User talk:The Transhumanist/Archive 7

How you doing? --Dweller 11:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

There's a user who's unilaterally pushing his changes on Meaning of life against the current consensus, inciting an edit war with me. I keep revert his blanking of an entire section there, but he won't listen to reason. Other than that, I'm fine.

We've got another student at the VC, and I've invited another coach above. The VC team could probably handle a few more students. Feel free to invite some (be sure to see the coaching instructions at the admin coaching page). The Transhumanist 20:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Please see my interfering, but well-intentioned post at Talk:Meaning_of_life#Popular_beliefs. --Dweller 13:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

You snipped an edit war at the bud. Nice job. The Transhumanist 07:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thagyoo kindly. Sometimes it's helpful to have intervention from someone who doesn't really know/care that much about the topic! --Dweller 08:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Good to hear from you. The Rambling Man's a good one to ask re GAC. There are definitely differences in quality required (otherwise there'd be no point in differentiating between FA and GA) but process-wise, I'm unsure, as I've never worked on a GA. On your other point, I'm happy to help. Just a thought... how about adding yourself to the "students"? Can't hurt, can it. And shows a nice dash of humility, to take the flak, not just dish it out, lol! --Dweller 08:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm always up for learning more about Wikipedia. Thanks for the idea! The Transhumanist 08:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

You are too sophisticated in the ways of Wikipedia, Transhumanist, for me to be sure how to communicate with you without tromping in the wrong place, but I will place here my alert that I have answered your question in the Reperfusion section of my Talk Page. --Ben Best 05:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Took me awhile to come across this, but I'll be sure to read your response. Thank you! The Transhumanist 08:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

What do you know about this topic:

Docs Change the Way They Think About Death

The Transhumanist 00:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have done a great deal of investigation of this topic. One notable example:

Quantifying Ischemic Damage for Cryonics Rescue

--Ben Best 03:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey TTH...Sorry to disappoint you   but I'm dropping out off your Virtual classes. I will be retiring from Wikipedia in late October and till then I've decided to do a bit less of vandal fighting and help out with my Wiki Project which I had been kind of ignoring as of lately. After my Last RfA, I have decided never to go through it again and simply retire and concentrate on other hobbies of mine.. (not that many BTW). I hope you understand..Cheers  ..--Cometstyles 19:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, good luck in all your endeavors. It was nice to get to know you. If you get active again, please drop me a line. The Transhumanist 19:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey mate, I've just been using your "Further Reading box" and telling about the VC to a few editors. I hope you don't mind. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 02:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

No problem. That's what it's there for. The Transhumanist 22:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I readily agree to your conditions, and thank you for offering. (in case you missed my response on my userpage.) Someguy1221 01:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

You wrote: "I've replied to your reply on your coaching page (and it includes another assignment).  :-) The Transhumanist 22:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)"Reply

Did you mean to send me that? Because I don't see any new messages. :/ LaraLove 05:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I see you have started working on the assignment. I can hardly wait to see the rest. So far so good. The Transhumanist 23:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey The Transhumanist! yes, I would love you to begin coaching me. Thanks, Talk to symode09's or How's my driving? 00:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Cool, meet me at the Virtual classroom. The Transhumanist 07:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

As well as myself. Thank you for the offer. Walton One is already coaching, so I don't know if you want to pair up with him. Thank you again for the offer. I look forward to admin coaching. ~ Wikihermit 01:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm already part of a team of several coaches - we all share our students at the Virtual classroom. Please ask your coach if he would like to teach you there (and help teach the other students). We've got a main page with lots of useful links (suggested reading lists, etc.), general assignments which all of our students are expected to complete, lesson subpages (it's becoming a tradition for each student to write a lesson covering some aspect of Wikipedia before graduating), a coaching subpage for each student (and a coaching subpage for each coach too, so you can coach us!). Please have him contact me if he is interested. The Transhumanist 06:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Are we going to go ahead and get started? ~ Wikihermit 19:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wow, you pick the hard ones! I'd be glad to help out. Let me know what you'd specifically like me to do. The Rambling Man 08:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, since you are an FA expert, letting us know if we're going about this in the best way would be good. Also, it's a collaboration, and a touch project, so help would be nice too. The most urgent thing is to track down references, because the consensus was for the removal of anything and everything that isn't referenced unless it gets referenced. The Transhumanist

Well, my tendency is to keep things that may not have references and comment them out, as long as they feel legitimate. But I'll take a closer look... The Rambling Man 21:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

How do I become a part of the VC?Vandalfighter101 08:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Asking works. Just like you just did.  :-)

By the way, what are you asking exactly? Are you looking for general coaches who can guide you to become a better Wikipedian? The Transhumanist 18:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You are one of only two editors ever to have linked to the article archontology (besides its original author), and so I'm writing to ask you whether you have any personal knowledge of this term. Have you ever come across it in any context other than the wikipedia? Many thanks, Doops | talk 22:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

There's http://www.archontology.org/articles/archontology.php, and it comes up on google about 28,000 times. Check an unabridged dictionary, and your state university's library catalog, and something will probably turn up. The Transhumanist 23:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

May I ask why on earth you decided to add {{VC lessons}} to my User talk page? Surely it would have occurred to you that users really don't take kindly to that sort of thing?

Anthøny 14:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

TT - I apologise. I was a little pissed off there (not at that), and I shouldn't have taken it out on you :( can I humbly request your forgiveness? ~ Anthøny 21:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

No prob. I didn't think you would mind (none of the other participants in the VC had any problems with it, and either left it where it lay, or placed it somewhere else they found more useful. Hey, I need your help on the VC (you are a co-coach after all), and we're doing this class project on bringing an article to featured article status. The article is meaning of life. Also, User:E went through the RfA torture, and could use your guidance, since you know what it's like and came through with flying colors after a crash and burn. Please take him under your wing. His coaching page is at the VC. Cheers. And stay in touch! The Transhumanist 23:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Joseph. You are being discussed here, in case you'd like to join in. Regards, Bishonen | talk 10:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC).Reply

No, but thanks. (JosephASpadaro 20:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC))Reply

Hi, I am curious to know ... what was the "end result" of all this? Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 21:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC))Reply

The discussion was its own result. This happens fairly often on WP:ANI. Bishonen | talk 23:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC).Reply

So, in other words ... "much ado about nothing" ...? (JosephASpadaro 23:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC))Reply

Nope. It simply ceased to be a problem. The misunderstanding was straightened out, with no need for follow-up at ANI.

By the way, how have you been doing on Wikipedia these days? Is there anything that perplexes you, or which you are having trouble acclimatizing to? Have you got a handle on our consensus-builing process yet? And have you read my lesson on Learning the ropes yet? I'm curious whether or not you found that useful, or if it needs improvement. Suggestions welcome. Sincerely, The Transhumanist

Hello, there. Thanks for your message. Sorry that it has taken me so long to get back to you. I have been doing great on Wikipedia, thanks for asking. I am learning my way around, so to speak. One important note is that, rather than asking questions with the "Help Me" template, I have found that it is more effective to ask at the various Help Reference desks. So, thanks for pointing me in that direction. I am still in the process of reading through all of the materials / lessons / tutorials / etc. that you have sent me. There is a lot there, and I have not had a great deal of free time as of late. But they are all still on my to do list, at which I am slowly chipping away. I will provide some feedback to you at some point after I have read through them all. My constitution is such that I would rather do things right than to do them fast. Thanks for all your help. (JosephASpadaro 18:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC))Reply

Hello again. Yes, I finally did make some time for your Learing The Ropes tutorial. I did indeed find it helpful. The only thing I would add is that there is a great deal of information there, and it requires more than one sitting to go through it all. That's not a criticism, as much as an observation. It was certainly helpful and useful. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 19:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC))Reply

Well, yes, the size. I guess it reflects Wikipedia's learning curve. Wikipedia is huge! Unfortunately, there's lots of detail (policies & procedures) involved with developing an encyclopedia. The Transhumanist

Yes, it was definitely helpful and useful -- thanks again. (JosephASpadaro 03:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC))Reply

 

Happy to hear it. Thank you for stepping up there and defusing that situation. As I've already awarded you a WikiCookie, I'm now hard to work, at right, conjuring up some suitable accompaniment! Jouster  (whisper) 16:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Virtual milk and cookies. I virtually found them delicious. Thank you! The Transhumanist 09:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

It appears you've been having a little trouble getting the help you need. Maybe I can be of assistance. I know a bit about Wikipedia. If there are any further questions you would like answered, in addition to our other resources like the Help desk and {{helpme}}, please feel free to ask me anything you want on my talk page. I'll be happy to help with any issues you are having trouble with, and will post my replies on your talk page, of course. In case you are interested, there's a lesson I've written, called Learning the ropes which may help you get up to speed with Wikipedia and how the Wikipedia community functions. Please let me know if you find the lesson useful (as I'm always looking for ways to improve it), and if you have any questions.

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia. I look forward with anticipation to your further improvements to this wonderful resource. I truly believe we are educating the world, and I'm glad you're here to help us with this mission.

Sincerely,

The Transhumanist 18:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't recall if I ever thanked you for coming to my assistance in this matter. Thanks! You have been very helpful. Much appreciated ... (Joseph A. Spadaro 19:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC))Reply

I'm glad I could smooth things out and make Wikipedia more enjoyable for you. Happy editing! The Transhumanist 09:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Yes, things are quite smooth -- thanks to you! And, yes, I am enjoying the Wiki-experience. Be in touch. (Joseph A. Spadaro 02:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC))Reply

Wikipedia mirrors can update to our current version, so thats not an issue. I suggest you read the rest of my talk page for reasons for me moving them. I already garnered consensus to remove the self-references from these kinds of articles. Lists of lists doesn't belong on the main namespace. Another thing, I'm not an adminsitrator, so I am not at anymore of a disadvantage than you are. — Moe ε 20:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Interesting. I tried moving one and it didn't work. (Across namespace). The Wikipedia namespace doesn't show up in many mirrors, such as Answers.com. List of overviews isn't a self-reference in that each of the articles listed is an overview article (so it is a list of overviews in two senses), each overview article being an overview of its topic (e.g., psychology is the overview article for the field of psychology). The Transhumanist 01:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Please see Wikipedia talk:Contents#Namespace and selfref, for the pointer to the main/recent discussion at User talk:Moe Epsilon#Lists - an agony in eight fits. We had essentially agreed that List of academic disciplines belongs in mainspace, and everything else in projectspace. Details are all in that thread. Ta.

(As a possibility, I guess we could add the {{Contents pages (header bar)}} to academic discplines, within a selfref div (as with the footer), but it'd probably get argued over). --Quiddity 20:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Addendum: oops, I see the thread above now. Well, maybe my links will help anyway ;) --Quiddity 20:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Addendum 2: oh, and based on your move of Wikipedia:Unusual articles into mainspace, do bear in mind that you don't have a complete grasp of how the namespaces work! (neither do I, which is why I keep asking for input from others ;) --Quiddity 20:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I believe I do. I went back to read the article more carefully later, to make sure the context of the move was correct, but somebody had already beat me to it. There are at least 3 reasons it is not applicable for the main namespace in the way it is presented. It states that it is a repository for Wikipedians to place articles they believe to be unusual - "for Wikipedians" is a pretty strong self-reference. Also, as a Wikipedian fun page, there is no provision for verification -- there aren't any references to notable sources which asert that each of the entries is indeed unusual (see WP:A). It also points to "articles" rather than merely lists "topics". (A topic list can include topics that aren't articles).

Note that any link to an article from within any other article is a self-reference in that it's referring to part of Wikipedia, but it's the links which refer to parts of Wikipedia as Wikipedia that are the subject of the no self-references policy. That's why Moe has such a problem with lists of lists. The lists listed are Wikipedia entities, not entities in the outside world.

I believe that an exception should be made with respect to standard reference features such as tables of contents. Primarily because the Wikipedia and Portal namespaces don't show up on Answers.com, a major mirror of Wikipedia. I haven't looked into other mirrors as of yet, but I suspect that there are more out there which don't display anything but the main namespace.

All lists technically break the no self-references rule, because the "list" in the title is a Wikipedia entity, but lists are a long standing exception by precedent. But "lists of" which list pages which are Wikipedia lists, go beyond the list guideline exception to the no self references policy.

One could argue that if the "Lists of" (the ones presented on the contents navbar) were renamed "List of", they'ed no longer be self-references (any more than any other allowable list). Then they'd just be multi-part pages that got sectioned off because they were too big -- see List of mathematics articles. As a multi-part list of mathematics topics, the math list is okay because it is a single list that has been broken up into parts - that's simply a hypertext convention for dealing with large pages. In that sense it is just a list as per Wikipedia's list guidelines. But the contents navbar lists of, when treated as single lists, would violate the list guideline by having too great of scope ("all topics" is too large a scope for a single list).

The math list however does violate the no self-references policy by referring to "articles", because articles are Wikipedia entities. Topics, on the other hand exist in the outside world.

But the math list has a major following, so changing its name would require going up against a cadre of supporters who nurture that list and make it one of the most comprehensive on Wikipedia.

The same group have developed and maintain another list by the name of Lists of mathematics topics -- that page is a blatant violation of the no self references policy for the very same objection that Moe brought against the contents "lists of": the lists listed are Wikipedia entities. Ironically, it is a featured list. I don't think it should be moved to the Wikipedia namespace, because it is totally appropriate for encyclopedic inclusion as a table of contents (even though policy says otherwise).

That tables of contents aren't being allowed in the encyclopedia proper due to policy is a problem which needs to be fixed.

The Transhumanist 20:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

About Lists of mathematics topics: I'll start removing self-references later. Just because other articles start violating self-references, doesn't mean that we should start adding self-references to articles. — Moe ε 21:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's too vague for me to understand. In what way were you saying Lists of mathematics topics is self-referential? What "other articles" were you referring to? What additions were you referring to? The Transhumanist 21:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

The I suggest you read Wikipedia:Avoid self-references to see what I am talking about. — Moe ε 21:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

This article starts out as a self-references: "This article attempts" and "The purpose of this list". All that needs to change to reflect the appropriate tone of an encyclopedia article. In addition to that it states there is a duplicate article located list of mathematics articles. The name 'list of mathematics articles' is a self-references. Duplicate entires are also merged together, and I will probably propose to do later. — Moe ε 21:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please don't duplicate entire threads to my talkpage without reason, it just confuses everything pointlessly. And as I said before in many places, this issue needs wider input, not a small discussion on usertalkpages. Take it somewhere relevant, and try to make it concise. --Quiddity 21:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not in my mind it doesn't. Ranting to you has clarified the issue quite well for me. Thanks for being a sounding board! Moe isn't doing any major harm, and his purge of self-references in page text is a good thing. Moving "Lists of" to the Wikipedia namespace may become a problem for subtopics (rather than the all-inclusive contents pages), because then they couldn't be linked to from articles (links to Wikipedia namespace pages are self-references), but Moe doesn't seem intent on moving those out of the main namespace. And the only pages that need to link to the contents pages are other contents pages, and Moe has moved most of those into the Wikipedia namespace, so linking them together isn't a problem - we've only lost Academia from the contents navbar. I may try your suggestion with respect to the academia list to bring it back into the fold, especially if I can get the nav bar to line up right on the page after jumps. Thanks for the suggestion. The Transhumanist 23:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

You mentioned that kind and assistive Wikipedians were rare birds. In my experience, the vast majority of Wikipedians are kind and helpful. Like anyone, if they perceive you are trying your best to get along with them, they will return in like kind. Wikipedia has developed into a distinct culture, and as such has adopted several customs and traditions. One of those pertains to making it easy for others to browse your previous talk page messages. It's common courtesy to do so here. When someone doesn't, it is considered rude. And when someone is rude to you, the natural reaction is to be rude in return. Or to get down on the rude behavior itself.

I went through a similar problem when I first started here, but after a period of adjustment, I got used to the strange customs and protocols in use here. If you don't hide anything, then others will naturally assume you have nothing to hide. But if you hide your talk archives, or even appear to, then it just comes across as deceptive. I hope that helps explain why you've been having trouble interacting with the locals.  :-)

Open up to them, and they'll open up to you.

It's true that there is no policy requiring that you to keep organized archives. But Wikipedians regularly read each others' talk archives, or refer to them for various reasons, and when it is difficult to do so, it is usually very annoying. Even if it's difficult they'll read them anyways, but then they'll be a little miffed that you made it harder to do so.

In my case, I gave up blanking/hiding my archives when someone painstakingly reassembled them. You can't escape your past here, because everything we do is recorded. So it's best to not even try. It's much easier to just get along.

I hope that takes the mystery out of what has been happening.

If you have any other difficulties, or questions, or frustrations, feel free to contact me any time, and I'll answer as soon as I can.

Also, take a look at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User, and let me know if you are interested in being "adopted".

Sincerely,

The Transhumanist 02:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I finally got a chance to read the link you sent me on Wikipedia's Adopt-a-User. At this point, I don't feel that that program would be necessary or beneficial to me. Thanks for your offer, nonetheless. However, I would like to be able to communicate with you as needed on a case-by-case basis with whatever questions I have. What say you? Please let me know. Many thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 22:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC))Reply

Of course. I always like to help. I was just pointing out another help resource. I also adopt users, but as students of the Virtual classroom. If you ever want heavy duty Wikipedia training, you are welcome to enroll anytime. Check out that page for lots more resources. The Transhumanist 19:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I have a link (a chart) that you posted on my User Talk Page with the Virtual Classroom lessons. As of yet, I still have not had the time to take a look at it. But, I will. I only just now got around to reading about the Adoption link that you sent me way back. Thanks again. I will take a look at the Virtual Classroom link when I have a bit of free time, and will let you know if I am interested in the training. Thanks a lot. (Joseph A. Spadaro 00:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC))Reply

I don't care about WikiLove, WikiLove is meaningless and can rot for all I care. You accuse me of bad faith [1] stating I purposly created a null edit to lock the page in my favor. I didn't, I don't need to keep something at my prefered revision because I'm not that shallow to lock everyone out on a decision I made. Honestly, with every other page I moved, why would I stop at one? If I really had that intention, it would have been done to all of them, not just one random one. I don't need your lecture on what to do here, I'm well versed of my actions on Wikipedia, and you coming to my talk page and giving "disruptive tactics" speech is you just trying to patronize me. If you wanted my help in regards to these pages from me, you should have thought about that before insulting me, because you're no longer welcome to converse with me. — Moe ε 16:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I did not accuse you, but pointed out how it appeared. I then stated I assumed it was an accident, for the very reason that it was to only one of the pages, and I asked for you to fix your mistake. There's no way to know what another person knows, until they show what they know, so any instructions provided were in good faith. A little review and overlearning never hurt anybody. Your extremely negative response above on the other hand is quite abusive. The Transhumanist 00:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

You did accuse him, in the diff he provided: "... the mover added a null edit to the redirect at List of overviews so that the move could not be undone." The comments you added at his talkpage were less accusatory, but still thoroughly insinuating of bad faith: "Keep in mind that using the move lockdown tactic is highly frowned upon ..." and "If you need clarification on the issue of disruptive tactics and edit warring tricks like the move lockdown ..." That was all following your (mistaken) initial comment that he might be engaged in "abuse of your administrative powers".

To clarify, I'm pointing out these excerpted quotations to you, in order to highlight how other people might read the emphasis in a phrase. Negativity like that tends to provoke defensiveness. (I'm hoping this helps, not provoke defensiveness in turn.) --Quiddity 06:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

According to Moe above, he's well-versed in what he is doing (which I also gathered from the nature of his edits in his contribs). Which means he should understand the protocol of moves, such as discussing it on the talk pages first (the notice on the edit window is pretty blatant). Aside from locking a move, moving a page in the first place without discussing it first is another questionable tactic. His Wikipeia acumen and his act of unilaterally moving the page without discussing it first make an accidental null edit to a redirect extremely unlikely. If Moe was well-versed, and since he did not intend to lock the move, it makes no sense that he didn't request at that time to have his mistake fixed. It appears very strongly to have been a deliberate action. The Transhumanist 20:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

If had been deliberate why would have I done it to just one page? It makes no sense to just do one. Theres no way to fix that kind of mistake but to have an administrator make a page move. I'm not going to request illateral page moves, and accusing me of things I didn't do, is showing no good faith at all. — Moe ε 22:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

The admin Prodego agreed that the list of overviews might belong in Wikipedia-namespace. I renew my request that you take it somewhere public for discussion. RfC just got overhauled, try that. I can do it if you insist (or simply don't have time), but I'm not a proponent of either position, so will phrase the request far differently than you might (such as suggesting things like removing the colouring). --Quiddity 03:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not actively editing that page these days. I'm really kind of burnt out on the contents pages (I put in hundreds of hours on them as you probably remember). These days, I just use them for study and for browsing articles. The page conforms to the list guideline, a guildeline which contradicts the no self references guideline. "List" in the title of any page that isn't about a list that exists out in the real world is a self-reference - bringing the list guideline and the existence of lists on Wikipedia in direct conflict with the no self-references guideline. Lists are a long-standing exception to that guideline. Almost all lists on Wikipedia are tables of contents, that is, they list articles in most cases, not topics. Wikipedia is becoming so comprehensive that listed topics that aren't articles are becoming increasingly rare; editors have also developed the tendency to remove from lists topics (redlinks) that are not articles. Hence, tables of contents. There are over 8,000 lists on Wikipedia, which by their nature comprise a contents system. To move some of them and not all of them to the Wikipedia namespace is confusing and counterproductive. It's splitting hairs, allowing some exceptions but not others. It's better to keep them all together. The Transhumanist 21:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Wapedia, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Savidan 19:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would like to firs thank you for your instruction with admin coaching in the Virtual Classroom. It is my regret to say, though, that my schedule no longer allows for the fervor of editing that I had in the past. Therefore, I wish to withdraw myself from your class,and apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. Maybe, some day in the future, I will return to my previous status, but for now, my edits will be relatively small.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 17:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Drop me a note when you become active again. Good fortunes in all your endeavors. The Transhumanist 19:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am currently really depressed about Wikipedia and need some help. OK, I'm being a little funny on purpose here, no serious 911 situation here. I saw your name on the Editor Assistance list, and decided to go to you, as a starting place. I see your main area of interest and expertise seems to be on the technical side, and my concern is policy-related, but I also sense you have a good grasp where to send me for what I need.

I've been using Wikipedia as a reader for years now, but only in the last few months have made any real edits. I've been an avid fan of what Wikipedia is -- well, of what I thought Wikipedia was. I hit a roadblock, though, recently.

I'm a firm believer in a controversial theory -- that is, that cholesterol is not the initial or principal cause of heart disease. I understand this is generally assumed by the public to be true -- that cholesterol is the problem, or at least, the main problem. But I firmly believe otherwise. Accordingly, upon noticing that the Wikipedia article on cholesterol had no reference to any kind of alternative theories about cholesterol's role in health, I added a link to the end of the External Links list, called "Alternative hypothesis about cholesterol's role in health" that linked to an article by the main proponent of this admitedly controversial theory.

What turns out to be a very prolific user (he says he's no. 102 for number of edits) deleted the link immediately. I tried the next day, and he deleted it again, blah blah blah.... I was ready to defend my position (geared up since this user calls himself a doctor, is an administrator, and from the start used consdescending language -- I finally viewed the talk page and saw that other people had tried to argue about some inclusion of this idea in the article over time), etc., and this was the roadblock I hit: he directed me to the Undue Weight policy, which includes a statement that positions held by only a very small or tiny minority "do not belong" in Wikipedia.

This was news to me, and has really changed my whole view of Wikipedia. Since then, I've also noticed what seems to be a growing prejudice against "lists of things" such as references to popular culture references to X, and have realized -- many users, and Wikimedia itself, seem to have what I would call an overweening concern about Wikipedia appearing respectable. I'm sympathetic with the desire to remain user-friendly, and useful, etc. But to say that lists of trivia don't belong in Wikipedia (when clearly, there are people who will read a list of trivia and find it useful, for reasearch, or insight) or that views held by tiny minorities don't belong here (I'd always thought that Wikipedia ~would~ be the place for someone to report Copernicus's finding that the earth wasn't the center of the univers, but they would have had to wait several decades AFTER 1543 for editors of the time to no longer be able to say that it was a view held only by a tiny minority!). Thus, my current disappointment. I undertand the policy about emphasizing theories in relation to their popularity, but to not allow AT ALL the view of a tiny minority (like my cholesterol theory) ??? I believe that this guy who was deleting my links does not want any mention at all on what seems like His page on cholesterol, and he can use Wikimedia to back him up.

So, rather than get into how to go about referring to this other theory in the main Cholesterol article, I guess I should skip my denial and go straight to asking -- is there a place here for people like me? hehehe... I'd start my own ~Pedia website that corrected this, but I don't have my own server, etc.!!! But maybe there's another wiki-pedia (small w) out there you know of that's not as establishment-conscious? Or a group of similar minded people like me within Wikipedia? I'm of the opinion that articles about theories that have minority competing opionions, even if subscribed to by a tiny minority of experts, COULD have a section at the end, for example, that said (tongue in cheek, sort of) "Links to Disreputable Alternative Theories About this Topic" and it wouldn't tarnish Wikipedia's respectabillity; it seems to me that's what Mr. Wales intends -- to preserve at all costs Wikipedia's respectability. I'd ask about how to change policy (the Village Pump, right?), but I'm afraid it seems to set in stone, and I'm sure Wikimedia has no obligation to change it, even if it happen to become the consensus of the Village Pump.

H E L P !!!

-Bummed out in Berkeley Friarslantern 16:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

First of all, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'm always glad to help.

Let's see, where to start? Hmmm... Wikipedia is a diverse community comprised of volunteers with a wide variety of attitudes, approaches, styles, and philosophies. Personality clashes and disagreements are inevitable. Don't let it get you down. It comes with the territory. See Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies and Dispute resolution.

With respect to your current predicament, check out Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Wikipedia:Consensus, two key policies that probably apply to your situation.

There are a heck of a lot of heart diseases, so let's narrow the discussion down to the one I believe you are talking about. While cholesterol is certainly a correlative risk factor in atherosclerosis, at this time it appears that inflammation is the primary culprit in the pathology of that disease. So let me use inflammation as an example... The inflammation theory has gained enough momentum that it is no longer held by a tiny minority -- a significant number of scientists are studying it these days.

There's a great deal of web traffic on inflammation in relation to heart disease. For example, on google, a search for cholesterol and "heart disease" comes up 2.6 million times, while a search for inflammation and "heart disease" comes up 1.8 million times. Inflammation as a cause to heart disease is no longer a tiny minority position.

Google searches provide us with clues, but they hold little weight in Wikipedia discussions on the weight of positions and the factual basis of claims . For that, we must rely on the policies on Notability and Verifiability. The opposing editor stated that the position you tried to include was a tiny minority. Well, how many professionals in the relevant fields support the theory? If you can establish a number that is clearly not "tiny", then what you are dealing with is a minor position, and minor positions warrant mention in articles on relevant topics. If you can find a reliable source that establishes that the cause of heart disease to which you are referring is not a tiny minority position, via numbers (like the number of members in a relevant professional association, number of papers being published annually on the subject, etc.), then you will have a strong argument for its mention.

Keep in mind that "undue weight" applies to the treatment of a topic in an article not specifically about that topic. Stepping back for a wider outlook on your situation, Wikipedia includes articles on very esoteric and miniscule topics, so your topic probably warrants an article of its own -- encyclopedic means "covers everything", well, just about. For a topic's treatment on Wikipedia as a whole, as opposed to within an overview article or specific related article, again see Notability and Verifiability.

Wikipedia wishes to be factual, but we have to guard against tiny minority positions (including activists, entrepreneurs, etc.) who wish to use Wikipedia to promote their causes, companies, and products. Yes, this risks falling prey to the logical fallacy Appeal to the majority, but that's just a price we have to pay. They key is to find the proper balance.

So, my advice is to report the facts as supported by the evidence, somewhere on Wikipedia, and then provide links to those articles wherever those links are relevant. The Transhumanist 23:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 23:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 17:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello The Transhumanist, (Hold on, can I say that or is it "Hello Transhumanist")
I was going to give you an award but there wasn't one good enough, so I made one better than any that has ever been seen before - This message. Yes, yes, I know, you don't think your worthy of it, but I assure you, you are the only one good enough for it - Pheonix 19:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm flattered. File:Blush.png I don't know what to say, really. Uh. Um. Wow. Thank you. The Transhumanist 00:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm ready to begin whenever you are :-). ~ Wikihermit 19:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

(consider this precoaching, let the games begin!): I still have at least one other active discussion thread with you that you haven't answered -- you didn't respond to my request - it's buried in your archives somewhere. I'm still waiting for a response. I look forward to your reply. The Transhumanist 19:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I believe this was the question: "Please ask your coach if he would like to teach you there". I haven't been in contact with my coach for at least a month, and I believe he isn't coaching me anymore. ~ Wikihermit 20:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I finally did get a chance to look through the Virtual Classroom Lessons that you sent me. Thanks. At this time, I will not undertake the lessons ... but I will keep them for possible future use. However, if I do have Wikipedia questions, I will certainly post a message on your Talk Page. Thanks for all of your help! (Joseph A. Spadaro 20:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC))Reply

A template you created, Template:Lists, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 21:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

You've expressed interest in the past, so I thought I'd point you towards a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Contents pages, and lists of lists on the Wikipedia:Contents pages, and specifically on the namespace they belong in. Thanks. --Quiddity 17:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I noticed that a bit later, I'm working on that (there are a whole bunch of manual fixes to have to make... I'm maybe half done by now). Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 18:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Would you happent to the default font on Wikipedia articles? THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 04:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

No I don't. You should ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). And please, let me know what you find out! The Transhumanist

I got an anwser from User:Ilmari Karonen: it called sans-serif, and the user said "What specific font that maps to is up to your browser." THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 22:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sans-serif. Browser dependent. Interesting. Thank you for the info. The Transhumanist 00:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Template:Village pump (header bar) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Quiddity 04:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I know we've never run across each other, and I'd ask Phaedriel except she's so busy at the moment, I hate to bug her more than I already do lol. I re-designed my user page recently, basing it off of this template I ran across one night. However, if you check, the last section "Wiki History", the text is so close to the image box, and I've been unable to get it to "pad" enough to make it easier to read. If there is any way you can take a look and tell me what I've done wrong, or how to give that section some padding (I even tried indenting it, which also didn't work), I'd appreciate it very much! I'm not on par with you or Phaedriel with userpage design, but I'm able to take things and modify them to make them look how I want most of the time, but this issue sure has me stumped! Any assistance you may be able to provide would be most sincerely appreciated! ^Ariel♥Gold 04:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

A million "Thank You!"s to you! For the life of me I swear I messed with every padding setting, and nothing I did worked,  . Then you come along, and ~*Poof*~ you fixed it! For this, you receive:

		Ariel's Angel of the Day
		For fixing a silly error I couldn't fix on my userpage! Ariel♥Gold

Glad to be of help. When padding doesn't work, try margins. Like the margins of boxes. They both do the same thing from different starting lines. The Transhumanist 23:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Heya! Sorry I have not done any of your lessons, I have been really busy helping in other programs and commitees but, I will get around to it really soon, thanks :) Talk to symode09's or How's my driving? 03:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

FYI, I've added my opinion at User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/Coaching/The Transhumanist, as you requested there. Happy editing! Anthøny (contact ⇔ talk) 14:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I'll use your pointers as my to do list. The Transhumanist —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:25, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Hello Transhumanist,
I saw the virtual classroom and was wondering how I could become a student. I have approx 450 500 601 exactly edits so far and am familiar with Wikipedia but some extra tips could help--Pheonix15 15:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

So you want a coach, eh. Howabout a handful of them?! There are a few conditions though, and they are that you...

1. don't go for your RfA or accept an RfA nomination until I think you are ready. (The coaches at the VC generally conominate their students when the time is right. We've got 3 graduates so far!)
2. take the advice provided by your coaches and your fellow students to heart (this will be a group effort).

Please let me know if you agree, and we can get started.
I look forward to your reply.
The Transhumanist 00:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay but I agree to the conditions. I wasn't really thinking about going up for adminship until I had more than 3000 edits anyway. When can we get started?--Pheonix15 (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just an observation but you seem to edit from about 00:00 to 04:00 UTC or 01:00 to 05:00 local time in Ireland. Are you in a different time zone or are you just staying up half the night?--Pheonix15 (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just a reminder. you havn't answered yet--Pheonix15 15:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

We can get started right away. And yes, I'm in another time zone. I'll post your first assignment on your talk page. The Transhumanist 07:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Good points you raise. I just haven't had time to put the research into it, but will try to do so tonight. Thanks for the message. --David Shankbone 17:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Good luck. The Transhumanist

Here's one source, Joel Stein in this Time Magazine article, talking about reality film: "If the material is so strong that the producers could afford to toss the Snoop scene, it's a wonder no one has done a reality movie before. Like reality TV, a reality film is supercheap, and as Jackass proved, there's an audience willing to pay $9 for what it gets free on television."

My point is, that it's out there, it's talked about, and there's enough info available to merit a stub for expansion. --David Shankbone 19:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nicely done. I'll change my position to Keep, as agreed. The Transhumanist —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:43, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Hello. I am hoping to become a student in the Virtual Classroom. I have 836 edits, and I have matured greatly since my past RfA's. I am hoping to try for it again. Bushcarrot ^Talk _{Please Sign!} 21:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for enquiring about coaching. I'd be honored to assist...

I work with several coaches, and we expect our students to help in the coaching too (everybody has strengths and areas of wiki-expertise). There are a few conditions though, and they are that you...

1. don't go for your RfA or accept an RfA nomination until I think you are ready. (The coaches at the Virtual Classroom generally co-nominate their students when the time is right. We've got 3 graduates so far!)
2. take the advice provided by your coaches and your fellow students to heart (this will be a group effort).

Please let me know if you agree, and we can get started.
I look forward to your reply.
The Transhumanist 23:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I won't go for any RfA at this time.

And, I take advice by any editor to heart, so in other words, I agree to both of your terms. Looking forward to getting started. Bushcarrot ^Talk _{Please Sign!} 14:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		As the top contributor to Help:Contents, you deserve this barnstar. Thank you! Jreferee (Talk) 05:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wow, that must of been a lot of work to look through that page's history -- it's huge! Thank you for the award. That was a fun project. I'm glad I could be of help. The Transhumanist 23:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm withdrawing from admin coaching as I've decided I don't want to be an admin, however, I'd like to continue in the project as a coach. I hope you understand. Lara♥Love 21:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's cool. Non-admins can actually get more done with respect to structuring and developing the encyclopedia's content. And once you know your way around the notice pages, you basically have an army of admins at your disposal.   Coaching is fun. It's my niche too. The Transhumanist 23:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yea. I'm too consumed by the Good articles project, plus I'm incapable of biting my tongue when it comes to dealing with morons, apparently (I thought I was doing well, but I guess not), and I'm getting into Wikinews, so I think there's just better things to do with my time. With that said, I look forward to coaching. :) Lara♥Love 15:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Lists of fictional topics, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Fayenatic (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was wondering if you would be my admin coach. I am on the request list. Thanks and cheers! SLSB talk • contrib 21:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

What's your goal? To become an admin? Having you as an admin would be cool. Keep in mind that admins are expected to have lots of experience in editing articles (pages in the main namespace). So far, that makes up only about 1/10th of your edits.

Therefore, you need to concentrate on developing articles. Because that's what admins police: the safety and wellbeing of articles. And the only way to get a fundamental understanding of the encyclopedia itself, is to work on its content.

So, your first assignment is to rack up 1000 edits in the main namespace. I'd like to see a mixture of article creation, content contribution (including references), and copy editing.

Also, I want you to do this without getting into any fights or edit wars, or disputes, of any kind, with anyone. Be polite at all times, and take any disagreements to the talk page. If it can't be resolved there, walk away and find another page to edit -- do NOT force your opinion onto any page and do NOT engage in Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Be humble, and helpful. (We'll deal with the dispute resolution process later in your training, from the perspective of a dispute resolver, rather than a disputer).

Whatever you do, don't make an issue of walking away, just don't fight -- that is, be silent rather than argue. Since we're dealing with print here, silence (not typing) is how you "walk away". I wish I had someone to provide this advice when I started, because not having it has caused me major grief.

I would be happy to be your coach. I expect that you won't go for an RfA or accept an RfA nomination until I think you are ready (I like to nominate my own students when I feel the time is right). If that is agreeable to you, we can get started immeditately.

Let me know if you agree, and then get started on your assignment above. Good luck! The Transhumanist 21:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good! So you are my coach now correct? I will start working and if you would like give me suggestions? I don't know. But I'm sure your gonna be a GREAT coach and I am gonna start working on what you told me to. Also are you an admin? SLSB talk • contrib 13:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

As long as you agree to the terms I presented, sure, I'll be your coach. And no, I'm not an admin myself, but I have coached 3 students to adminship so far. The Transhumanist 02:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I agree to the conditions. I just thought I'd put this under a new heading as you don't appear to have seen my first reply--Pheonix15 15:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've replied above, and will post to your page shortly. The Transhumanist 07:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've completed the first assignment. I've created my coaching page here --Pheonix15 13:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, fellow Wikipedian! I am asking you to participate in the Laleena Userpage Contest. The person with the best design shall win at least one barnstar and work on any one-five article project. It would interest me greatly if you would submit a userpage design according to all of the criteria. Thank you for your interest. Laleena

 Publication of the contest would help too.

The point of this contest is to help you design your userpage? Just curious. Also, what did you mean by 1-5 article project? The Transhumanist 17:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes. I truly need help with it. 1-5 article project: That means I'll work on 1-5 articles of your choice. I also would like help publicizing the contest. Thanks for your interest. Laleena 18:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I posted a note on my VC page. Could you right a response there please? Thank you SOOOOOO MUCH! SLSB talk • contrib 22:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've created my coaching page etc.--Pheonix15 23:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but have you taken a look at it lately?  :) The Transhumanist 23:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, TT. I wanted to leave you some comments regarding this user, so I think this is the correct place. If he wants to be an admin, he needs a lot of work. His participation at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Best User Page Contest (2nd nomination) is somewhat disruptive, and his nomination of Colonization of Trans-Neptunian Objects for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of Trans-Neptunian Objects) shows inability to assume good faith and lack of good judgment. You better teach him good, man :-) Happy editing! --Boricuaeddie 00:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'll do my best. I'll be going over his contributions as part of the coaching process - just haven't gotten to it yet. Thank you for the heads up, you've saved me a lot of time by pointing out the rough spots. The Transhumanist 00:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Always a pleasure :-) --Boricuaeddie 00:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm hurt deeply by this comment. I re-added my comment after rmvl but when I was complained to I decided not to visit MFD for a while. Also, you already complained to me--Pheonix15 09:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Take a closer look at what you wrote in those situations, and ask people what was wrong, so that you can avoid offending in the future. For example, I got caught off-guard by the whole "bold and capitals are yelling" netiquette convention. I was accused of being rude, but didn't find out what exactly I had done wrong or its ramifications until I went for RfA. It was like getting eaten alive. There's definitely a learning curve in participating in Wikipedia. The Transhumanist 18:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, I tried to follow Wikipedia:Talk_page#Formatting but I got rverted etc.--Pheonix15 19:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Post the diffs here so I can take a look. The Transhumanist 19:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's cool, I still can't explain the edit as I've never seen it and it's deleted now, so can't provide an explanation still. Yeh, I did get really mad, and I probably shouldn't have said what I said, but you have to understand the sheer amount of times someone misunderstands something that I've done. This time was pretty much the only time something of mine was reverted, deleted, and then a message was sent to me without the chance of explaning, so thats where I was coming from. Water under the bridge, hopefully we can forget about this now. — Moe ε 02:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to tell you, but I've blocked your student as a sock of banned Bugman94 (talk · contribs). Hope everythings well. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sheesh. They'll let anyone in these days.  :) Nice catch. The Transhumanist 23:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, TT. I am going to archive my editor review soon, but, first, I would like for a user of your magnitude and experience to review me. Please ignore this if you don't have the time :-) Happy editing! --Boricuaeddie 04:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Very nice, man :-) --Boricuaeddie 20:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the review :-) BTW, the guys at my editor review are both trolls and will probably be blocked in the near future. Happy editing! --Boricuaeddie 21:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. The Transhumanist 21:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

[2] Eh? Someguy1221 21:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to move yourself back to active status. Glad to have you back in the program! Let me know if you are having any trouble with the assignments (both the general assignments and specific ones). The Transhumanist 21:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would like to set up one of these on my user page. Could you find some help for me? Thank you. Laleena 23:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please describe it, so I know what you have in mind. The Transhumanist 02:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button   located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 02:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I was wondering if I could become a student at your virtual school. Thanks, Lemonflash_{(do something)} 01:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

• He's ready. If he accepts the offer I just left him on his talk page, let me know if you'll co-nominate. --Dweller 11:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't do that. Sorry it took me so long to reply, but he's not ready. I don't think he'll have a successful RfA with his current numbers. He's a long time member, but he's only got one month of strong editing. History at RfA shows that he needs to get at least two more months before he applies for adminship. Almost all of his mainspace edits are for vandalism, which will draw criticism for lack of article writing. He's also got minimal talk page edits, which shows a lack of collaborative effort. He also doesn't have any experience if XfD, which is an apparent requirement. I think every admin hopeful should go through an editor review prior to opening an RfA. This one is clearly not ready. LARA♥LOVE 18:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Hi. Funny... I just came here straight from Bart's talk page, where I've been on a similar theme. He has got XfD experience, although I'm unsure how much. I think he's grievously lacking in RfA experience, which led to the horrendousness of his last RfA. The talk page comments are interesting... I've opposed for that in the past. I'll point Bart at this thread. What do you think TT? --Dweller 08:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Interesting user. Looking through his contribs it seemed that he was active in many different namespaces, which is a good thing, but looking at the edit count, he needs a few more months of consistent editing; there's too much fluctuation. Age should not a factor in RFA's, it's all about maturity. (I think this needs to be stressed more. Personal experience.) So basically: a few more months (maybe even 2 or 3) and he should be able the pass without too much difficulty. Smokizzy (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was just thinking similarly to that. I think that I'm currently in about the same situation that I was in after my first RfA; that is, if I keep up my previous editing patterns for a few months, I'll probably have overwhelming support. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 00:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Go for it. Admirable attitude. Please do take my advice about RfA and XfD contributions and note LaraLove's comments about talk page edits. If you're doing loads of vandal work, I'd expect to see lots of warnings placed on talk pages. Have you installed WP:TWINK yet? --Dweller 12:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the input everyone. It's unfortunate that even though we all feel that Bart is ready to be an admin, that he is not ready to pass RfA. That's a sad reflection on the RfA process. I concur with all of your suggestions. Consistency and broader exposure to admin-like duties (RfA, XfD, messaging vandals, some XfD closures, etc.). Good luck Bart, we're all behind you. The Transhumanist 17:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

To answer my last "silly question" about odd design padding, I wonder if, when you have time, you could take a look at User:ArielGold/sandbox2, and tell me why the colored boxes that I'm using as "headers" seem to creep in away from the left side of the page as they go down. I've tried and I can't figure it out for the life of me. I'm sure it has something to do with |} tags, or something, but it is driving me nuts, I'd like them all aligned on the left side, same width. (Plus I'd like to know what I did wrong that makes them do that in the first place, lol). Anyway, if you have the time I'd just appreciate it so much! ^Ariel♥Gold 01:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you thank you yet again! I never would have realized those padding things are cumulative, sheesh, lol. No wonder I could not figure that out! Again, my deepest gratitude for your assistance! ^Ariel♥Gold 00:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ohhh, now I get it, it was nested inside the outside one, so I understand. While Eliz didn't notice, and loved the page, it was bugging me so I didn't want to delete the sandbox page until I could figure out (or in this case, you figured it out for me lol) what caused that. I have fixed it on her page, and it looks much better too, thank you again! ^Ariel♥Gold 00:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Saw the fixes you just did, and I've applied them to Eliz's page. When you said the inner box border runs off, which box did you mean? It might be my high res/widescreen monitor that I'm not seeing it, but not sure which box is running off the screen. And thanks again for adding the bottom padding, that was another thing I hadn't noticed, lol. ^Ariel♥Gold 18:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

The 1-pixel border. There should be some space between it and the thicker border all the way around, but they run together on the right-hand side of the page. The Transhumanist 18:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hrmm, that's strange, for me, they are equal on both sides, even when I squish or expand the browser. Odd. I used the two because if you check Eliz's page, I added a navbar to the top, so the inner border is around the content, and the navbar is at the top above it. It seems to display okay for me on both pages, so I'm not sure what to fix, lol. Thanks again for looking at this stuff, you are just wonderful! ^Ariel♥Gold 18:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't currently have access to Firefox. Look at it in IE. By the way, I found the problem, and I'm all done. You might want to add spacing at the bot of each section, just before each headerbox. The Transhumanist 18:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ahhh, well nothing looks the same for me in IE, and in fact, just coming to WP in IE gives me constant boxes about display format errors, so I never use IE lol (plus, none of my monobook.js scripts will work in IE for whatever reason). I have transferred Eliz's actual current code over to the sandbox, and I am pretty sure I applied all your fixes. Between the time we moved it over, and today, her page had been changed so that it was difficult for me to apply your changes, so that's why I moved hers over. I'll let her know if she wants to add a space below sections, should she just use carriage returns, or a clear type command? And again, thank you for the time! ^Ariel♥Gold 18:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wow! I noticed you added her page to the HoF! What an awesome thing of you to do! Makes me wonder if I need to change my page, lol. Although, I did spend like 2 days on it, so I probably won't, lol. That was very sweet of you to do for Eliz and I'm more than sure she'll be tickled pink about it! ^Ariel♥Gold 18:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello TH, I was wondering if you could offer me some guidance. I have recently come across the article Roche limit, a featured article for over three years, which contains no in text citations and is sourced to only a single reference. FA criteria require that article content be verified by reliable sources, does complete lack of citations and only one source given qualify as such? Perhaps the threshold for passing FA was lower in 2004, or am I being overzealous? I was considering beginning a featured article review, but I'll await your opinion, as this is something I have never partaken in before. Someguy1221 01:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

You guessed correctly; FA standards used to be a lot lower. Rather than starting a review, how about using the article talk page and any relevant WikiProjects to try to bring the article up to scratch? Go to FAR if you get nowhere. --Dweller 12:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

The article is very well written, it's just missing references. So rather than demote the article, it's better to improve it where it stands and find those references. That will save someone the trouble of going through FAC again. FA review, FAC, etc. eat up a lot of time that is better spent on direct effort improving articles. The Transhumanist 17:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I am not sure where to put this, but it seems an appropriate place ;-)

I am having some troubles with an anonymous user here, who considers that tezukainenglish.com [3] isn't a valid source for the article. His/her argument for supporting that seems dubious to me ("a stupid website, where people go to argue about garbage on their tiny little forums"), and he/she doesn't counter my argument ("tezukainenglish.com is in my opinion a valid source, at least not more or less that the non-official websites pointed by the other links that you didn't remove").

I would happily continue to undo his/her edits, but I am not interested in waging an edit war (essentially for technical reasons: an edit war uselessly eats up a lot of space in the database).

Now that I have accepted a pause to decide about that, the user doesn't move, maybe because the article is presently in the state he/she wishes, maybe because his/her IP address has been blocked, or for some other reason. I feel that by putting back the link I will start the whole process again.

Would you have some advices for a humble user who tries to do the best, face to an anonymous user who may try to do the best too? :-)

Fafner 21:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

When in a disagreement, be sure to refer to the relevant policies and guidelines. In this case, Wikipedia:External links. The external links section isn't for source citations. It is for further resources of interest to readers of the subject. It's an extra See also section that points to destinations outside of Wikipedia. The Transhumanist 17:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I feel I haven't been very good in this dispute resolution, but I guess one needs to make mistakes to learn ;-) I hope I will be better the next time (and above all, I hope there won't be a "next time"). Thanks for your help :-) Fafner 08:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear TH, wow! I'm flabbergasted! Thanks so much for the addition to the userpage hall of fame. All the credit goes to User:ArielGold for her amazing work in the design, I was just a lucky bystander :) ~Eliz81^(C) 21:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear The Transhumanist, (Can I call you TH? lol) I'm just going to thank you again for all your help, and for your generous addition of our pages to the gallery. You are most respected, and I appreciate all your assistance you have provided, thank you! ^Ariel♥Gold 22:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

A template you created, Template:Back to LoBT, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 04:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Now your page is being recommended as a source of pages to nominate for deletion! Fayenatic (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

		The Special Barnstar
		For your work as an essayist, especially Wikipedia:Just write a damn encyclopedia, which I enjoyed thoroughly. You deserve this more than ever. --Sharkface217 03:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

--Sharkface217 03:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I didn't write that essay. I did some copy-editing and link-fixing, and that's all. But it's the thought that counts.  ;) The Transhumanist 19:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Transhumanist, the link under User:The_Transhumanist/Tools#Super_fast_upgrade leads to your empty monobook.js. Maybe you can update that section. Thanks, Cacycle 03:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oops. Thanks. Replaced with a permanent link. Sorry for the oversight. The Transhumanist 20:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I adopted User:ArcTech. There's also some stuff on my coaching page--Phoenix 15 20:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix 15 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Cool. Are you going to adopt Earthshift also?

By the way, the indentation guideline proposal looks okay to me. You should place a link to it on WP:VPR so that others may provide their input. The Transhumanist 20:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Earth shift got adopted by someone. I'll do the vpr thing now--Phoenix 15 20:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

See current discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Help. Thanks. --Quiddity 03:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry you feel like I was acting in bad faith. I really was trying to be helpful by notifying you of the discussion, so that you could give your own context.

That is the reason (as I think I said before) that I've suggested that you bring certain issues to RfC: in order to give you the oppurtunity to present your own perspective as the start of any discussion. If I start it then I'll put a different spin/angle/perspective on an issue, that you might not like (as I appear to have done here).

That's the main reason I still haven't gone around to the various wikiprojects, informing them of the existence of a new "list of basic topics" and "list of topics" in their domain, but if you don't want to, or don't have the time, then I will eventually get around to notifying them all with a templated message along the lines of the following:

==Notice of List articles==
Pages related to this project have been created and/or added to one or more of the [[Wikipedia:Contents]] subpages.
*[[]]
*[[]]
*[[]]
This note is just to let you know, so that they can be added to any watchlists and/or tasklists, and so that more experts in the field can expand and check them. Thanks :) ~~~~

I'll fill in the blanks and do that soon, if you prefer not to yourself. Or we could collaborate on a more complex message perhaps? Anything! Although it's less urgent now that it's months and months later, there are probably still some (dormant or low activity) wikiprojects that are unaware of these articles. I'd also like to remove some of the links that appear broken (as opposed to just normal redlinks awaiting content) like the portal and topic list linked at List of basic health science topics. Does that all sound ok? I'm in good faith here, and am frustrated that you seem to feel I'm not. :( --Quiddity 04:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Addendum to your reply at afd:help: that wasn't a great day for anyone... ;) My last sentence was out of line, but the last half of the page is all yours (and David's)! --Quiddity 04:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Complaints just seem adversarial to me. And the way you presented your message at the AfD came across as blatant criticism for not doing something that you could just have easily done. That you thought it should be done was fine, but that you thought it should be done by me, and then complained in a berating tone that I had not done it, was not fine. Besides this, it seemed to come out of the blue, since I haven't been involved with the crisis drive in months! I came away from your message thinking this guy will never be happy until he has me shining his shoes!.

You present your side, or "spin", whether you are the first poster or not, and I have no problem with this as long as you don't make it personal. It doesn't make any difference if you post first or second, third, etc. And it makes no difference if mine comes first, second, etc. We are usually adversaries. So as long as both sides are presented, that's all that matters.

I'm not interested in leading a contents-pages development drive. I've seen the results of your attempts, on the Village Pump and elsewhere, and was as disappointed as you were. And I've already tested notices on a WikiProject or two, with zero results. What did seem to increase traffic to the lists was posting links to all of the see also sections of the articles of the same subjects as the various lists. Traffic also seems to have increased due to placement on the sidebar, and is increasing over time. They just haven't hit critical mass yet, and I expect that will occur once their quality hits a certain level (as a whole). It's a "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" thing. I think time will solve the problem, and in the meantime, the lists are quite useful in their current form. So why fix what isn't broken? The Transhumanist 18:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

P.S.: You don't need my permission to fix broken links, or to edit those pages in any way you see fit. By all means go in and improve those lists. There are a lot of missing ones you could work on too, if you have the inclination. The Transhumanist 18:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

The above project is being considered for deletion in accord with wikipedia policy. Please feel free to take part in the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Health (2nd nomination). Thank you. John Carter 22:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi

I'd like to train with your Coaching program but your page doesn't exactly detail how I got about signing up. Could you sign me up, please, and give me my first task? One of my goals is to become an admin and gain back my credibility lost in a recent scuffle.

Thanks, Auroranorth 12:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm kind of overloaded on students, but I like your initiative and candor, so I will be glad to make time for you. I do have a few conditions though, and they are that you...

1. watch your coaching page closely, and reply to every post there in a timely fashion. And when you post there, please drop a quick note on my talk page, so the new messages alarm is activated.
2. complete all the assignments you are given to the best of your ability. If you have trouble with an assignment, by all means, let me know, so we can discuss possible solutions and options.
3. take to heart the advice provided by my fellow coaches and your fellow students (this will be a group effort)
4. don't go for your RfA or accept an RfA nomination until I think you are ready. I take pride in nominating my students personally, and I find that the RfA process goes more smoothly when I coordinate any co-nominators (refer them to me) and make the post.

Please let me know if you agree, and we can get started.
I look forward to your reply.
The Transhumanist 15:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Auroranorth 12:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sounds excellent! Let's get started. Please note that I am normally on Wikipedia from 9:00UTC and 12:00UTC, but I may be on other times. Auroranorth 01:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also, it's going to be a long road, but I'll stick at it! It might take up to a day to reply, remember. Auroranorth 01:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I do not expect to be nominated until at least the beginning of next year. This is because of a recent block to do with image copyrights and sockpuppetry (see User:Auroranorth/Sockpuppets for more). However, I would like to still train until that time. Thanks, Auroranorth 09:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

So, by "sounds excellent", you mean that you agree?

It's hard to say at this point, but I wouldn't set your heart on adminship. It may take years after your probabtion is over to undue the damage done to your reputation. That is, your reputation as perceived in RfA (they're much more critical of past performance there than on the rest of the wiki).

But don't worry about it. Adminship is overrated. Building the encyclopedia, rather than merely maintaining it, is underrated. Become the best editor you can be, and adminship may naturally follow. But by that point, you probably won't care for adminship.

The important thing to focus on is the encyclopedia itself: building its navigation structures, contributing article content, copy-editing existing text, and tracking down references. That is, concentrate on how users can access the articles, the article titles, and the text in the articles (especially references).

Therefore, our central focus will be on the structure of Wikipedia: it's navigation structure and the structure of knowledge itself. That will expose you to the entire scope of human knowledge and endeavor. If you stick with it, you'll become familiar with how things in general are related, that is, with the BIG PICTURE. That's a pretty interesting vantage point. From there, you can determine how you may best contribute to the world through Wikipedia. But without a feel for the whole, you might never discover that which would be most important to you.

As you become more familiar with this structure over time, I'll give you additional (simultaneous) assignments dealing with article titles, article contents, Wikipedia policy, etc.

Are you ready?

The Transhumanist 20:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi

I'd like to train with your Coaching program but your page doesn't exactly detail how I got about signing up. Could you sign me up, please, and give me my first task? One of my goals is to become an admin and gain back my credibility lost in a recent scuffle.

I am starting to think that maybe the RfA should be in August. I hope. Auroranorth 23:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

This meaning, I agree, let's get started, but please do not nominate me for adminship until mid-2008. Thanks, Auroranorth 00:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Apologies for the delays. I have looked my edit count over, and have posted what I thought was an issue on the coaching page. Cheers. Bushcarrot ^Talk _{Please Sign!} ^{Let's go Lightning!} 21:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Reply

 

An article that you have been involved in editing, Lists of fictional topics, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of fictional topics. Thank you.