User talk:Metamagician3000/Archive 7

This may be useful: User:Metamagician3000/SL archive. Metamagician3000 04:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Improvement Drive

I've improved the human enhancement article. Since we were the first contributors to this article, I thought you might like to review to see if you could expand the overview section not that I think it is necessary at this point. --Loremaster 04:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Metamagician3000 01:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Technologies section still needs to be improved. Please read the talk page before you do. --Loremaster 03:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also improved the Liberal eugenics article, which I am told you may have a keen interest in. ;) --Loremaster 21:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also improved the Emerging technologies artilce in part to de-emphasize transhumanism but mostly to provide references. --Loremaster 14:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've not been around much the last few days but will look at all this. Metamagician3000 23:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the human enhancement article and reworked the lead somewhat. The difficulty is that there seems to be no consistent definition in the literature of what the term "human enhancement" actually covers. For example, I see things like the use of PGD for sex selection, genetic engineering for trivial things like eye-colour, reproductive cloning, and on and on described as being "human enhancement", though none of these technologies would overcome human physical or cognitive limitations, and no one is actually "enhanced" in any ordinary sense if we are simply selecting one embyro from a group - not altering its DNA. I'm not entirely happy with what I now have there, and it might be that it would require consequential changes if it stays in that form, but it does try to grapple with this issue in at least an initial way. Metamagician3000 00:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with your changes. Someone else will be contributing to the Technologies section soon. --Loremaster 20:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also did some very minor work on the emerging technologies article, which I think you saw. I haven't tried to tackle the liberal eugenics article as yet, though I had a look. Metamagician3000 00:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine since I just thought you would be interested in knowing about the changes more than anything else. --Loremaster 20:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article for The Hedonistic Imperative has been deleted, I've redirected it to the Abolitionism (bioethics) article. Can you help improve it? --Loremaster 08:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look. I'm surprised that an article on the hedonistic imperative was deleted, as it's a very well known term. I just did a google search and obtained 111,000 hits for it. However, I guess that what's done is done. Sorry I missed the AfD on it. Metamagician3000 09:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD debate can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hedonistic Imperative. --Loremaster 13:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The close was probably within discretion, given the relative lack of support for keeping the article, so it's probably not worth taking the outcome to deletion review. However, I think that the call should have gone the other way. Much of the reasoning from the main opponent of the article - that it is, in effect, immoral because it condones drug use - was totally irrelevant. Metamagician3000 23:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We can either create 1) a Hedonistic Imperative section in the David Pearce (philosopher), 2) a Hedonistic Imperative section in the Abolitionism (bioethics), or 3) a new article for the Hedonistic Imperative. --Loremaster 07:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to bring the old article back to improve it? I've saved many articles from deletion and it's too bad I didn't get the chance with this one. I didn't know it was up for deletion.--Gloriamarie 23:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dawkins

I hate to be hard-arsed... but although the article has improved in several respects the "Work" section, and the "Evolutionary biology" subsection in particular, is still not good enough to satisfy 1b of WIAFA IMHO. Maybe I'm too critical of an article I'm close it... I'd be open to persuasion if you think it is good enough.

Am starting a masters in about a week, which means getting this done ASAP might be a good idea! Mikker ^(...) 09:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My only problem with the article in its current form is that there is at least one missing citation. Otherwise, I think it's very close to ready for testing out. Metamagician3000 12:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re User talk:Signpostmarv#Second Life

Bleh ?

Signpostmarv 18:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No seriously, I have no idea what you're referring to.

Signpostmarv 15:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry - it must have been inadvertent. You made an edit that undid several small copyedits that I'd made. Apparently you were just trying to delete a block of text that I had nothing to do with. It doesn't matter. Metamagician3000 22:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Troll?

Islamophobia

This first part copied from User talk:Netscott
Please look at your latest edit to this article and see what it did to the formatting of the footnotes. I'm happy to rebuild the article with anything that has gone missing and which is not POV, but I had to revert back to the last version - before my most recent edits over the past couple of days - in order to restore some formatting that I inadvertently stuffed up (mea culpa on that). I explained the situation in my edit summary. If you go through the history you will see that most of the substantive changes since then were made by me. The others are mainly vandalism and reversions of vandalism. Your actions have unnecessarily complicated my attempt to build the article from the base it had a couple of days ago. I would appreciate being consulted before you revert actions of mine to some random version, unless of course you plan to go through and fix all the formatting yourself. More generally, it causes disruption whenever a well-established good-faith editor is treated like a troll or a vandal, which is more or less how you just treated me. Now, how do you propose to sort out the problem of the formatting of the footnotes? Can I assume that you are going to go through and find what has caused the problem and fix it up? Metamagician3000 02:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said self-rv, and yet when I reviewed your edit there was significant changes between the edit you had made just before your "self-revert". You must be aware that is not correct and can appear a bit deceptive for other editors who made edits which you undid (ie: User:ProtectWomen.), no? (→Netscott) 02:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to edit war with you but unless I am mistaken about your edit summary, in the future kindly label them correctly. (→Netscott) 02:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly, if briefly, stated the situation - there is some material that I consider POV which was lost, but could easily have been put back if someone wanted it. Apart from that, it is a self-revert because the material I have reverted out was my own work over the past couple of days.

Does your comment mean that I can rely on you to fix the formatting that was broken by your edit? Metamagician3000 02:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reality I do not want to disturb your work but I merely reverted due to a perception of deception. I invite you to revert (again I will not edit war over this) but kindly do so with an appropriate edit summary. (→Netscott) 02:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I thank you for having fixed the formatting for me. :)

What annoyed me, somewhat, was that you didn't seem to interpret my edit summary on the assumption that I was acting in good faith ... but jumped to the conclusion that it was intended as deception. I assure you that that is not how I do my work. I'll now work on the article some more - some of the new material is not appropriate in my view, but that is a separate issue, and I'll continue trying to feed detail out of the lead into the body of the article, and to make the lead only a summary and overview. I pretty much had that right before I saw my formatting blunder. Thank you, also, for being cooperative. You're welcome to help me try to improve the page; I'd rather work with you than against you. Metamagician3000 04:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "self-revert" has a very narrow definition. Your revert fell outside of that definition. I admit that perhaps I was a bit agressive in demonstrating this but I think you've learned something here as a result. The reality is that even the "self-revert" you did left plenty of errors. In your "self-revert"ed version There were 126 <ref> calls vs. 114 </ref> calls. As the wiki software stands now, these numbers must always be equal (which is what they are now on the repaired version that is now in place). I was never working against you per se... so in that spirit I'll continue to work with you. Cheers. (→Netscott) 04:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My summary did not simply say "self-revert". It said that, but then expanded in explanation. If the explanation was unclear, you could have asked me rather than jumping to the conclusion that I was acting in bad faith. However, if you want to add some more on that issue I'll probably let you have the last word. The main thing is to get back to working on the article. Again, I thank youi for your work on the format. My edit was a first attempt to set a base to straighten it out, but what you've done on that issue is much better, and it retains some of my work that I thought I'd have to re-do. I'm happy to acknowledge your contribution on that. I'll also drop a note on William Connelly's talk page to say that we seem to have settled our differences. Metamagician3000 04:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can acknowledge what you are saying and agree with it. My only counsel for the future would be to better label your reverts. Say something like "rv and partial self-rv, (with fuller explanation here)" ... despite the fact that you did mention what you were reverting it is easy for an editor like myself to glance at the particular summary you wrote and think, "ah he's changed his mind about the POV nature of the content he entered and is self-reverting". Re-read your edit summary and I think you'll agree with me on that. (→Netscott) 04:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Young Family

Can you weight in the dispute regarding the The Young Family image on the Talk:Transhumanism page. --Loremaster 12:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might not like my view, though - not that I know what the dispute is about. I'll check in the morning (my time) and see whether I want to comment. Metamagician3000 14:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Enterprise Inst

Thanks for copyediting this -- it needed it! [incl my stuff]

Cheers, Pete Tillman 18:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loremaster at Ebionites

I thought I should let you know that Loremaster has broken his promise to refrain from editting Ebionites until March. I inserted the first draft of a new section yesterday and responded to his concerns on the talk page. Without seeking any more feedback Loremaster has started rewriting it, moving text around etc. I have reverted out his changes for the moment and left this note on the talk page. Any suggestions? Can you have a word with him? --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He says that he thought you were finished ... which would have made it a bit of a silly formality to wait literally until 1 March. That said, since you were not finished, he should now stop again until 1 March. I made a comment on the talk page of the article. Metamagician3000 23:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody knows books by celebrities are ghostwritten

Hi, This is becoming more true in the 2000s, as celebrities openly acknowledge the help from the ghostwriter. But if everyone knows that celebrity books are ghostwritten, why do some publishers have ghostwriters sign non-disclosure agreements, to keep the ghostwriting a secret? I argue that in some cases, the publishers still want to keep the illusion of celebrity authorship alive. I'll get a source for the "well-kept secret point," if you'd like.Nazamo 17:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Metamagician3000 (cool name)...I found a source. Syndey Morning Herald paper, from 2004. March 27, 2004. The article says that Michael Robotham "... has been making a lucrative, if anonymous, livelihood telling other people's life stories...Fourteen titles in a decade. Nearly 2 million copies sold worldwide. And not once has his name featured on the cover. Often, there isn't even an ambiguous acknowledgment." He says "I'm not allowed to talk about some of the books," some of " "his" books are off limits. There's a major British political figure, a criminal mastermind and a real-life crime solver - all too vain to admit they needed professional help." The whole story is at http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/26/1079939836517.html?from=storyrhs....Notwithstanding the single article, I agree with the argument that the previous text in the Ghostwriting article was too strong. It could have been much more nuanced...perhaps acknowledging that there was a mix of disclosure and secrecy in the use of ghostwriters?Nazamo 18:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. It's true that individual ghostwriters sign these sorts of contracts, and it's also true that the general public often may not realise that celebrity books are ghostwritten. I just thought that what was previously there in the article was much too strong. The general practice of ghostwriting has never been a secret, at least in my lifetime - i.e. it's been well known for many years to anyone who knows anything at all about publishing. It's not necessary to be an insider in the industry. I'm sure your rewording will improve the article. Metamagician3000 22:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your response. I checked through my sources and I admit now that the "best-kept secret" is a catchphrase from ghostwriters' promo websites, in which they are urging celebrities and public figures to use their ghosting services. I found another example of a confidentiality clause...."In other cases, the ghostwriter doesn't even appear in the acknowledgments. Hillary Rodham Clinton's "It Takes a Village" was written with the help of ghostwriter Barbara Feinman -- who fell out with Clinton over how she would be credited in the 1996 book. Moreover, according to a Time magazine article, Feinman was subject to a confidentiality agreement that prohibited her from disclosing her role (which did not, however, keep "sources on Feinman's side" from spilling the beans to the media). Senator Clinton is not the first public figure to rely on ghostwriters. Simon & Schuster's Michael Korda, the editor of the 726-page autobiography "Ronald Reagan: An American Life" (which was ghosted by writer Robert Lindsey), reports that the former president said, "I hear it's a terrific book! One of these days I'm going to read it myself." Available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38888-2002Mar30?language=printer Nazamo 15:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]