User talk:Christopher Sherman

Welcome!

Hello, Christopher Sherman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the Transhumanism article

Christopher, I suggest you respond to comments in the Talk:Transhumanism page before editing the article further. --Loremaster 01:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. We now have an essentially stable version of the article which will soon be submitted as a Featured Article candidate. New contributors are welcome, of course, but please make an effort to integrate any new facts into the existing article, which is the product of much debate, research, and cooperation between people with very divergent attitudes to transhumanism, and please be scrupulous about the Wikipedia requirement of objectivity and neutrality. Best wishes, Metamagician3000 01:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that either of you have the authority to determine if this article is accurate or flawed. Since you are going by fictitious names, you scrupulous monopolozing of this Wikipedia entry is suspicious. Who are you working for?

Wikipedia articles are works of collaboration. You (and User:Egghead2001) are more than welcome to *collaborate* with us to improve and expand the Transhumanism article. There is no policy requiring users to use their real names. Regardless of who we work or don't work for, our contributions should be judged on whether or not they are NPOV. --Loremaster 02:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Placing discussions with me under your self-designated section of conspiracy is not *collaborative* on your part and not a NPOV.

I don't disagree. But it was in response to you and your eggheaded friend's hysterical attacks on my character as well as that of Metamagician3000 and StN. You accused us of *unscrupulous manipulation*. Seriously, what did you guys expect? Anyway, let's move on. Shall we? --Loremaster 01:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk: Loremaster

I would like to ask you to give your real names when editing this Article, if you have nothing to hide. For the record, you bullied my contribution without compromise and discarded the content as insignificant by your biased standards. Wikipedia states - "policy, nonetheless, is that articles must be written from a Neutral Point of View, representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and without bias." Forgetting this, you deleted my entry based on your bias and then made personal attacks on my entry. Wikipedia states - "When discussing an issue, stay cool and don't mount personal attacks. Take the other person's perspective into account and try to reach a compromise. Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary." The inflammation is on your part since I came here in good faith and you blocked me. I have the right to edit these pages just as you do, although I did not delete your entries and then make personal attacks on people. If you want this Article to be a fine piece of writing then represent "all majority and significant-minority views" fairly. (Wikipedia) Christopher Sherman

Christopher,

Correct me if I am wrong but Wikipedia does not have a policy that requires people to use their real name.
There is no way for us to know that Christopher Sherman is your real name!
Although I chose the user name Loremaster simply because I thought it sounded perfect for a contributor to what can be considered an online collection of "lore", I didn't do it to hide my real identity. However, after an ugly experience with another user who threatened to slander other Wikipedia users on his website simply because we (and Wikipedia moderators) disapproved of his vandalism of a particular article, I've decided to remain anonymous to protect my privacy and reputation from lone nuts.
For the record, we never attacked you personally. However, all your contributions to Wikipedia are open to criticism. Don't confuse yourself with the content of your contribution.
Metamagician said it best on the User talk:Egghead2001 page: The objectivity of my edits speaks for itself. I am simply insisting that all claims for and against transhumanism, or otherwise, be accurate, properly attributed, and well-referenced. I want the article to be the best possible resource for anyone (e.g. university students) who is interested in the subject. I am currently focused on cooperating with StN (whose views are very different from mine), Loremaster (who perhaps has broadly similar sympathies, but doesn't always agree with me), and anyone else who wants to contribute, in an effort to make the article comprehensive, rigorous and stable enough for Featured Article status. That's as far as it goes. The record shows that StN, Loremaster and I have all had a lot of disagreements among ourselves. We've been handling them in an amicable and mature way, I think, but we are far from being a gang of conspirators.
Metamagician has also explained to you that: I have nothing against Natasha Vita-More, but I do think we have to be very careful how we use the claims of any particular thinker. We should be citing them where necessary to support claims that are necessary for the article. Nothing more (as it were), nothing less. I think that we give her adequate recognition for her historical role in the transhumanist movement. If there is more that should be said about her - e.g. if she has put cogent arguments defending transhumanism in her writings - we should say so in concise summary form, with appropriate sources to reference what she has said. But putting in a lump of her "musings", or whatever, without integration into the article is just not good wikipedia writing. The idea here is to write the best possible neutral, well-referenced article about transhumanism, not to push the ideas of any particular thinker.

--Loremaster 21:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a grad student and Chris is my real name.

"Look up Wikipedia on Wikipedia and you learn that the free online encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to has grown to more than 2.5 million articles and over 100 active editions in different languages. Impressive, but is it true? I have no idea. The entry goes on to acknowledge a slight credibility problem: "Its open nature allows vandalism, inaccuracy, and opinion." In other words, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for facts, even about itself.

But we do know this: Wikipedia has hit a rough patch. John Seigenthaler, a respected former newspaper editor in Tennessee, recently wrote in USA Today about discovering an entry that erroneously linked him to the assassinations of John and Bobby Kennedy. Brian Chase, a delivery manager in Nashville, apologized for posting the false information, saying it was intended to be a prank. But it didn't look like a prank. On Wikipedia, character assassination looks just like real information.

Is the open-source site doomed by this fatal flaw - no distinction between fact and fiction? The business editor of the New York Times recently instructed his staff not to use Wikipedia as a reference. (Does that mean the paper that purports to be the most reliable news source was relying on an admittedly unreliable source? Yikes.) Wikipedia relies on the notion that the good guys who contribute and police the site for errors outnumber the bad apples and pranksters. It didn't work for the Los Angeles Times, which experimented with wikitorials, online editorials edited by readers. The paper yanked them after just two days because vandals were posting expletives and pornography."

Do not delete this. Christopher Sherman

Christopher, I still have no way to confirm whether or not you are "Christopher Sherman a grad student". Regardless, I was already aware of the issues you are reporting here (the flaws of Wikipedia, the John Seigenthaler scandal, the New York Times policy on reliable sources, etc.). I don't see what this has to do with the problem we are having on the Transhumanism article. By the way, why would I delete your comments above? I have never deleted your comments in past. If you look at the my user talk page, you can verify that I have moved your comments at the bottom, in a new section, where they should be. --Loremaster 20:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of CREATE/RECREATE

I have nominated CREATE/RECREATE, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CREATE/RECREATE. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]