User talk:Ixat totep

Hi, Ixat! I've been filling in Sherman Bowles background at Holyoke Publishing, after having found his New York Times obit and other NYT articles. I haven't otherwise stopped by the article for a while, and missed you June note about the upcoming volume of the reference work you've contributed to. I'm looking forward to it.

I would love to use the Bip Comics (BIP Comics?) site with what seems like its wealth of indicia information. The issue I keep running into is that it's an anonymous site. Do you have any information about it? It seems to be primarily a comic-book sales site, and I can't find the names of any individuals anywhere on it. Alternatively, I'm going to try to find its Holyoke indicia information elsewhere. Let me know what you think of my Bowles addition and an Bip info you may have. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it's a guy called "gifflefunk" ! [1].   : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's him. Real name Nick Pope (which you can find with sufficiently persistent googling of various forum threads), but as far as I can tell he always goes by gifflefunk online, and we credit him under that name or both names at the GCD. Ixat totep (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oy! God save us from "cute" internet handles!

Is there any way you could convince him to add his name as "editor," say of the Bip Comics site, or at least of that insignia / indicia page? If his name is on it, and he's a regular GCD contributor, then we'd be allowed to cite Bip. It would mean a great deal to WikiProject Comics to be able to use that information. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see that you have retargeted redirect Integral movement to disambiguation page Integral theory. Please can you help to mend the resulting bad wikilinks, especially the one in Template:Integral theory which should fix several articles with one edit? Thanks, Certes (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Certes: I suppose it depends on where you think this should go. My intention was that any page that referenced Integral movement should land on the general Integral theory page (and not the Ken Wilber-specific one). What behavior do you expect? I did try to change some links that really should go to the Wilber-specific page to go directly there, so if you have specific ones in mind to change (other than the template) please let me know.

There are several more or less independent lines of thought called "integral" of which Wilber's is only one. So if you think that (for example) the California Institute of Integral Studies is part of the "Integral movement", then the way things are now is correct- unless it is specific to Wilber, it should go to the general page (CIIS is not affiliated with Wilber and pre-dates his work). On the other hand, if you think "integral movement" should only refer to Wilber's work, then I should just change the redirect back (and maybe put a "see also" on Wilber's page in case someone looking for other integral stuff lands there, which I should probably do anyway).

Template:Integral theory is only used on one tenuously related page, and most of the former pages it lists have been merged into Integral theory (Ken Wilber), so my inclination is to nominate it for deletion. Ixat totep (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a subject specialist and don't have an informed view on the exact scope of either term. My concern is that these links should lead to an article rather than a disambiguation page, which is essentially a list of things the term might have meant. One possibility is that integral theory as a whole is a topic on which a broad-concept article could be written, but I lack the expertise to do that or even to know whether it would be appropriate. Certes (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Certes:I'm not s subject specialist on Integral either- I bump into it because of related topics only. I redirected Integral movement to List of integral thinkers and supporters as that seemed the best available page. Feel free to change it further, I have no interest in unraveling who claims to be in or out of the "Integral movement" vs any other interpretation of "Integral". Ixat totep (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That list seems to be about Wilber's followers rather than László's, but it may still be the best target. Certes (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome- sorry for the delay! Since it was redirecting to Wilber's Integral page before I changed it I went with the Wilber-ish list page. I'm afraid I just don't know enough about László to find anything specific to him. The mention of "Integral theory" on his page is just a book title and a comparison to Wilber, so not much to go on. If there was an Integral movement page centered around László it was deleted long before I touched any of this. A broad concept article on Integral would be great, I just don't know who both can and would write one. Ixat totep (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Compliments for your work on Spiral Dynamics! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thanks for the Barnstar :-) Ixat totep (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Hey, I recently noticed your edits on the echinoderm and eleutherozoa pages. Great stuff man! Your about page says you're really into comics but I guess you like phylogenetics too. I wish I had the patience to do some of the research you do. Keep it up! ZKevinTheCat (talk) 09:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @ZKevinTheCat! I kinda fell down an evolutionary history rabbit hole for distraction purposes during the pandemic :-) I appreciate the encouragement! Ixat totep (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]