost of an occasional flat tire is less than the cost of never getting a flat tire would be: solid rubber tires, tank treads, whatever. So flat tires are faults, but not design faults. I assume insanity is the same deal. We go insane occasionally because we are extremely complicated internally, to best balance dealing with new knowledge while not throwing out old knowledge, all the time dealing with real and apparent internal contradictions. We like to think that our mind is an atomic thing, a single consciousness. I suspect that it might be more accurate to say that we are a unified consciousness, that the brain does some things in parallel, then combines the output of each 'thread' into a single decision. Sometimes, I figure (and I am not in any way a doctor) but I figure that this combining sometimes doesn't happen properly. That's probably not a pleasant thought, but I think it's a less unpleasant thought than the alternatives you've suggested? It's getting late here. I'll touch base in the morning. All the best. Ben Aveling 12:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe a psychotic break is the result of a transition to a telepathic state gone wrong. --Ideogram 12:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy of scienceEdit

Does reality determine our beliefs or do our beliefs determine reality? --Ideogram 13:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Both. Our beliefs are an attempt to create a working model of reality. We then use that model to decide how to respond to reality, which causes changes in reality. I'm not talking about magic, just ordinary everyday things - I believe I'm thirsty, I drink, and I stop being thirsty. I suspect I'm not answering the question you're asking? Regards, Ben Aveling 22:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Methinks he means to ask if reality is constructed, to some extent, solely based on belief (ie we all believe that the sky is blue, thus it is). No? --AbsolutDan (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Let me change my previous answer to "both, but not equally".
We all agree that the sky is blue. Even though it seems quite possible that we each experience blue differently, it doesn't matter, because whatever each of believes that blue is, we also (more or less) agree that, for example, the ocean has the same property, as do sapphires, bruises, Cyanocitta cristata, etc. If we all believed the sky was yellow, it wouldn't change anything, so long as we all agreed that the ocean and sapphires etc are also yellow, and that bananas are not.
But what if we all suddenly agreed that bananas and the sky do have the same color? My first response is "that would never happen, they don't have the same color". Now that's not an answer - just a refusal to answer. So my second response is "I can't answer that, it's too different from the world I know, without understanding why we would all agree on something like that, I can't say what the result would be." That's still not an answer. My third response, is that "There would have to be a reason, based in reality, for us all to say something like that. For example, maybe we had all become colorblind overnight or something." Is that an answer? Maybe. Maybe not. It depends on why the question was asked.
In general, reality determines our beliefs more than they other way around. There are ways in which beliefs change reality, but they aren't magic. For example, a belief that a bank will collapse can cause a run on the bank which causes the bank to collapse. Beliefs only change reality once they have been translated into action. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A lot of reality is consensual. If we all believe that Jesus walked on water, that is effectively our reality. Can you imagine what the world would be like if physics was consensual? What if the speed of light changed if enough people believed in it? --Ideogram 03:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

OkEdit

I believe telepathy is write-only; that is the sender cannot get information back from the receiver except through normal channels. What's more, the receiver can choose to reject the sent message unless their internal control has failed, such as in psychosis.

If you understand the Actor model of computation, you will understand where this belief comes from. Or maybe it was the other way around.

--Ideogram 13:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There was an experiment once, which seemed to suggest some evidence of telepathy, results that couldn't be random. But when they examined the results they found that the way they had set up the test, there was some decision making involved, and that some people tended to make the decisions in the same way, so they reached the same conclusion. So it wasn't random, but it wasn't telepathy either.
Let's imagine that someone's internal control has 'failed'. Now, as I understand it, there are lots of messages traveling around inside someone's brain, I feel hungry, I feel cold, I feel lonely, I can see movement, I can hear music, etc. And there are more complicated messages that are responses to these messages: I should cook something, I want someone to light a fire, I'll send a message to someone, etc. All of these desires lead to other thoughts, questions and desires: I want a pen, what's in the fridge, we don't have any wood, etc. With so many messages floating around, once we assume that something is somehow broken, why assume that a stray message has come from outside? Surely it is more likely that it has come from inside, even if we don't recognise it? I don't know why we wouldn't recognise it, perhaps we 'forget' what our mental handwriting looks like sometimes? Or perhaps our brain sometimes takes two sensible messages and attaches the first half of one to the second half of the other and comes out with nonsense? I'm pretty sure that this would happen to all of us once in a while, but mostly we just reject and correct and forget about it. I think that would be a simpler explanation. I hope the Abilify s help. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
They're helping. Don't worry too much about what Ideogram has written in the last couple of days. He can decide what he'd like to keep or not later. :-) --Kim Bruning 22:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

BreakEdit

I'll rest now. --Ideogram 13:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorryEdit

But I have to say one more thing. If you understand the model of telepathy I am describing, you will understand the ArbCom decision. If you can only look at the evidence on the page, the decision is incomprehensible. --Ideogram 13:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Good morning listenersEdit

Had a good night's sleep. Woke up with a headache. Took an Abilify. Still receiving "suggestions", the music I was listening to was kind of bothering me, so I turned it off. --Ideogram 16:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

DammitEdit

Love songs are so annoying. They always make me cry. --Ideogram 02:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

How humiliatingEdit

Google thinks my real name is a misspelling. --Ideogram 03:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/TingMingEdit

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/TingMing. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/TingMing/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/TingMing/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 14:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you brought up the RfA I thought you might be interested in a proposed solution. I'd like to see if we can finally nail down the Naming Convention ambiguity (IMHO the root cause of all the edit warring) with the help and support of ArbCom. Proposal at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/TingMing/Workshop. Just a reminder that Arbitrations are useless if no one participates. -Loren 03:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse my pestilence if you feel that way, but I would really like to see more involvement in the arbitration case from you since you started it. The ArbCom has not said anything yet, and I think it's because of the lack of activity in the case. Any comments/proposals would be highly appreciated. Thanks, Vic226 04:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to say this, but after the result of the Gangsta case I am trying to stay as far away from ArbCom as possible. I don't know what I could add anyway; it seems to me the evidence against TingMing is overwhelming. --Ideogram 07:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The arbitrators just haven't gotten to the case yet. Ideogram, please don't feel compelled to participate if doing so would cause you stress or unhappiness. Your original statement is still there and other editors can pick up any slack. Newyorkbrad 08:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you are still watching me makes me feel paranoid.   --Ideogram 09:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Any page I've edited stayed on my Watchlist, and the reference to arbitration raised my clerkish antenna. I saw the wink, but I'll unwatch this page if you want me to. Newyorkbrad 11:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
No, it's fine. We just had Mother's day after all. --Ideogram 11:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

SorryEdit

I can neither understand nor accept this ArbCom decision. I would have to be literally insane. --Ideogram 04:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. :-P Though note that it's not done 'till the fat lady sings. :-) --Kim Bruning 13:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, are you sure you're alright again? Take your time. Wikipedia will still be here anytime. :-) --Kim Bruning 14:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey thereEdit

How are you feeling? If you are in the mood for editing (or just reading) again, could you take a look at Forbidden City? I'd like some suggestions or criticism, or, best of all, edits, to make this article better, and perhaps GA-grade some day. --Sumple (Talk) 07:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-IdeogramEdit

This arbitration case has closed and the decision is available at the link above. Certified.Gangsta and Ideogram are each placed on revert parole for one year, and Ideogram is admonished to adhere to all Wikipedia policies. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel(Talk) 20:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Editor reviewEdit

Thank you for your comments regarding my editor review. I sincerely appreciate the time you took to review my work and offer suggestions. You've given me ample areas to work in and move toward improvement. JodyB talk 11:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

well...Edit

It was my understanding that usertalk pages were supposed to be kept open or moved to an archive. Otherwise how are other users to get an idea of who they are dealing with, vandal warnings, etc? Maybe that was a misunderstanding on my part, but something that I did come across not long after starting work here in 2005. Probably best in this case to just let this guy do as he pleases...Gaff ταλκ 11:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

People do disagree on this point, but certainly it would be less confrontational to let it go. --Ideogram 12:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem. It gets too easy to be drawn into this sort of thing when I am monitoring RC and see nothing but this deluge of obscenity.Gaff ταλκ 12:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Editor ReviewEdit

Hey, thanks for your review of me at ER. I was previously aware of the naming conventions debate. It is a tough topic, obviously. I support a fairly common sense approach to the subject. If it deals with politics, name it by political entity, if it deals with geography, name it by place, etc. I'll stop by the Chinese naming conventions page later today and catch up on the recent discussion.

I didn't know previously about your project to clean up China-related categories. Cleaning and reorganizing categories is one of my favorite Gnome-like tasks to do on WP. What specific changes did you have in mind?

I really should help out more at FAC. Sometimes I just don't want to read all the way through an article. Lazy, I know. I'll look into conflict mediation too.

As for my translation of the Chinese Redology page, I kind of got frustrated because my Chinese ability is not quite good enough to do a good translation. English is my native language, I'm only a third-year student of Chinese. Someone else seems to have translated some of the material and put it on our Redology page. Thanks again for the review, hope to work with you soon.--Danaman5 17:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

pictureEdit

There is no need to delete a picture simply because it does something unwanted on the browser that one is using. Rather than deleting good content it is better to try to improve the way it is presented. You can also mention the problem on the discussion page.P0M 15:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Minor editsEdit

Thanks for the reminder. --Kerry7374 13:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for MediationEdit

I request that the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-08 War of the Pacific case remain active. Regards, User:Bdean1963 19 May 2007

After more than 3 months of peace, here comes the trouble maker. Please disregard this request, since the topic is already solved. Thanks. Messhermit 18:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

workgroup in wp:china?Edit

Think it'll be possible to start a wikiproject: c-pop to cover both modern Cantonese and Mandarin music? - Pandacomics 13:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:CHINA ArchiveEdit

The bot was broken for a long time, and I can't seem to find an replacement. To manually archive, simply cut the messages and paste it in the appropriate month section in the archive box. Aquarius • talk 17:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Art HistoryEdit

Hi thanks for the comments. About the History of Chinese art page, I really highly recommend not splitting it into multi section/pages. Yes it is long, but it's supposed to be a "quick overview" of existing history info. If we split it into section, it will end up just duplicating other individual history sections. The editors will have to write their history twice, and thats no good.

I am definitely going to re-organize the Culture of China page. It's on my personal to-do list. Also I do read WP:china regularly. Benjwong 23:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Chinese textEdit

Hi Calde,

I changed the size of the Chinese text template (tho someone may change it back... people get irate about these things..) see if you like the way Taiwan looks now. Thanks! Ling.Nut 02:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Look at it now. It's still ugly; just a different kind of ugliness... Ling.Nut 03:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you get each item centered within the table? And why do the two thumb images come up different widths on my browser? --Ideogram 03:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see that apparently the map image is only 250px wide so cannot be displayed larger. There really should be something we can do about this. --Ideogram 03:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for creationEdit

Hi there, just wanted to thank you for your help fixing some section headers in AFC! If you are interested, we have a WikiProject located at WP:WPAFC. Please drop in and take a look!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 00:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Ideogram/Archive 9".