User talk:Shanoman

Redirects

Hi,

To automatically redirect one wiki page to another use syntax of the form:

#REDIRECT [[Some Page Titile]]

on the page that you would like to be redirected. I've modified Douglas B. Rasmussen for you. Dave 22:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

Looks like you actually know something about philosophy and philosophers. Maybe that's a better place to concentrate your efforts ;-) -- Fan-1967 18:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Suffrage Day

I have proposed your Women's Suffrage Day page for deletion because, as a resident of New Zealand, I can assure you that no such public/official holiday exists, or has ever existed. --Helenalex 23:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth, Sixth, Seventh Party Systems of the United States?

In response to this:

"Sixth Party System?

I would really appreciate it if someone would create a separate article on this hypothetical topic, for afterall, if all the previous systems only lasted 30-40 years, how rational is it to hold that the Fifth Party System, starting in the early 1930s, survives even today, over 70 years later? Also, I noticed in the Wikipedia article on the Republican Party, it is indeed asserted that a Sixth Party System began in 1980 (and it doesn't even note the controversy!). If that is the case, then it should be about time for a SEVENTH Party System (or at the very least, separate articles and links addressing these two subsequent, hypothetical Party Systems).Shanoman 23:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

   The existence of a Fifth Party System is disputed; the existence of a Sixth Party System is tenuous. Some of the sources on the subject remark on the surprising length of the FPS. One obvious suggestion is that the parties are now entrenched in primary legislation, and it is very difficult to undermine or redefine the present parties. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

   Why is the existence of the Fifth Party System disputed (I thought only the ending dates were in dispute); and what is meant by saying that "the parties are now entrenched in primary legislation..."?  Surely, sometime between 1960 and 2007, the alignment changed at least once; it makes little sense to speak of the New Deal Coalition in 2007 when almost all of the New Deal legislation itself was repealed by the end of the 1980s.  Is it too much to allow on here even the speculation that it might be changing again, or is even drawing conclusions about what happened in the 1960s through the 1980s too rash to be acceptable for today's standards?

Shanoman 00:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Viennese Actionism

Why did you redirect this to Actionism? I reverted it, as I don't see why its not a legitimate page. Wickethewok 00:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The study of Misanthropology

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article The study of Misanthropology, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (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. Ungovernable Force^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 02:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VHEMT article

I watch the vhemt article and I noticed your little rant about it being anti-liberal. From your userpage, i noticed that this "liberal as selfish" thing is a topic you have a lot of passion about. i'm wondering, just, why? From the way I was taught, liberals were people who fought for the rights of blacks, women, etc. and care about the environment. The people in vhemt are definitely left-leaning, so why would they not be called liberals?--Screwball23 ^talk 23:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose in the broadest sense of the word, VHEMT can be considered "liberal", if liberal means "anyone who is not a conservative (I realize that there are several different senses of the word conservative: Christian conservatives, Muslim conservatives, capitalist conservatives, Soviet conservatives, etc.). In the United States, most people called conservatives are both Christian and capitalist, or at least very sympathetic to these two things. In most ways, I agree with my above definition, as I do not want to unduly limit what defines what a liberal can believe in. I suppose so long as VHEMT is completely voluntary, it is permissible, as in they are not forcing anything on anybody, but I wish to strongly persuade people against it, as I feel that it goes against the overall "spirit" of mainstream historical liberalism, which is tolerance, freedom, pleasure, individualism (cultural, not necessarily economic), and a celebration of the body, mind, and self of humanity; an uplifting of the human condition (rights, well-being, comfort, etc.), instead of the renunciation of all of the above, which was historically the province of conservatives (religious traditionalists). It disturbs me that VHEMT falls into the trap of saying that something nonhuman is so important that it is worth human annihilation; to a conservative Christian or Muslim, this would be God; to VHEMT, it is other species, the earth, nature itself, anything else that exists besides humans. If this is not an antihumanistic, misanthropic philosophy, I'm not sure what is. It seems to me that they may even be sex-negative! I came to liberalism (for the second time) from a quasi objectivist-libertarian, and egoist/hedonist perspective; I view conservatives as being primarily antihuman, since most believe that humans are guilty of original sin.Shanoman 19:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I realize that not all, or even most liberals will become selfist or egoistic, but I see no contradiction. Liberals (and progressives and leftists) fought for the liberation of blacks and women because it was the objective, enlightened and humane thing to do; likewise for protecting the environment. However, I don't think there was ever any significant movement, liberal or otherwise, that asked all non-blacks to sterilize themselves so that blacks can have the world all to themselves, or for men to do likewise so that women can use biotechnology to impregnate themselves with female children only; so why now is a prominent group asking all of humanity to do this for the sake of the environment? The environment sustains our lives; this much I get; humanity is probably wise to preserve as much of it as possible, in as natural of a state as possible, but why kill ourselves for it? My larger point is that extreme altruism is toxic for all life--not just us humans--what else could conceivably save the earth (and all its organisms) from a giant asteroid or comet; the sun's death; the universe's death? If someone says "Well it's not okay for anyone to interfere, because that would be against Nature's plan", it is tantamount (or at least very similar) to saying "It's God's will". I refuse to give up or give in; I'm very proud, vain, selfish, hedonistic, anthropocentric, geocentric (worldly)--and I think it's all good; call me a satanist if you like----I'm really an agnostic humanitarian, who loves the earth, but I love humanity more. Shanoman 16:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not tell me that you indeed entertain the notion that humanity through reason could save the Earth from a natural or cosmic disaster, as you seem to imply in the following passage:

My larger point is that extreme altruism is toxic for all life--not just us humans--what else could conceivably save the earth (and all its organisms) from a giant asteroid or comet; the sun's death; the universe's death? If someone says "Well it's not okay for anyone to interfere, because that would be against Nature's plan", it is tantamount (or at least very similar) to saying "It's God's will".

I sincerely doubt that anything could be done by humanity to prevent even a relatively "minor" disaster such as a asteroid impact, certainly not with the level of technology we have now (yes, Armageddon unfortunately was just a Hollywood movie totally detached from the reality of physics). And certainly NOTHING can be done against the Sun's death when that huge fusion reactor is depleted of hydrogen, or the hypothetical thermal death of the Universe. Please. We lack the technology, the knowledge, in my opinion even the common sense to prevent the death of the planet's biosphere - which will ultimately come not by way of cosmic cataclysms, but by our own actions.

But then, perhaps it's a mentality thing and here in Europe, the problem at hand is perceived differently from the U.S. (I take it that you are from the U.S.?) Vargher (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do entertain that notion, albeit I now have a rather broad definition of "reason". By what other means do you think us humans might use to achieve this, faith, prayer, or magick, perhaps (I'm not necessarily totally opposed to any or all of the above, though very wary of faith and prayer)? I'm really interested in hearing more about what you said, especially the mentality thing and how things are perceived differently in Europe. Yes, I am from the U.S., but I see myself as highly atypical for an "American" (U.S. citizen). Please tell me more. Shanoman (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)(talk)[reply]

P.S. (post-script)

I was formerly a sort of "Randian" (objectivist), but have changed considerably over the past 8-11 years; I now am very interested in devising ways to show how it is both rational and selfish for most people to embrace and support left-wing views; if I could do likewise for the rich and powerful, then maybe all social problems would be solved (LOL)? I am surely not so vain nor naive, but hey, I think it's worth a try.

Misanthropology?

Why would we have an entry on a "proposed" study? How could that be notable? I have nothing against the idea but it just isn't encyclopedic or even remotely notable so why keep in here?PelleSmith 01:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Misanthropology

I've nominated Misanthropology, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Misanthropology satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misanthropology and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Misanthropology during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -Nick^talk 03:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radical feminism

Could you please see my remarks at Talk:Radical_feminism#Sex-negative.3F_Etc.? You appear to be the primary author of the paragraphs I am questioning. - Jmabel | Talk 22:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hippie chick pie wagons

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Hippie chick pie wagons, 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}}. Fang Aili ^talk 23:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This notice is a few days late. Sorry! Please let me know if I can be of any assistance. --Fang Aili ^talk 23:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peristalsis

What are you trying to do on Peristalsis? I can't figure it out from diffs. WLU 19:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to link it to the source, which is another Wikipedia article; please be patient; I'm still working on it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanoman (talk • contribs)

Give me the raw links on this page and I'll let you know what the proper format is, it'll probably spare you a bunch of time :) I can explain what I did and why afterwards.

Also, have a gander at WP:TALK and WP:SIGN for communication on talk pages - makes things easier for the rest of us. WLU 19:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lotus_and_the_Robot

Or, if that isn't correct, maybe you can find it by simply going to the article The Lotus and the Robot. Hope that helps.Shanoman 19:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent signature. Unfortunately you can't use wikipedia as a reference, oddly enough it doesn't count as a reliable source. You can cite the book directly using a Citation template, but you will need to put in a section like the one below:

==References==

By putting the citation template in ^[1] tags, it'll automatically appear below when you add the reflist template. For wikilinks, you don't need the full url, just the wikilink. I would say that the wikilink itself isn't really for a prominent enough subject to have a direct link in the peristalsis article. Also, you should look into WP:BOOK to see if the LatR page itself meets notability guidelines - it may not, or may not yet do so, and the policy will let you know what must be done to ensure the page will not be deleted. Also, when putting posts on the talk page, space them with a colon (:) to make reading easier. WLU 19:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil

This is in regard to you comment on the Talk page for the article on "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" (Talk:Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil), under the section of "Christian Interpretations":

Also, this section needs to state more explicitly that the concept of original sin is almost exclusivly Catholic (and maybe Anglican) dogma. Few other christian religions believe in the concept of original sin. Padillah 15:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I wish you were correct, Padillah. Unfortunately, I believe you are mistaken. While it's true that most modern mainline denominations (or "liberal Protestant": Unitarian, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, Disciples of Christ, United Church of Christ, American Baptist, Friends (Quaker), Congregationalist, and yes, Episcopalian (Anglican)) downplay the part of Original Sin or else deny it altogether, it is a very prominent part of traditional orthodox Christian belief (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox Catholic, and Protestant), since without it, why would Jesus-worshipers deem it necessary for Jesus to die for everyone's sins? It is most prominently preached today not only by Roman Catholics, but also by Southern Baptists, Assembly of God, Church of the Nazarene, and probably just about all other Baptists, Pentecostals, Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, nondenominationals, and just about all other conservative Christians, even those conservative individuals within the so-called liberal denominations I first mentioned (Presbyterians, Methodists, etc.). Back during the Modern Era (see also Modernity), from around the late 1800s (1870s-90s) until the 1970s, you would have been technically correct that at least the clergy of most churches that had the most members probably didn't believe in original sin---and perhaps from the 1920s to the 1970s---most church-goers didn't either. But the "Postmodern Revolution" has open the flood gates to anti-modern, anti-humanistic beliefs, and American Christians have swung dramatically towards the right-wing (conservatism) since the late 1970s/early 1980s; even with the Roman Catholic church losing members in the United States, conservatives have been on the rise. Even the moderates are way more conservative than they used to be. It makes me angry; I wish I could go back to my childhood when things were more comfortable, and that I could just dismiss the rise of the fanatics as just a few crazies on the outer fringe, but unfortunately, they are now almost mainstream. Sorry if I seem ranty; the last thing I want to do is to discourage you from using Wikipedia. Please keep at it; we need more people like us! Shanoman 20:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

My basic question is "Why would you post a comment on someone's main user page?" You may want to brush up on your Wiki etiquette. Padillah 12:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, please accept my apology. I was only trying to help. Perhaps I misunderstood where you were coming from; I interpreted your comments as being from one who is theologically liberal or even irreligious (as am I). Sorry if it offended you. As for the "Wiki etiquette", I don't care much for it, as I basically think most manners and rules are arbitrary, just like notions of moralism (chasity/virtue), vice, and sin. But I don't believe in being threatening, mean-spirited, or aggressively abrasive, so if that's how you interpeted it, I'm very sorry. Shanoman 17:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. As to why I would do such a thing, it's just that I really want non-conservatives (or at least non-fundamentalists) to be educated and vigilant, not complacent or naive, because we are targets for religious extremists (fundamentalists/conservatives) everywhere! Survival depends on a simple maxim: Know your enemy!

Talk:Modern "liberalism" in the United States ("Progressivism": Moderate Global Capitalism, Strong Centrism, Extremely Ultra-Mild [& Slight Traces only of] Social Democracy, & Some Very-Soft Hints of very occasional Leftist rhetoric)

Nunberg

Does the following sentence really add anything to the article? "The full title of linguist Geoffrey Nunberg's 2006 book on the use of slogans by conservatives to reshape the image of liberalism, Talking Right: How Conservatives Turned Liberalism into a Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-Reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Wing Freak Show is as an extended list of liberal slurs." I'm inclined to remove it… - Jmabel | Talk 22:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Slurs? I take them as compliments! I don't find anything wrong with any of those activities listed, with the possible exception of the tax-raising, but that's probably because I used to be a libertarian (yikes!), and I still think like one sometimes, but basically, I'm a real regular kind of liberal now; a wholesale liberal; I would much rather have the rich taxed at a higher rate all across the board than the current mainstream policy of higher fines for petty "crimes" (e.g. speeding, disorderly conduct, etc.) User:Shanoman 16:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I still agree with what I posted above, except for that I now think that the vast majority of Americans probably are being taxed too much, because those who hold almost all of the wealth----the 0.01%-----don't pay squat or actually get hand-outs from the government. Reality-minded individuals need to infiltrate then take over the delusional National Taxpayers Union and kick that rich Muslim-loving parasite Grover Norquist to the curb! (right after we get him "small" (weak? poor?) enough to theoretically "drown in the bathtub"!). Shanoman (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Tag (for the Silent Generation)

A tag has been placed on Silent generations requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. shoy 19:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Selfism

I stumbled across the selfism article. I didn't even think it was a word until I found it in Webster's 3rd. The article would be an interesting place to collect critiques of Nietzsche, Rand, "Selfist Psychologism", Dawkins[???], et al. I thought that the article needed a fuller presentation of Vitz's views. I assume that the emotional impact of his critique lies in simply calling his opponents "selfist" and "selfish". But he must have some elaboration on this. The publisher looked like a spin-off of Zondervan, the leading religious publisher, so I assume that the readers wouldn't have needed too much of an argument to believe that selfishness is bad. If you still have the book or your notes, please expand on his views. Also who are others who are anti-selfist? DCDuring 16:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I currently seem to have displaced my copy of the book. I'd hate to buy another one, since I am in profound disagreement with Paul Vitz's views, but I might cave-in if I see it at a discount or used book store. I wish I could tell you if there was anyone else who explicitly used the term or shared his views, but I currently don't know of any. However, I do remember him referencing another work by Christian authors---I can't think of their names---but it seems to me like it was a husband/wife team who wrote something that was critical of ALL psychology (insisting that religion is absolutely incompatible with any psychology whatsoever). If I happen to stumble across their names, I'll post it here. If you want to use the article as a place to collect critiques of Nietzsche, Rand, Dawkins, et. al, I don't mind. In fact, I'd love to see more material regarding these figures. Shanoman 20:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have finally rediscovered that elusive [at least to my terrible personal memory] Christian husband/wife team who denounce all psychology (including Christian versions), they are: Martin & Deidre Bobgan. I'm pretty sure I remember Vitz referring to them in Psychology as Religion. Their site [1] (sorry; I apparently do not currently have the ability to properly link this; try Google) tells all about them and their views. Shanoman (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I've nominated the "Sex-negativity" page for deletion. Please see my arguments on the article's talk page. Just being courteous and letting you know, since you are the article creator.Wuapinmon (talk) 05:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sex-negativity

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Sex-negativity, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sex-negativity

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Sex-negativity, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks, dude. That page was interesting. --Juansidious (talk) 18:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paleoconservatism#Individual liberty

You recently added more material to Paleoconservatism#Individual liberty, but didn't add a source. That section has been marked as needing sources for 14 months, so I've deleted it outright. If you have any sources for the material please feel free to restore what we can verify. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Antimaterialism

I have nominated Antimaterialism, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antimaterialism. 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. Closedmouth (talk) 09:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth missing should be placed in the talk page only

Hi. Concerning [2] of yours, I would like to inform you that for we don't use Category:Date of birth missing in article pages. If, there is a reason to add it, please add it to the Talk page instead but first read WP:PRIVACY and the instructions in the categories above. Thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

Greetings Shanoman, I see you're up for adoption, and I'm in the market. If you're still interested, feel free to drop me a line anytime. If you no longer wish to be adopted, please remove the adoptee's userbox from your userpage. Happy editing - Draeco (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great; what questions do you have? - Draeco (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Contents/Links is your one-stop shop for all those answers and more. In a nutshell, internal links are made by double-bracketing the subject (eg - [[Breakdance]]), external links by single bracketing a web address. Source citation is covered extensively at WP:CITE, but the simplest way is to write out your citation in the middle of the text and flank it with <ref> before and </ref> afterwards. Be sure there is a "References" section in the article with the {{reflist}} template below it. Finally, to be an all-star at citation, use the citation templates at WP:CITET. - Draeco (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ask123's userboxes

Regarding my user boxes, yes, you may use them. Of course, these aren't really my userboxes. They belong to everyone. So use as many as you want. And feel free to "steal" from those on anyone else's page as well. Regarding my presentation of the boxes, I will forewarn you that I found it difficult to create a neat presentation. I was able to create clean column of user boxes, but I had trouble making multiple columns in a clean fashion. When I tried, I got a result like you have with your current version of your user page (with all due respect) -- boxes would not stay aligned and spaces popped up everywhere. Maybe I was writing the code incorrectly. I really don't know. Making multiple, neat columns is still a mystery to me. As you refine your user page, if you figure out any insights into this, please pass them along. ask123 (talk) 01:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

Hello, Shanoman. Based on the templates on your talk page, please consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles from deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. You can join >> here <<.

Ikip (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron!

WELCOME

from a Article Rescue Squad member

Welcome to Article Rescue Squadron Shanoman, a dynamic list of articles needing to be rescued, which changes with new updates, can be found here:

Articles tagged for deletion and rescue
Category Articles tagged for deletion and rescue not found

I look forward to working with you in the future. Ikip (talk) 07:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A warm welcome. If there is anything I can do for you, sincerely, please let me know. I have been on wikipedia for 4 years, and have over 30,000 edits, so i know my way around :) Ikip (talk) 07:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to ARS!

Hi, Shanoman, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles and content that have been nominated for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable, and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles and content to quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!

If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you.

And once again — Welcome! Addbot (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very brief formatting tutorial

If you look at Invertebrate zoology again in edit mode you'll see how to achieve what you were trying to do. You have to use a Colon (punctuation) to indent. Look at the following in edit mode as well:

One colon indents a little

Two colons indents a little more

Colons and asterisk can be combined to indent bullet points but

...if you start a line with a space, it creates these strange, shady boxes.

I hope this helps. --Boston (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--Shanoman (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter (September 2009)

Sufi Saints of South Asia

Hello Shanoman. I notice that you are interested in Sufism. I have put forth a request on the Reward Board for assistance in bringing the Sufi Saints of South Asia article to at least B-class. All meaningful contributors will get barnstars. The article is in dire need of being developed. It is an important article in relation to the Islam in South Asia. Please help in developing the article. Regards--Shahab (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind consideration, but I really must decline. Sorry, but I really feel that I know very little about Sufism, apart from what I read by Brad Blanton in his book Radical Honesty, but that over a decade ago for me, so sorry. Maybe I can talk one of my more knowledgeable friends into doing it. Shanoman (talk) 09:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you came to Electronic cigarettes for peer review

Either your for, or against them, or came for the tag. Regardless, I appreciate you taking the time to help with input on how to improve the article. Regarding your issue with no laws posted on whether they are allowed in places that disallow smoking, there's simply not enough law on the books to answer that in detail. I'll look into providing a history. Thanks FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 10:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I wasn't trying to be overly critical or negative; just thought I'd make some suggestions about what I'd like to see in the article (I know I can get carried away with some of my opinions, but all comments are SUPPOSED to be tied in to improving the article, so I gave it a shot). If I was a better researcher I'd attempt to add those sections myself, but I'll take your word for it; it sounds reasonable (although it seems to me that I saw somewhere else---maybe on Facebook or MySpace---where someone was attempting to promote the electronic cigarette and was being thwarted, something in conjunction with somebody else trying to say they will still be illegal in places with smoking bans). Personally I think I'm all for it, because I am a relapsed smoker of regular cigarettes but would love to find a way to "do it" (intake nicotine) in a safer (healthier) and more socially-acceptable form. Keep up the good work! Shanoman (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Alkaline diet

I removed your recent comments to Talk:Alkaline diet [3] because I couldn't see how they related to improving the article. If you have a point on how the article could be improved, could you please state it in such a way where it's more clear, following WP:TALK? Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

	The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
	Issue 2 (January 2010) Previous issue \| Next issue

Content

The community is currently

deciding whether

60,000

articles should be deleted.

background

Techno-Progressive

Hi. I noticed you quickly undid the edits I made to the page, so I'll draw the conclusion that there's a good chance you are watching it (I must say: "Good choice! Are you for it or against it?). I don't want to get into an edit war here, but I would like to know the basis of your revert. Was I too bold to add those items to the list? They seemed pretty accurate to me, albeit "Sexuality" is perhaps overly general, and "Technological Singularity" overly specific. But somehow I suspect that perhaps you are taking the broadest, most general view possible of the term "Techno-progressive" so as to exclude an over-emphasis on the transhumanist movement (which is itself divided between techno-progressives and "extropian libertarians"). I am sorry if I have the wrong impression, but I was under the assumption that nearly everyone who described themselves as a "techno-progressive" was also a "transhumanist", or at least very favorable towards the concept, am I grossly mistaken? Shanoman 05:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside the fact that “sexuality” is too vague a subject to add to list of techno-progressive subjects of interest, the Techno-progressivism article is written from the perspective elaborated by the first self-described techno-progressive thinker Dale Carrico who has almost always been critical of transhumanism and singularitarianism. I therefore suggest you read his 2004 essay The Trouble with “Transhumanism”: Part Two to get a better idea. --Loremaster (talk) 05:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I read the Carrico's article, and I didn't really see where he was very critical at all of transhumanism itself; just the label (and simplistically dividing up people into such categories). I also read Part One and found much more about transhumanism, but again, nothing so harshly critical of it as such but rather of what people have made of it, and perhaps a criticism of the term and what it denotes, but really, what Carrico does and what self-described "transhumanists" do covers almost the exact same area of research/inquiry---and I suspect that Carrico indeed shares many opinions with many "transhumanists" (even if he doesn't wish to identify as one himself, he is hardly an "anti-transhumanist"). That's just my take. Thanks for your time in replying to me, Loremaster. Shanoman (talk) 06:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of that two-part essay reflects the fact that Carrico was collaborating with a number of transhumanists on some projects. However, ever since he cut his professional and personal ties with these people, his critique of transhumanism and singularitarianism has become far more scathing. So I suggest you read his Condensed Critique of Transhumanism. If you also take the time to browse the archives of his blog, you will quickly realize that Carrico has become an avowed "anti-transhumanist" who ridicules transhumanism as a “robot cult” that he wants to see shut down. More importantly, he considers the Singularity (and similar “areas of research/inquiry”) to be an irrational religious-like techno-utopian fantasy that smart people should not waste their time indulging in. --Loremaster (talk) 06:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Volume I, Issue III February 2012 Front cover \| Feature \| News and announcements \| Humor \| Want ads
To contribute to the next newsletter, please visit the Newsletter draft page. ARS Members automatically receive this newsletter. To opt out, please remove your name from the recipients list.

Invitation to WikiProject Breakfast

Hello, Shanoman. You are invited to join WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of breakfast-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of leap years for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of leap years is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of leap years until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Dricherby (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

proposed deletion

Proposed deletion of Post-Protestant

The article Post-Protestant has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This seems to be an essay only. No references and my Google search for the title shows this article and one book with the expression in its subtitle, which did not seem to be making the same point as this article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Borock (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Muesli belt malnutrition for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Muesli belt malnutrition is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muesli belt malnutrition until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Atheistic religion listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Atheistic religion. Since you had some involvement with the Atheistic religion redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help)

[1] {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help)

[1]