Jump to content

User talk:The Transhumanist/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

10 chars shorter

Hi, saw the earier message about your sig, here is a way to reduce it 10 chars :-) ▪◦▪≡Ѕirex98≡ 11:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • 203 Chars(with spaces), Original

The Transhumanist


  • 193 Chars(with spaces),≅ same as original, by changing color depth from 16.7M colors to 4,096.

 The Transhumanist   

Or;

The Transhumanist   

The Transhumanist    <--- works in IE perfectly :)

168? Okay, 175? Still a good 30 characters shorter?  Glen  12:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rats, just checked it on IE6 doesn't display right reduced, works on firefox, sorry ▪◦▪≡Ѕirex98≡ 13:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- The Transhumanist

149 characters. Not sure if it works in IE6. Will test it when I get time. --The Transhumanist 09:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category vs List

Your defense of lists and categories was very eloquent. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle lists under assault

There's a whole slew of AfDs going on right now over military history lists:

I've merged list of military routs into rout, because the former was just a collection of 4 examples which integrates into the subject matter of the latter perfectly. The Transhumanist 02:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philanthropist

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Philanthropist, 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). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Philanthropist. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. — Sebastian (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns regarding deletion, and your virtual classroom as a tool.

I'm preparing to go on a 48 hour wikibreak, so you have some time to consider what I'm about to say.

As a deletionist, I hold the deletion of things that are not encyclopedic (factual, verifiable, limited in scope) as improving the encyclopedia. At the same time, a proper deletionist should also hold the opinion that deletion should be employed with the care of a surgeon's knife in open heart surgery. Without the knife, the patient will die. But overuse is just as lethal.

I have been distressed with several mass AfD / CfD / MfD decisions recently. I know we clashed over at WP:MFD/EA, but I think you will agree that EA is now a stronger organization for the process, and that any other attempt to clear out the unproductive elements would have been doomed to failure. However, some things such as the spate of deletions on military history, the huge AfD on Gundam articles, the enormous blasts being conducted at lists, and the continuing histronics over schools worries me. Many of these deletions are done in haste, without any research of the topic at hand, or any attempt to find sourcing or look at the viability of stubbing.

I worry for two reasons. One is that while deletionism should be embraced, it should be embraced properly. You are, I believe, an incrementalist, who holds that nothing can remain static, and I agree. I think people are using deletionism -- increasingly -- as a sword, or, more horrifically, as an expired way of looking at handling disputes. This is not right.

I worry for another reason -- that it will backlash, that deletion criteria will be weakened, and Wikipedia's credibility will suffer. I have no problem with the most crufty articles, since cruft is not and never WILL be a deletion criteria -- as long as it's properly sourced, and factual, and verifiable. If you can properly source and verify and make encyclopedic an article, it should be immune from deletion.

Your virtual classroom is a good effort. I think there needs to be a discussion on deletion there. I think it should be done sooner rather than later, and by someone who understands how the people who most often participates in XfD's think. A lot of my thinking is seen as extreme, but looking over my votes reveals I've only nominated a very few articles for deletion, and that while I vote heavily, my vote is not always delete. I would like to write such an article for the Virtual Classroom, but it's your project. (Yes, I know we don't own anything, but still). However, I would like to hear what you think about such an idea. The idea would be to present a correct outline of WHY articles are deleted, to cover the resources at Articles for Creation to make articles that won't be speedied, to show the proper use of the Speed Deletion tags, the prod tag, and what should and should NOT EVER be nominated to XfD, and how to compile a !vote at XfD, and the difference between that and DRV. Maybe a section to admins on how mass AfD's are probably difficult to properly judge how to close.

I'll be back Monday. If you think this idea is laughable, just let me know and I'll drop it. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 03:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, feel welcome to write about anything you believe will help Wikipedians become better editors. On a related note, the only reason the Virtual Classroom is in the user namespace is to protect it from deletion! As announced at the top of the page, it is an open forum in which anything goes. All participants are welcome. I look forward to reading your article on deletion and deletionism, and I've found the points you've made so far very articulate and stimulating. It will make for a very interesting discussion. The Transhumanist 05:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Each discussion lasts a week or two, and we are currently on the topic of vandalism. So if you have your guide ready for posting the day after Christmas, that would be great. If not, I have another assignment ready I could post. So don't feel rushed. The Transhumanist 05:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should be ready by then, if not earlier. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 07:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin coaching program

Hi Transhumanist. You were helping out a lot at admin coaching. Looking at that main page, do you have any idea who is still waiting for a coach? I requested that people re-list themselves on the talk page, and I've sent out requests for those people, but I think some are still on the main page. I don't know how HighwayCello was organizing the requests; some seem fulfilled and others not. If you have any insight I'd be appreciative. Thanks! --Fang Aili talk 18:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting would be somewhat disruptive, because many people have been waiting in line for weeks or months. It would be unfair to force them to lose their position in line. I've restored the list, and the waiting order. The Transhumanist 01:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about relisting them in the position they should be, by timestamp? I'm sure this was the spirit of the above message :) Martinp23 01:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I never said we should skip people. I was saying that the existing request list was virtually unreadable, and that major work would be required to make a coherent list out of it. I was going to start on that work, but in the meantime I wanted to get something moving. The project had stagnated for a while. --Fang Aili talk 06:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HighwayCello was removing them as he assigned them. I pointed out it would be better to place "(assigned)" next to them instead, to preserve the message threads that had developed there, but he refused. So I stopped posting. Basically, all the requests in the list are active, unless they filled themselves without HighwayCello's formal assigning system. The assignment system could be automatic, with each coach who is ready for a student just taking the next unassigned one on the list, and placing "{assigned}" next to the entry when he or she does so. The Transhumanist 00:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think HighwayCello was right to remove them. And all other discussion should take place elsewhere. Again, the list should be as simple and readable as possible, especially if we are going to send admins there and expect them to figure out what to do on their own. --Fang Aili talk 06:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Each coach should also create the coaching subpage to be used (under his or the coachee's user page), and then add the coaching subpage to the centralized list of those. The Transhumanist 00:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think most coaches work that way, but it's not required. I was planning on adding any admin coaching pages to the "Activity level/comments" section of the status page. That way it's easy to see if the coaching is active. --Fang Aili talk 03:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking over the system, and it appears that the main thing that was causing the bottleneck was the requirement that a coordinator make the assignments. I'm in the process of writing a proposed set of (simple) instructions which should help the program run itself. The Transhumanist 01:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Having the program run itself would be much better, with the coordinator(s) just overseeing stuff. I look forward to seeing what you come up with. :) --Fang Aili talk 03:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Esperanza/Admin coaching

I know that you said "see talk page" in your edit summary, but there's no explanation (yet) - would you care to exlain your revert - there's a developing consensus that the sub-page system is better, so I think it would be better for that system to be re-revert to (preferably by yourself) and then you should intiate discussion explaining why you would like it changed back on the talk page. This is how we avoid conflicts on wikipedia (and I what I'm doing now to try to prevent any possibilty of an edit war!). Thanks, Martinp23 00:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a look at the reqeust archives. We don't need these to be filling up the main page again - a new slate is best to work from. I appreciate that you put a lot of work into answering questions with the old format, but an easy way to continue doing this would be to leave messages on user talk pages. As I've said elsewhere, the page shouldn't be a forum, but a requests page, and comments should be kept to a minimum to preserve efficiency. Please don't revert me - instead, please discuss! Martinp23 00:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. Found it. The problem is, that wasn't an archive. Almost all of the requests on the list are still active. I've restored it to the request subpage, and will be helping Fang Ali sort out the assignment status as she requested above. The Transhumanist 00:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I'm sure you appreciate where I'm standing. Your mass paste of (largely old) requests was, frankly, disruptive, as it went against the whole idea of the page. Please read my suggestions at WT:ESP/AC for what you can do. Thanks, Martinp23 01:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not disruptive, but quite the opposite. By starting the list over, you would be allowing people to skip in line in front of others who have been on the list for weeks. That is disruptive, and unfair to the people who were patiently waiting on the list. HighwayCello was removing entries from the list as he assigned them, so it would be best to assume that they weren't assigned, until they can be checked and marked off - also, the message threads of those waiting are also active threads. I'm in the process of going through the list now to update the status of assignments. The Transhumanist 01:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've made what I hope I a mutaually acceptable proposal at the requests talk page - could you take a look and let me know (preferably on my talk page, if you'd like me to do the moving, which I'm happy to). Thanks, Martinp23 01:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Transhumanist. I appreciate your efforts regarding the old requests. Really I had no idea where to start there. I would love to reduce it down to a numbered list, just to keep things organized. But I realize it will take time to figure out who needs a coach still. What is your plan? Do you intend to message each person? Perhaps I can create a numbered/dated list, and then we can tackle it together. --Fang Aili talk 03:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just updated the whole list, retaining the best of both worlds. Let me know if it is satisfactory to everyone's needs. The Transhumanist 03:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like it, and posted about it on the talk page. Also, I fully support your being co-coordinator. Cheers, Fang Aili talk 06:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be really easy to follow, if the people are assigned coaches in the order in which they are signed up. Some of those people have been waiting for months, so it isn't fair to make them line up all over again and lose their place in line in the process. The Transhumanist 04:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an idea for you to think about: we could write some simple instructions for coaches, so that they can process the list as they become avaialbe. There's lots of coaches compared to coordinators, so shifting the burden to them spreads the work out so it doesn't overload one or two people. For example:

To select a coachee and begin his or her training, follow these steps:

  1. During a shortage of coaches please take on as many students as you believe you can comfortably handle. Also keep in mind that coaches can team up to share one or more students.
  2. Starting at the top of the request page, find the first entry that says "(unassigned)".
  3. Change the status to "(assigned)".
  4. Add a note just below the heading that says paired with ___________." (Fill in the blank with your username.
  5. Contact the coachee to inform him or her that you are his or her coach.
  6. If it turns out they already have a coach, then make a note of the assignment on the request page, and move on to the next available entry.
  7. Once you've received confirmation from the coachee, set up a subpage of his or her userpage called "Admin coaching". If you have or expect to have more than one coachee, set the subpage up under your own userpage and instruct your students on that page. Make sure they know where their training shall be taking place.
  8. Add a link leading to the admin coaching subpage you've created to the central list at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Admin coaching/Coaching advice archives.

So instead of contacting the coachees, we should contact the current coaches on the list with an email pointing them to the new instructions. New coaches will automatically see the instructions wherever they sign up. This will free up coordinators so they more easily oversee that everything is running smoothly.

(I've also posted these to the admin coaching discussion page). The Transhumanist 05:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Items on your watchlist

Hi Trans,

After having read your VandalProof stuff ( which is incredible ;) ). I then figured out that if you have 8000 items on your watchlist, you can drop some on my talkpage that I can also check for you (my watchlist only has 200 items and I could help you with it), if you wish. Lincher 04:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you like that page. By the way, it's Budgiekiller who has 8,000 articles on his watch list from time to time (he posted the answeers, I posted the questions). Other users I know of who keep large watchlists are Renata3 and Cyberjunkie. I don't make much use of my watchlist except as a navigation menu (I place pages on there I want to remember but would forget if I didn't list them). All the pages I want to watch are already listed on existing pages. I use "Related changes" for watching. Currently, here's from where I conduct my changes patrols (until I get around to compiling a combined list):

Hope that helps. The Transhumanist 20:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy

I "lightened" the paragraphs (something I'm made about) and re-arranged some sentences - nothing special. Hope you like it. The page looks...densalicious! :)NinaEliza 05:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits helped a lot. Thanks! The Transhumanist 05:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so glad. Feel free to call on me personally if you need any assistance. I'm pretty much here every night at about this time.NinaEliza 06:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mail? *confuzzled*

I recieved no mail from you. *frownies* My email address is elaramishue@gmail.com.--ElaragirlTalk|Count 07:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "message", and included a link.  The Transhumanist

WP:ANI#User:The Transhumanist and admin coaching again - internal spamming?

Hi The Transhumanist, wanted to alert you to this thread on ANI, and to ask that you hold off on your Virtual Classroom talk page messages until this is resolved. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 08:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I hope you find my answers there satisfactory. The Transhumanist 10:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The da Vinci Barnstar
Awarded to User:The Transhumanist. Sometimes those who take on large areas of wikipedia organisation seem to be taken for granted, and this is just to show that your work is appreciated by the community. Khukri (talk . contribs) 09:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I wasn't expecting this. You got me blushing. File:Blush.png Thank you. The Transhumanist 10:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with copyediting

Hi Transhumanist! I am currently trying to get Serial Experiments Lain through FAC, and not being a native english speaker, I am in need of help with the text quality. I turn to you as one of the most experienced contributors I encountered: would you have a minute to spare to give it a look? And if not, maybe you know someone who would? Thanks for reading. --SidiLemine 10:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a quick read in the next day or two. Though I'm not too familiar with the peer review or featured articles candidates process. I don't have time to get heavily involved, in the immediate future, but should have more time to help with the process after Christmas (Dec 25th). Perhaps I can help you find some people with more experience than me. Here are some articles which are similar that made it through the process. Maybe the editors who worked on those can be of greater help to you than I can:

I hope these links help. Be sure to see those articles' talk pages to look at the message boxes. The Transhumanist 11:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, that's appreciated. What do you mean about message boxes?--SidiLemine 12:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the top of the talk page of all featured articles are a slew of message boxes which have links that lead to places where you can find experienced editors. The Transhumanist 13:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Wow The Transhumanist, thanks! That's an intersesting project, and I'm glad to have learned about it. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 11:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. The Transhumanist 11:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adim coaching

Of course I am going to join. I want to become a better wikipedian. Have a nice week and god bless.--Sir james paul 12:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

admin coaching/final exams

Hi,

It's final exams week now. Hope to participate after the 16th.

Cheers! --Ling.Nut 16:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More admin coaching points

I'm a little behind on this stuff (lay off a topic for a day and that gets one way behind sometimes). But I wanted to respond to some of your comments, etc.

  1. I hope you didn't withdraw from being co-coordinator because of the request page stuff. I mean, the "title" of coordinator is really immaterial anyway; it's who does the work that matters. And since you are doing some of the work, well, we are sharing the project anyway.
  2. I've moved the numbered list to the regular "requests" page per consensus, so we can move on to the instructions part now. I saw that you were also contacting people and updating the previous list, so I'll try to merge those changes today. We can also keep the old version around so all your response comments are not lost.
  3. Regarding how long we should wait until a coachee is considered inactive-- I'm not sure. Titoxd is in this position with his student, and I responded that we could give him a few more weeks, and then assign a new student. Given that there's a waiting list, I think we should move on to the people who are active and more serious about the program.

I think that's it.. if I've forgotten anything I'll write again. :) --Fang Aili talk 17:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok one more thing--I see you've contacted a few people asking about their interest level. If you wouldn't mind adding comments/links to the request page, that would help everything stay organized. This way people don't get spammed. Thanks! --Fang Aili talk 18:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Article, rough draft

Can be found here. I'd appreciate feedback on the talk page of that article. Speficially, your ideas on length, tone, coverage, and wording. I tried to keep my insane deletionist tendencies out of it. :) --ElaragirlTalk|Count 23:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:C

Why are you going round changing all the references to WP:C to WP:CR. Can you point me in the direction of some discussion about this. WP:C still points towards the right place so I do not understand the point of the change. --Spartaz 18:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. -TT

AWB

Just a heads up, you've been removed from Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage as a result of the mass shortcut changes above. Frankly, your interaction with people who brought their concerns to you was less than stellar. I can't say as how #2 may or may not have affected the change in your AWB status, but I suspect it did not help. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did stop immediately, and I offered to help the admin who handled the reverts. The Transhumanist 23:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin-Coaching

Good evening (GMT); I would like to ask here (briefly, as my doctor says I am not meant to be on the computer..shh!) if you did get my reply I left on my talk page concerning Administrator Coaching on Esperanza? In addition to this, I would like to point out I am very enthusiastic about participating in Admin Coaching, but due to reasons explained in my talk page comment reply (and on my user page) I am unable to do so at this time.

Merry Christmas.
Cheers and regards,

Anthonycfc (talk • email) 19:37, Monday December 18 2006 (UTC)

List of basic fire fighting topics

In case you hadn't noticed, List of basic fire fighting topics has been proposed for deletion. NickelShoe (Talk) 02:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need a bit more help on my user page.

Something went wrong. The border and background do not cover the entire page. And the table thingies aren't aligned right either like they used to be. Can you help one last time? Thanks. --Tohru HondaSign here! 00:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I said table thingy I meant those drop down tables on my page. Before, they would overlap with the side userboxes, but the problem is fixed. I had too many userboxes on the side, causing everything to squish together. Thanks for helping me with the border. --Tohru HondaSign here! 00:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, another problem. Sorry, but those drop down tables on my userpage are causing something. The userboxes table, specifically, has the userboxes, but they're all crammed together and overlapping. I checked the source, User:Tohru Honda13/All my userboxes, and I found out that those are all disfigured as well. I don't see the problem. I'm sorry to disturb you again, but thanks for the help. Happy Holidays! --Tohru Honda13Sign here! 00:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, it seems to have been fixed, somehow. Sorry for the trouble! --Tohru Honda13Sign here! 02:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, will you give me permission to do this? Much appreciated! --Tohru Honda13Sign here! 02:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nootropics

Hey, I noticed you talked quite a bit on that page and you know quite a bit about wikipedia. I have recently started looking into nootropics, but I have a very skeptic eye with the stuff. Since they are so marketable, there is a LOT of false information out there. I think the wiki page about nootropics needs to have a lot removed, and only drugs that have been shown to have help with double blind studies be on the page. I'll put some effort into it if you wanna help. IMO, most of the stuff on that page is just snake oil. Let me know what you think.Rjkd12 19:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reports simply need to be in context. If a substance is being sold for a particular effect on a wide scale, or if it is reported in the mainstream press as having a particular effect, then this state of affairs is noteworthy and reportable on Wikipedia. Lack of a double-blind study doesn't necessarily mean "snake oil" - keep in mind that the effects verified by double-blind studies existed before the double-blind stuies were conducted. They are generally well-known (by those who use them) long before the double-blind studies are conducted. The Transhumanist 23:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you are coming from, but for being an encyclopedia I think that unless they are proven they shouldn't say it "works." Maybe mention that people have taken it for such reason, but that there is no proof or that the studies are inconclusive. I say this because you are right that people knew the effects of many things before double blind studies, but people also have a placebo effect and many "old wives tales" are passed down. One of the largest studies ever done proved that vitamin C doesn't help someone fight off a cold. Numerous studies show that being in cold temperatures won't get you sick. There are many other examples of this. If something truly works, it should be evident in a study. People assumed coffee kept you up and awake, and double blind studies have shown this and have even discovered why it happens. Same with drinking beer and feeling effects, science has explaind that you do indeed get effects from beer and have shown why. I don't think we should have the infamous Q-bracelet in the physcial therapy article, or "structured water" in an article on how to stay healthy. Rjkd12 01:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That study doesn't prove what you've just stated it proves. Effects of substances are dose dependent. The evidence is mounting that vitamin C is highly effective for preventing colds and for reducing symptoms of (and decreasing the discomfort caused by) even severe colds when taken in quantities above 10,000mg per day, with 20,000mg not being excessive. All the large-scale studies I've seen so far have tested vitamin C at much much smaller doses, say from 60 to 150mg. That's like 1/60th to 1/180th the amount needed. What effect would aspirin have on your headache if you took 1/180th of a tablet? If you are going to cite studies, please present the results in context. For stubstances, that means dosage. Almost every substance has different effects at different dosages. So if something is ineffective, it's ineffective at that particular dosage level, and then only if the study was not flawed, and only if the experimenter interpretted the results of his own study correctly (you'd be surprised at how often the abstract for a study does not accurately describe the study itself). You'd also be surprised how often the media reports the information in the abstract without ever reading the study itself. Remember, you have to test each dosage level independently to be able to make conclusive claims about them. Nootropics, for instance typically have bell-shaped response curves. Doses that are too low or too high produce similar (low) results on cognitive performance tests. More is not necessarily better, but neither is not taking enough. The Transhumanist 05:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that substances are dose dependant. A study that shows no effect of a substance though is direct evidence that the substance doesn't work at that dose in the study which can sometimes be generalized to show that the substance may not be effective for that purpose. Scientists don't use random numbers for dosages, they estimate what a good amount would be (via how fast it is excreted and metabolized and how quickly blood levels raise, normally in animals) and then try different dosages. Lets not hit too much of a tangent with my vitamin C thing, because it was just one of a few examples.

When I said the vitamin C thing, I never saw an actual study. I read about it, and kinda used it in my arsenal as a wives tale. It is possible I actually saw it, but that would be years ago and I would have only skimmed it. So, I did search pubmed and am quite happy that although I didn't have the evidence at the time, it is out there haha. On a quick note before I get to studies, I would like to add that I agree that a study has to be done right. The studies on chromium piccolinate helping lose weight (where all the supps came from) is on a study where chromium deficient people supplemented it and they lost weight. Normal people don't lose weight when taking it. Also, many people take zinc to increase testosterone productiton, where unless you have a zinc deficiency it won't do anything. Nor wil zinc lozenges for the common cold (the fact they taste bad increases the placebo effect, and it has been shown that the more trouble the "treatment" is, the bigger the placebo effect).

First study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11700812&dopt=Abstract

had doses up to 1 gram, taken at the onset of a cold did not reduce the severity or duration.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=11700812&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum

This one used up to 3 grams, and it did not help.

Since this is not a personal argument and I'm not trying to be "right," I'll include this one. I just want to say, even if vitamin C is a cure for the common cold, my opinion still stands earlier that the nootropic page needs to be edited haha. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16173838

This indicatees that vitamin C in most studies is under-dosed and until more studies use higher doses we cannot say it doesn't help in the common cold.

Lastly, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16379336&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

Which indicates, " Vitamin C, especially in the doses exceeding daily recommended dietary allowance may result in oxalate crystallization, formation of advanced glycation end products and even exert prooxidant effect." Which I'm not saying it is harmful, but I am unaware of any literature indicating that you can take 10-20 grams a day and be ok.

It kills me to read how everyone talks about Pauling, one of the greatest physics minds ever. He said high doeses are good, and even said they could possibly cure cancer. This is a direct effect of "authority" argument where a physicists discusses medicine or biochemistry.

Now, was my quick look by no means exclusive. I didn't ignore data that didn't support me, but I didn't read every paper either. But, it would be nice for you to hold yourself to the same standard. I would be very interested in literature that states that vitamin C does indeed help the common cold. Oh, and one more specious argument, on the level of the orgamism, caffeine isn't a diuretic. People and athletes who take caffeine do not have increased urine production over placebo. The original idea of this had to do with its effects on individual kidney's and maybe even nephrons. This is one of the most widespread 'old wives tale' that I know. Its even wrong on wikipedia, but I don't have the time now to change it, since I'll probably have to fight a large group haha. Sorry for possibly dirtying up your talk page, I am kinda new to wikipedia. If you are on AIM/yahoo let me know since I enjoy discussing these things. Well, let me know what you think man. Take care, Rjkd12 16:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I am very interested about this subpage of yours, and I was thinkng whether mine was any good to be included there, please say what you think, thanks. AxG (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very nicely done. You're now the latest addition to the page. The Transhumanist 11:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

User:Bearly541/christmastemplate

smile

§Sir James Paul<<--wikiholic§ has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Merry Christmas and a happy new year!


Merry Winterval(s)!!!! (12-22-06)

Oh, the weather outside is frightful!... But I hope wherever you you are, that it's warm and delightful! : ) —Randfan!!


Dear The Transhumanist/Archive 2,


I wish you a very, very merry Winterval!

And since I don't know which you celebrate, I hope you have/had/will have a very happy Holiday!. Hope you and your family have a magnificent day, or series of days! You might wanna install the "SaucyMillionaire" font to see this correctly. Cheers, mate!:) —Randfan!!

God (or your deity/deities) bless you and your family! —¡Randfan!Sign here? 02:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


DeleteArticle

G'day - I noticed that ElaraGirl's deletion article has been moved to the virtual classroom for discussion. My main concern with it was that, while it's definitely an excellent piece of work, I feel it doesn't discuss the alternatives presented at Problem articles where deletion may not be needed in enough detail. On the original talk page, Elara did say that she plans "to write a second article about undeletion, cleanup, and alternatives", but given her personal situation, I don't know if or when that article's going to be ready. If she doesn't get in touch any time soon, would it be allright for me to have a go at adding a bit more from that "alternatives to deletion" section into the essay?

(On a side note, I don't know when she'll be back to answer any questions about the essay. Have you heard any news about how she's going?) Quack 688 05:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, there will be plenty of people to answer questions, and Elaragirl will be able to add her comments too whenever she finds the time. Her essay will be the main topic of discussion for at least the next three weeks, and discussions remain open even after new lessons are presented. In her request, posted above on this page, to present the topic on the Virtual classroom, Elaragirl expressed that she wished the presentation be made sooner rather than later. Please feel free to expand the article as you see fit, as that's what the virtual classroom (and Wikipedia as a whole) is for, and note that Elaragirl posted the following notice on the lesson before it was moved:
Current event marker This is a user essay that is a work in progress that needs your help. It is designed for new users.
Experienced users may edit the article as they see fit, within reason, and anyone may correct mistakes or fix typos. 		Books

So yes, by all means, your help and participation are very welcome. The Transhumanist 05:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers - I saw the reply, I've started thinking of something to add. I'd appreciate it if when I'm done, you could have a quick look before I post it, just to check there's no massive policy I've completely forgotten about, so I don't look like a clueless knob :-p Quack 688 00:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'd be glad to. This way, we'll both look like clueless knobs. The Transhumanist 03:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help please

I would like to know how you made the cool signature. Second I am new to Wikipedia, and would love some advice.

Thanks, King of Anonymity 00:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. What's up?
You asked how I created my signature. You can see how any signature is created by clicking on "edit this page" at the top of the screen and looking at the wikicode for a particular signature. Most users with fancy signatures configure their accounts to place their custom signature automatically by filling in the signature box in my preferences with their sig's wikicode and by clicking the raw signature box. Then, whenever they place 4 tildes in a message, it is automatically replaced with their custom signature. Unfortunately the sig box is buggy, and not all signatures work in it. The version of my sig which requires the least amount of wikicode doesn't work in the sig box. So I have my signature programmed as a macro, and to insert it wherever the text cursor is I simply press a certain function key on my keyboard. Viola! I use Macro Express, but a popular free open source macro program that probably works just as good is AutoHotkey.
You asked for advice. Before I can give you meaningful advice, I need to know what encyclopedic subjects and issues you are most interested in, what your strongest areas of knowledge are, and what your Wikipedia goals are. The Transhumanist 01:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I guess the best way to describe my issues and interests, is a powerbroker kind of outlook. Poltics, Financiers, Corporate power, etc. I also love Medieval History. I have already joined CVU, Typo, and a few other projects. My wikipedian goal, to be the best contributor I can be.

P.S. Thanks for the info on signatures.

Regards, King of Anonymity

Interesting coincedence. I just created the List of basic medieval history topics. Perhaps you could take a look at it and fill in what I missed. The collection of Lists of basic topics is a set of "cheat sheets" on major subject areas, and a good starting point for anybody interested in a particular area. The List of basic political science topics and the List of basic finance topics are incomplete, and could sure use your help -- and we don't even have a List of basic corporation topics yet.
The two most important aspects of any encyclopedia are its content and access to that content. Therefore, the two most central activities of encyclopedia development are providing content, and creating access tools (essentially tables of contents and indices) to assist study of the material. In short, authoring and indexing. Content contribution is proceeding forward at a dizzying pace, and the indexing just isn't keeping up with it. So your help would be greatly appreciated on the Wikipedia:Contents project, of which the Lists of basic topics is a part. The main pages in the contents project include:
Toward general improvement of Wikipedia skills I host a couple of pages with that goal in mind, called the Virtual classroom and Tools. To keep track of what's going on in the VC, you can place the following announcement box at the top of your talk page, or on your user page:
Tutorials
User guides to ...
In the wp:Signpost
The published book, online
Help contents
We just started the discussion on deletion, but all of the discussions are open-ended, so feel free to participate in any or all of them. Since you are into power, and are a likely candidate for being or becoming a power user, you may find the sections on user interfaces particularly interesting. Please tell the class (and me) what interfaces you use.
Other pages that may help you get up to speed on Wikipedia quickly are Wikipedia:Tip of the day and its library {Wikipedia:tips)), the Wikipedia:Department directory, and the WikiProject directory.
I hope to see you at Wikipedia:Contents and the various pages listed there. Thanks for becoming a Wikipedia volunteer, and remember... have fun. The Transhumanist 23:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Coaching

Good afternoon (GMT time); now that I am fully recovered and back from my WikiBreak, I was curious if you will still be willing to accept me after my initial postponement of Administrator Coaching?

I am extremely enthusiastic about this project, and it was unfortunate that I had to neglect commencing with it due to my health problem's deterioration.

Please reply on my talk page if that is agreeable with you.

Cheers and regards,
Anthonycfc (talk • email • tools) 12:18, Friday December 29 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be glad to help you learn the ropes of Wikipedia. I've set up a section for you at the Virtual classroom. I'll meet you there... The Transhumanist 01:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Classroom

Good afternoon (GMT time); I was just wondering when the "teaching" at the virtual classroom was going to begin - I replied there over 2 days ago. Hope your well.

Cheers and regards,
Anthonycfc 12:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your post while it was still in comment delimiters (and therefore hidden). I was unaware you had finished it. Cool. Let's get started right away! See you there. The Transhumanist 12:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tranhumanist

I left a note on the talk page, though I don't like to use the word "should" I should probably edit that:). Listen, I have to go to World Peace Gongyo in about ten minutes, so I'll get on it when I can. Many irons in the fire at the moment. My watchlist done blew up in the night! Nina Odell 15:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Couldn't find anything on the talk page, but found this on my user page:

If I understand correctly

You are making a list of lists. If there isn't a list of cults, there should be. However, it should be called "List of new religious movements". Also, if there isn't a list of lay organizations (such as Opus Dei or Soka Gakkai International), there should be one. If the lists exist, then they should be included in the religions category. Also, cult figures and lay leaders. I hope I'm getting this right...steer me in the right direction if I'm not. I suck at lists (and markup).Nina Odell 15:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, not exactly. While Lists of basic topics is a list of lists, the lists of basic topics it includes is a set of lists. I was referring to the set. At the moment I'm not worried about missing lists, but in the lack of completeness and errors in scope of the existing basic topic lists. These lists are introductions to broad subjects like "art", "music", "theatre", "biology", "chemistry", etc. These lists all follow a standard format, and are very easy to navigate and edit. All that is needed to proofread any of those lists is to pick one on a subject you are familiar with, read it, and see if any holes or gaps pop out at you. If you notice that a basic concept is missing, simply add a link to the article. Like in biology, if the term "cell" is missing, add the link like this:

That's pretty much all there is to it. The Transhumanist 16:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the lists, and my head started to swim. I think they're alright...I'm pretty sure...have a cookie...how about a card...

my first card! Yours in stupefaction, Nina Odell 03:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AWB on the bot

Are you sure you are logged in on the bot? You are on the list correctly, so it should work fine... Prodego talk 16:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I try to use it, I get the message "The Transhumanist (AWB) is not enabled to use this" and then it automatically opens up the AWB check page in another window. The Transhumanist 16:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is wierd, I guess you will have to ask one of the AWB devs (probably at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser). Prodego talk 16:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I found the problem. I looked at the list carefully, and selected the text on some names individually, and then selected mine. My entry has a trailing space, while the others do not. The Transhumanist 13:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd, I did look for that (maybe I looked under your username instead of the bot account). But anyway it is fixed now. You should be able to use it. Prodego talk 20:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It works now. Fantastic! By the way, I discovered an old account of mine on the list that I had forgotten was on there, and used that as an auxillary. It is User:Nexus Seven. Please remove it from the list. And thank you for all your help. The Transhumanist 20:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Esperanza wrap-up, and "Reach out"

I agree with your general idea of how things were going. Esperanza had changed from what it used to be, so at what it's current status was, the outcome hopefully saved the good parts and lost the not-as-good parts. As for Reach Out, hmm... at the moment, I'm just going to be happy to see the programs that have already been moved to separate projects stay, before trying to resurrect other Esperanza programs. At the same time, feel free to take the initiaitive, though I imagine discussing at the MfD talk page or elsewhere would be appropriate, so no one thinks circumvention of the MfD is going on. -- Natalya 03:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be in context with the MfD closing, and therefore appropriate. I don't see why anyone would object, because it has its own merits and community-building purposes which are distinct from what ESP was. The page would be eligible for deletion nomination just like every other page, so if there is good reason for it not to exist, this would certainly come to light in a deletion debate. But since it would be doing nobody any harm, there would be no reason to nominate it for deletion in the first place. Consider it done. The Transhumanist 04:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be interested in seeing Esperanza return. Geo. 18:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Community support pages run just fine without the extra level of management. See Wikipedia:Reach out for example. Wikipedia is a sociocracy. Esperanza was an oligarchy which attempted to displace the Sociocratic Method on part of Wikipedia with its own authority and decision making process. That's anti-wiki, and anti-Wikipedia. It had to go. The Transhumanist 19:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Click "here"

Please try not to use the "click 'here'" linking style, for usability reasons. See here for a reference/explanation ;) Thanks. —Quiddity 07:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protege

Just to let you know that I've nominated your protege Budgiekiller on RfA. --Dweller 23:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He knows his stuff. I had nothing to do with it. He was ready for adminship before I met him. Thank you for the heads up. I'm there! --The Transhumanist 04:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your help desk request

I'm inexperienced in this area, so please review the proofing/editing I'm doing at List of basic sports topics in response to your plea for help! --Dweller 11:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. And thanks for helping. The Transhumanist 11:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The list is developing apace. When you have a mo, please review. Also, I can't get the references section to work properly, so any help there gratefully received. --Dweller 09:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's on wikibreak. I added the references tag for you though. —Quiddity 19:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Viewing the Questions

I am also new at Wikipedia, but am now having way too much fun at this since I am catching on. Put the template on top that I found on another's Users page. Of course, if you don't like it, you can always remove it. Thought maybe this would lead to less confusion, especially to us "newbees". Now the question becomes: Why are not the Questions viewed in reverse chronlological order? I would think this would be easier, since the most current would be then on top. The old questions (probably not worked on by then) would then be at the end of the list (about to be Archived) that one would not have to scroll through.. --Doug 15:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like to keep the menus at the top. As for the flow of messages, my guess is nobody thought of it at the time it could have been implemented. Talk pages are identical to article pages, and so the intuitive thing to do is edit them in the same way, top to bottom. But now that it is the established method, it would be confusing to switch to the bottom-up method.

I'm glad to learn you are having fun. Check out the virtual classroom in the menu at the top of this page, and let me know what you think of it. I've also got a tool page I've been working on. Please let me know if you find it informative and useful. The Transhumanist 17:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi, I'm another newbie. Perhaps just how new will be revealed by my question: I've been cutting my teeth on some (seemingly little visited) Australian Mountain articles where I have some knowledge and some sources. How would I fix the overlapping boxes on Mount Feathertop?

I also read with interest the comment above where a writer with English as a second language was looking for help with editing. Maybe this is a common problem: people who have done good research and want to write in English, but are hamstrung by the difficulties of a second language. It occurs to me that I've got something to offer in this area. If you want to sling anyone like this my way they would be most welcome. Then I can rest my ego gently on my existing skills while I quietly learn a few new ones.--Joesydney 10:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooop! Just found the Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors. Maybe I should sign up.--Joesydney 10:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To make boxes no overlap use the code <br clear=both> .
As for editors hamstrung by a second language, perhaps you could consider setting up a Wikiproject or a help forum for them.   The Transhumanist 06:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Hey, thanks so much for supporting my recent RFA. A number of editors considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and unfortunately the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). There are a number of areas which I will be working on (including changing my username) in the next few months in order to allay the fears of those who opposed my election to administrator.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you sincerely for your support over the past week. I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 18:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)[reply]

You only missed it by 10 votes. Not bad. Those who withheld their support will likely be more than happy to support you once you've addressed their concerns by getting the types of experience they want you to have. Looks like we'll be seeing you around the Wikipedia namespace more.   The Transhumanist 06:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Upon your return, please remove the coloring from your signature. In addition to reducing readability and cluttering the edit window, it contains malformed HTML that sometimes causes all subsequent page text to render in orange.

Thank you! —David Levy 12:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can fix that when I return. A couple Wikipedians have redesigned my sig above, though I haven't gotten around to implementing their changes yet. I've just popped in now to check my messages. The Transhumanist 05:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stub guide

Hi! I just edited the stubbing guide in your user pages. Sorry if that would be considered bad form from you. I know Grutness a little, so I thought... but if you disagree, please by all means revert. Maybe the change is considered valid by you, though. MadMaxDog 05:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Virtual Classroom is totally open to editing. I'll be sure to make that more clear in the headers of each of its pages. Thanks for improving the coverage, by the way.   The Transhumanist 05:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on SteveWolfer

Message posted on multiple user pages: as you've been a figure to some degree in the multi-article, Rand-related dispute involving SteveWolfer, I thought it would be appropriate to let you know that I've initiated an RFC on him. You are invited to join in the proceedings if you are so inclined. Simões (talk/contribs) 22:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pop over and take a look. Thanks. As for the Rand issue, there seems to be a conflict over semantics. Certain users refuse to allow her to be described with common English, instead interpretting all adjectives applied to her in relation to the scholastic philosophical community only. For instance, they hold that she can't be an "influential philosopher", unless she has been accepted by other philosophers, even if the influence which is cited in the provided references pertains to her impact upon the general public. General influence is being disallowed.   The Transhumanist 05:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, thank you for taking the time to speak out on that RfC - it was an awful experience and it felt good to read your remarks. Second, I agree that they are equivocating on an ambiguous use of the word 'influential', but there is more to it. I'd say it goes deeper than semantics. I think it is a matter of honesty. Not for all of the opponents, just the very vocal minority. Rand's work generates a lot of passion and when some people are don't like something they become manipulative to get rid of it - trying to use the rules of the local context to diminish or eliminate. Some people believe that words are just tools of rhetoric and there is no such as thing as truth - only the arguments winners and losers. If you get one of those, who also has no innate sense of fairness, and doesn't like Rand - that's a problem. Well, I just came here to thank you, so I'll climb down off my soap box and wish you a happy vacation and look forward to your return. Steve 18:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't appear those things get deleted automatically, so I requested that it be deleted. It had gone over the 48-hour limit for endorsement, and Simoes pulled his endorsement. It's gone now, so you can be glad that's over with.   The Transhumanist 10:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

discussion

I have seen you around here on Wikipedia and have noted that you are among the more intelligent of Wikipedians (your work with virtual classroooms is outstanding). I've had this issue bugging me for a while but I wasn't sure who I could talk to about it. After reading your profile, I think you might know how to deal with this issue.

Recently, it seems that many high-quality articles are up for deletion quite often. Yes, there are the dozens upon dozens that are blatant advertising or spam, but now a large number a day seem to be up for deletion. I'm not sure what I (or anyone) can do about this.

Lost and confused, S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered your query in the User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/Elaragirl, about deletion and deletionism#Discussion.   The Transhumanist 05:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

!

Cool signature Kamope · talk · contributions 12:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.   The Transhumanist 05:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much!

Thanks so much for the hints in your userpage tutorial. . I am a new user and familiar with HTML markup, but not so with Wikimark up. Your userpage tutorial really helped! Real96 06:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'm glad you found it useful. If you see any way to improve it, by all means, please feel free to do so.   The Transhumanist 06:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Favor

Will you do me a favor and comment at my desk about the case Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/January 2007/Grandmaster? It would be a big help. Thanks. --James, La gloria è a dio 02:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though my time is limited, I'll be glad to help as much as I can.   The Transhumanist

Editor Review

Hey Transhumanist,

If you ever get a free minute here on Wikipedia, I would be most honored if you wrote a critique of my contributions at my Editor Review, found here.

Thanks in advance dude,

S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done.   The Transhumanist

Response to The Transhumanist with regard to Paytakaran

Copied from User talk:Grandmaster. Khoikhoi 07:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) Basically, it is attested by the sources that I presented that Caspiane was at various times part of Medes, Armenia and Caucasian Albania. The statement of Tigran that there were 2 Caspianes is not supported by any evidence. The sources also confirm that the capital of this province was the city called Paytakaran. At later times the name Caspiane drops out of use and become replaced by the name of the capital of the province.

So I think the first paragraph should be rewritten as follows:

Paytakaran (Azerbaijani: Beyləqan, Armenian: Փայտակարան, Persian and Arabic: Baylaqan[1]) also known as Caspiane by Greco-Roman authors, was the province and city of Medes, Caucasian Albania and the Kingdom of Armenia.[2]. It was located in the area of the lower courses of the rivers of Kura and Araks, adjacent to the Caspian sea. Today, the area is located in the territory of modern day southeastern Azerbaijan and northeastern Iran.

Caspiane was contested between the regional powers. According to Strabo: "To the country of the Albanians belongs also the territory called Caspiane, which was named after the Caspian tribe, as was also the sea; but the tribe has now disappeared".[3] Strabo also mentions Caspiane among the lands, conquered by king Artaxias I from Medes. However, Armenia later lost it to Albania about 59 BC, when Pompey rearranged the political geography of the region. (See the following reference):

Pompey then rearranged the political geography of the east. The exact details of the changes and their chronology are not always clear. Some were changed after Pompey and the young Tigranes fell out and after Parthian intervention. But the upshot was that by 59 BC Syria and Phoenicia had passed to Rome, Sophene to Cappadocia, and Adiabene to Parthia. Lesser Armenia went, probably, to Brogitarus, son-in-law of Deiotarus king of Galatia, and Caspiane to the Albanians.
A. E. Redgate. The Armenians (Peoples of Europe) ISBN-10: 0631220372

2) It is hard to say precisely when the name of Caspiane became replaced by the name of its capital Paytakaran. However, the fact is confirmed by the sources.

3) My proposed edit: Paytakaran was initially populated by the tribe of Caspians, after whom it was named Caspiane.[4] Later it was populated by people called parcies.[5] Local population repeatedly revolted against the Armenian rule, and Armenian kings had to dispatch their troops to the region to suppress the uprisings. [6][7]

Paytakaran, which according to professor Robert. H. Hewsen was a completely alien land to Armenia, was finally lost by Armenia to Caucasian Albania in 387 A.D.[8]

4) After the Arab conquest and Islamisation of the region, the city of Paytakaran became known as Baylaqan. Muslim chronicles describe it as a flourishing city.

Footnotes

  1. ^ Encyclopedia Iranica. C. E. Bosworth. Baylaqan
  2. ^ Strabo, Geography, book 11, chapter 14
  3. ^ Strabo, 11.4
  4. ^ Encyclopedia Iranica. Rüdiger Schmitt. Caspians
  5. ^ Pawstos Buzand, History. 5.14
  6. ^ Movses Khorenatsi. History of Armenia
  7. ^ Pawstos Buzand, History. 5.14
  8. ^ The Armenian People From Ancient To Modern Times: The Dynastic Periods: From Antiquity to the Fourteenth Century. Robert. H. Hewsen. Historical Geography, p 16.

== You mentioned something on my talk page...==

Hi, I'm not sure what you're referring to when you asked for a cite - and the section was 'how many books' - did it have to do with EndlessMike's mention of two upcoming articles? Or the article we discussed creating? I mentioned to him that I had turned on my 'Email this user' link on my User Page (in the left margin). If you have an email address you would be willing to use to send me an email, I have a spreadsheet I could return that you might be interested in. Steve 22:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"300,000,000 books sold". --TT
You've got me worried now. I do remember putting that on a talk page but I can't remember where I got the number from (and it seems high). This is all I've found so far, but I'll keep looking.
"Every book by Ayn Rand published in her lifetime is still in print, and hundreds of thousands of copies are sold each year, so far totaling more than twenty million." Ayn Rand Centenary - Part of biography article on this page.
You're numerical quote is at user talk:SteveWolfer#Rand as a philosopher. --TT

On the question about the Basic Topics page, let me think on it a while. I really don't want to just push Objectivism and Ayn Rand (even though its very much the right thing to do). What would be more important, and address a larger problem, would be to show the whole universe of philosophy which includes more than academic, analytic philosophy (plus token mentions of eastern, traditional, and continental philosophy as seen from inside of today's academy). And to show links that become threads to the practices and works and activities and people for the particular area - so philosophy could be seen as more alive and vital in each area. Now is only an exciting place for someone who is a devoted analytic philosopher - everyone else feels like a less than welcome guest wandering about in a strange house. Other view points get deleted or cut out or marginalized ("not philosophy" according to "professional philosophers"). Steve 22:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean external links sprinkled throughout the page? That's certainly feasible. --TT

What if there were some way of having your "basic questions" be take-off links that could shoot you into how this or that philosopy answered the particular question - then click it again for a different philosophy and see how they answer it - and let each answer be written more in their own style - and link to their people, works, etc. Imagine a kind of disambiguation page that you come to when you click on one of the questions. What is has are a list of links :that are like this one:

  • How analytic philosophers are answering this question.
  • How Aristotle answered this question.
  • How Sufi mystics answered this question?
  • How Plato answered this question.
  • How Objectivists answer this questions.
  • ...and so forth.

It is after all, man's attempt to answer basic questions that gave rise to philosophy and contains the heart of their differences. Steve 22:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Though the naming of the pages, and trying to have question-exclusive disambiguation pages, may become problematic, since "What is _____?" would be synonymous with "_______", but we could work with Wikipedia's standard structure easy enough. The disambiguation of questions would probably have to be shared on standard disambiguation pages, with the question itself dropped.
For example, if we created a disambiguation page called "What is good?", then no doubt somebody would come along and propose a merge of it with the existing disambiguation page for good.
Though a good (Aristotle), good (Sufi), etc. could be included on the disambiguation page for good, under a philosophy super-item, like this:

and so on. The links could be further differentiated/formatted using pipes. Also, redirects could be created for the questions themselves.

On the other hand, to retain your specific question structure, we'd probably have to keep all the questions on a list page, such as expand the fundamental questions section itself on the List of basic philosophical topics, like this: 

== Fundamental philosophical questions ==
  • Do we even exist?
    • How analytic philosophers are answering this question.
    • How Aristotle answered this question.
    • How Sufi mystics answered this question?
    • How Plato answered this question.
    • How Objectivists answer this questions.
  • Does God exist?
    • How analytic philosophers are answering this question.
    • How Aristotle answered this question.
    • How Sufi mystics answered this question?
    • How Plato answered this question.
    • How Objectivists answer this questions.
  • Do we have free will?
    • How analytic philosophers are answering this question.
    • How Aristotle answered this question.
    • How Sufi mystics answered this question?
    • How Plato answered this question.
    • How Objectivists answer this questions.
  • Do we have a soul?
    • How analytic philosophers are answering this question.
    • How Aristotle answered this question.
    • How Sufi mystics answered this question?
    • How Plato answered this question.
    • How Objectivists answer this questions.
    • ...and so forth.

Note that the article meaning of life already covers various answers to the corresponding question, but they're not easily accessed via section links, and the article is heavily edited, so section headings change fairly often there.

The Transhumanist 23:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! That is exactly the way to do it! - with the links under the question and forget the disambiguation pages and pipes.
  • (Except, you know of course, I just threw Sufi Mystics into my comment to you for fun since I know absolutely nothing about them.)
  • The page that a person lands on when they click, for example, "How Aristotle answered this question" would be an article titled something like "Aristotle on Free Will" and it would be an article written in the usual WP style with sources, etc., and
  • The criticism section should be limited to one or more links to pages where differing positions on the same question exist (i.e., "How Kant answered the question of Free Will."
  • The page would also have the 'see also' links for other articles on 'Free Will', 'Aristotle' and so forth.
I love the idea that some one could take the basic questions of philosophy and go from one major thinker/philosphy to another and compare.
Maybe the list of questions should be a page all on its own with a prominent link to it from the current basic topics page (and with a link to the questions page other philosophy pages and the navigation template. Steve 02:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's doable. Especially if it grows too large for the basic page. Note that there is already such a page - the one the section is based on. See List of philosophical questions. That page could be expanded and/or renamed. I see the project you envision as having 3 key steps:
  1. Gathering questions - asking around on philosophy talk pages and on philosophy-oriented Wikipedian's talk pages for examples of fundamental questions.
  2. Ditto for the names of the major contributors (or groups of contributors) in the field of philosophy on the answering of the given questions. That is, which philosophers are most well-known for their answers on the various questions?
  3. Soliciting lots and lots of help filling in the redlinks with actual articles. Enough authors could make short work of the project.

I've already started a similar page, called List of philosophy component types. It is similar in that it presents (red)links to planned (or desired) pages. It differs in that it provides alternative links which should suffice until the redlinks are fulfilled. Note that while "Aristotle on free will" would make a good redirect, the actual article should probably be called Free will (Aristotle), so that it shows up in the proper order on Wikipedia's All pages index. For an example of this naming scheme, remember Objectivism (Ayn Rand). The Transhumanist 11:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might be able to give the project a jump-start by reading various philosophy and philosophers' articles , and seeing what is already here on their specific treatments of the subjects. Another really good place to start would be Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy (the actual book). Wikipedia's various history articles on philosophy might also provide mention of who answered what. The Transhumanist 11:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I added a few questions to the List of philosophical questions page and now I'll start gathering information for articles (if that's the page we use, it does need some changes) - I think I have Russell's History of Western Philosophy, I know I have his little book on The Problems of Philosophy. Steve 19:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added some more. Actually I spewed every question I could think of onto the page. . Hope it helps. The Transhumanist


Your work on the 'Afterlife' page looks very good (as well as putting another main article link in place on the questions page). And pulling the Descartes quote out and turning it into a link was excellent. I'm eager to create articles from a single view point (as opposed to the 'main article') and will now start on Objectivism's view of concept formation. Hopefully other editors will come along and create an article on just Aristotle's view of concept formation and another on just Plato's and so forth. It turns out that I have "History of Western Philosophy" but not the same book - mine is by W. T. Jones. No matter. Steve 23:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar. It really brightened my day when I first saw it while browsing Wikipedia at school. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 23:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Also, how did you like the advice I gave on your Editor Review? The Transhumanist

Thank You!

Thank you so much for your response to my ownership queries it is much appreciated. Finally i got an answer i was looking for. Thanks again and see you around the site. (Bradleigh 23:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You are most welcome. The Transhumanist 06:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

In case you're wondering why I haven't responded to your request, please see WP:SIG and Reciprocity (social psychology). I've been quite patient. —David Levy 13:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The request is moot; the page was overhauled. But the silent treatment isn't becoming behavior for any Wikipedian, let alone an admin. But thanks for caring. I believe I've fixed the glitch you pointed out. Thank you, by the way. I've also gotten the sig way down in size. Here's a comparison of the wikicode with that of Radiant's sig's wikicode:
[[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#DD0000">><font color="#FF6600">R<font color="#FF9900">a<font color="#FFCC00">d<font color="#FFEE00">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font><</font></b>]]
~~~
I suspect it was the word "orange" in the previous code that caused the problem. --The Transhumanist 16:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ignore your request (let alone out of spite). I actually examined the dispute at that time, and I had no constructive input to provide. I was, however, rather perturbed to see that your ghastly signature remained in use, so I decided to wait and see if you actually would follow through on your promise to change it without being asked a second time.
FYI, Radiant's signature is not a good model to follow; it's fairly ridiculous.
Did you read the portion of WP:SIG pertaining to color? Please just stick with a standard signature. —David Levy 17:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But you did ignore my request in the context of not responding to me concerning it, which you claimed above to have done out of reciprocity. Also, you misinterpretted my response concerning your sig request. You mentioned a font glitch in my sig, so I said I would try and fix it. And I believe I have (it's initially posted in the sig workshop section at the top of this page, but needs further testing). More people have complimented my sig than have complained about it (and very few have done the latter), and the sig I based mine on is an established precedent, belonging to a respected admin and having been used by him for quite some time. My sig has tighter wikicode, even though my username is 3 times as long as his.
The subsection in the guideline about color pertains to colorblindness. The hues of my sig differ from talkpage baby blue, so shouldn't pose a problem to the colorblind. And if it is discovered to be a problem to the colorblind, I'll be happy to adjust the colors for their sake.
I'm sorry you don't like the look of my sig, but in cases of aesthetics/art, you can't please everyone. And the guideline refers to other users generally, and generally users don't have a problem with my sig, nor with the great many creative sigs which abound on Wikipedia. The context of the guideline in that regard has to do with blinking characters, font size, and colors which the colorblind can't see, etc.
I've signed hundreds of messages with this sig, and for the vast majority of those I've received no comments concerning my signature whatsoever. I estimate the response rate to be less than 1 per cent (and the majority of those are compliments). According to Wikipedia:Consensus: "Silence equals consent is the ultimate measure of consensus." Based on this principle, users in general have accepted my sig.
I'm glad, because I really like it. It makes me feel good to be able to express myself, and to develop my individuality. And I think it looks cool, which helps helps keep me in a good mood, because it represents me. A nice side effect is that it serves as a constant reminder to me to be cheerful and helpful to others. So I support diversity in sigs, and am happy to see the variety of them growing, and their users having fun on Wikipedia. Happy editors are productive editors, and I'm closing in on 20,000 edits. Viva la difference! Sincerely, --The Transhumanist 21:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. I opted not to reply here because I could not have done so without reiterating my concerns regarding your signature (and again, I was curious as to what you would do on your own).
2. Sysops aren't infallible. I like and respect Radiant, but he makes mistakes (as do all of us).
3. I explicitly referenced your signature's reduced readability. I find it difficult to read (particularly the green and orange segments) I can only imagine how it appears to people with vision problems (which are not limited to color blindness).
4. I can only state my opinion, but such signatures don't lead me to admire the users' creativity. They assault my eyes and convey the impression that the users (and I don't mean you personally) care more about extraneous social exercises than they do about improving the encyclopedia. (Again, I'm referring to the impression conveyed by a random user's signature, not to my impression of you.) —David Levy 01:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't have to reply to me, you could have explained to Buridan how the standard procedure works. Or to me, if I wasn't getting it, sig issue aside (your argument above for not responding is a non sequitur, as each issue had nothing to do with the other). The conflict on the list remains unresolved, it's just that one side is waiting patiently for consensus to be built on the talk page. I still don't know what your assessment of the behavior of the participants in the list scenario is. Did either side follow proper procedure? Did either side break proper procedure? If so, who, and what did they do?

By the way, is forcing without consensus an opposed change to an article against policy? Please point out the specific clauses from policy which clarify this.

Concerning my sig, I will continue to improve it based on feedback as I have been doing since I created it. Darkening the colors should make it more readable: The Transhumanist
I lack sufficient background knowledge to formulate a well-reasoned assessment. You might inquire at WP:VPP.
Enjoy your signature. —David Levy 05:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You lack sufficient background to assess consensus? That's not very reassuring, considering past situations in which you argued very strongly for a particular outcome on the basis of consensus. Situations very similar in structure and circumstances to the one at issue. If we go back and reread those discussions, will we discover that you didn't know what you were talking about? --The Transhumanist 13:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh?! I lack sufficient background knowledge on the subject of philosophy. I don't know why you invited a random user to evaluate a content dispute predicated on a philosopher's importance (or lack thereof). I have relatively little interest in philosophy and have not yet studied it. Therefore, I'm not qualified to fully appreciate the arguments presented in a run-of-the-mill "is too"/"is not" argument with no obvious process violations or established consensus. —David Levy 14:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted you specifically for an assessment of whether or not proper procedure and policy were being followed, and to enforce the prevailing consensus until a new consensus was reached. Did the opposition break the rules by forcing their changes (with edits) when those changes lacked consensus? The items that were removed from the page had been on there for over a year, their removal was opposed, and the removals lacked consensus. The lack of consensus was explained to the side who had removed the items, but they kept removing them anyways. I refrained from further reverting of those editors (and thus from entering an edit war), and instead attempted to seek help from you to restore the items to the page until a new consensus was built to override the pre-existing consensus. The issue I am bringing to you is, My side has been keeping its involvment in the dispute on the talk page "where it belongs", but because of this, the version which lacks consensus is on the article page! Are the items which were removed from the page without consensus supposed to be restored to the page until consensus has been reached to remove them? By who? Me? What am I supposed to do about the editors who refuse to honor consensus? Just keep reverting them? Write up RfC's on them, or what? What is an editor supposed to do when defending a page against changes which lack consensus? What's the protocol here? --The Transhumanist 16:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained, I lack sufficient knowledge on the subject of philosophy to assess whether consensus was established at any point. If there never was consensus (which isn't established simply by the items' long-term inclusion) and none has been established now, there is no correct default state. In such a situation, the important thing is that at least one of the two sides stop edit-warring and allow the page to remain in the other side's preferred state pending the outcome of the discussion. Failing that, a sysop will step in and protect the page in whatever state it happens to be it (without regard for which side is "right") until the matter is resolved. —David Levy 16:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weighing in a bit late to this debate, but I am part of those who kept silent because it didn't seem worth saying anything. FWIW though, I do prefer the non-colourful versions of your sig and Radiant's sigs. I do mentally cringe everytime I see random people with colourful sigs (the same way I cringe when someone walks around in the street with loud, colourful clothes, or clothes and hairstyle that is making a loud statement about the person - well, actually, I don't cringe any more, I just stare at the person instead, with a look of amazement on my face). The other thing, which you have at the bottom of your talk page is the use of emoticon icons. I go as far as :-), ;-), :-/ and :-(, but no further. And I strive to limit my use of those emoticons to appropriate moments. I know someone who puts an emoticon after practically every sentence or post they write, and it creates an absolutely horrible first impression until you get used to it. For similar reasons, I try to not excessively TYPE IN CAPITALS LETTERS, or overuse bolding for emphasis. Or use too many exclammation marks!!!! It just gives the wrong impression and is overdone. Sure, at the root of it is people's characters (and in some cases their age), and it is good to have extrovert characters as well as calm, sober people. But those using these 'text decorations' might not realise the impression they give by that behaviour. Silly signatures is just another example of all this. Carcharoth 13:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I basically use the emoticons for emphasis, like you, and provide them as a courtesy for others who may wish to use them on my talk page. I think they're better than the old style, because they more accurately represent facial expressions, and because there is a wider selection to choose from to more closely relate each emotion being expressed. Though I've met people in real life who are really... chirpy. Their almost every expression seems like an overreaction, until you get used to it. But after watching other people's reactions to a particular person of this type, and how a room could light up moments after they entered, I realized it was me, and not them who had a problem. Though I had never considered myself a prude, and certainly was very reserved in the company of strangers or in the presence of a group. That person helped me to come out of my shell, and I'm much more comfortable expressing myself than I used to be. I could see chirpy people using emoticons in the same way , and why shouldn't they, it would be a fair representation of their personalities. Expressive extroverts are fine by me. I like the way they melt social ice.

But equating the color of a sig with shocking hair and dress styles seems like an overreaction (or a misplaced metaphor) to me, because outrageous attire is a level of communication several magnitudes stronger; this is like describing a cute little mouse as a big hairy monster. The personal appearance metaphor much more closely represents vivid user page design. A more appropriately weighted analogy for a colored sig would be a person at a tradeshow with a fancy name tag, or someone who signs their checks with an elaborate signature, or someone who likes to place special edition stamps on the envelopes of the letters they send. These are all comparably minor expressions. No big deal. The Transhumanist 13:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A fancy nametag, signature or postage stamp doesn't inconvenience people like a long, colorful signature does or consume server resources like an emoticon image does. —David Levy 14:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it occurs to me that emoticon templates have been deleted at TfD on at least two occasions, so these qualify for speedy deletion under CSD G4. —David Levy 15:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't seem appropriate. Sure, if those templates were re-created, I could see how speedy deletion would apply. But a couple TfDs don't constitute a policy on the use of emoticons nor on the creation of emoticon templates in general. I haven't been abusing emoticons, nor overusing them. Deleting the template would disrupt my talk page, splattering it with redlinks, and would change the context of at least some of the messages they were removed from. The template is useful in that it helps to keep the edit window more easily readable, which would not be the case if the user were forced to use full links to display emotions. --The Transhumanist 17:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CSD G4 applies to substantially identical material. These new templates are substantially identical to the old ones. (There are no differences that address the reasons why they were deleted.)
In my opinion, you are overusing emoticon images by using them at all on Wikipedia. The point isn't that users should "use full links to display" them; it's that they shouldn't use them. The templates serve as encouragement.
However, there is no rule against manual transclusion (which puts less strain on the servers), and rest assured that your transclusions will be substituted (not removed or left as red links). —David Levy 17:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So much for my wikibreak. --TT

Paytakaran

Hi. Could you please check the talk? It's been updated. Thanks. Grandmaster 06:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. The Transhumanist
Hi. Could you please check the talk of the article again? Thanks in advance. Grandmaster 05:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Hi there! I'm wondering if you can help. I've been using your userpage design centre and it's great, but I'm stuck on something. I would like Buttons/Links at the top with the picture as the link to that page, however, although I've got the picture, the link takes me to the picture source. No good at all. I've had a look at all the examples, but none have quite what I'm looking for. I've seen links and pictures, and that's good, but I'm quite new to HTML and all this and I haven't a clue where to start for this although I've been a wikipedia user for over a year. I generally stick to minor edits and worded problems, which is much easier! So, if you wouldn't mind, when you've got the time, explaining how I might go about doing this, as I would be very grateful.

Thanks a lot, Random articles 19:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thankyou ever so much, it's great what you've done. There isn't a problem, so thanks again! Random articles 17:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Athlete's foot and Afterlife

You should really know better than this by now.

Athlete's foot: "In light of the ineffectiveness and expensiveness of government-approved medical treatments for athelete's foot, including the products sold on supermarkets' shelves for treating it, it is common for victims of athelete's foot to seek other remedies for this pernicious and uncomfortable condition.".[1] Someone else has rightfully deleted it.

What's wrong with it exactly? Is it not accurate?
It's written as hyperbolic opinion. If you can find a reliable cite for it, I'll be amazed. --Quiddity 19:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing the unsourced section in Afterlife [2], with a new unsourced section based on your personal interests is not much better.

Cryonics is on-topic. On retrospect, I agree that I should have added the paragraph on cryonics without deleting the attrociously written a priori one. I'm glad my edits get such scrutiny as to provide immediate feedback on my mistakes. Thanks! As for the cryonics segment being unsourced, I cut and pasted it for the most part from the cryonics article, which I did not write. --TT

I've asked before, and I'll repeat, please try not to promote your personal interests/opinions at the expense of neutrality and topical balance.

That reads like an accusation. You should be assuming good faith here (see WP:AGF. I added topical balance to the subject of afterlife -- the page was anything but neutral when I arrived. Religion's role was already more than adequately (and quite overwhelmingly) covered, while the roles of philosophy and science were barely touched upon. And you pointed out only a small portion of my additions to the article. I added everything I could remember on the subject. I happen to know more about philosophy and technology than I do about religion, so naturally my contributions were from those areas. Editors who know about one side of an issue help to complement the material previously added by editors who know more about the other sides of that issue. If you don't believe that suspended animation and resuscitation experiments are on topic, it is your prerogative to remove them, and we can hash it out on the article's talk page. --TT
But please stop implying that there is a prohibition on adding unsourced material to Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia:Verification exists so that factually dubious material, based on other editors' unfamiliarity with it, can be removed. It states: "Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." I didn't know my passage on athelete's foot was likely to be challenged, and your assumption that I did was out of line. But now that it has been challenged, I'll look around to see if I can find any citations (and will rewrite the passage, if needed, to accurately reflect those sources). Thank you for your input. --TT
I know you are well-meaning, and that you care deeply for Wikipedia, so I appreciate and respect your feedback. Though I feel I must provide you with a little feedback on your approach. In your message above, you were rather condescending ("You should really know better than this by now") showing that you assumed me guilty of some ill-intention or misdeed, based on your assumptions that that the statement lacked verifiability and that I was aware of this and added it to the article anyways. Yet in other communications you've given me credit for being well-read. I know I've read about the ineffectiveness and priciness of the treatments somewhere - a previous editor even mentioned their ineffectiveness - and the whole purpose of home remedies is to find something more effective/cost-effective. So my statement wasn't out of line, though perhaps it could have been worded better. Instead of stomping verbally all over another editor in such a situation, you could and should have simply requested citations in a friendly manner. (See: WP:CIV). I'll see what I can do to find some. --TT

Thank you. --Quiddity 21:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The Transhumanist

Rfc

Hi, please comment here. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 18:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

--TomasBat (Talk) 02:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It brightened my day. The Transhumanist

wikEd

wikEd is a full-featured in-browser text editor that adds enhanced text processing functions to Wikipedia and other MediaWiki edit pages (currently only for Firefox and other Mozilla browsers).

Features include:

  • Regular expression search and replace
  • Wikicode syntax highlighting
  • Fullscreen editing mode
  • Server-independent local Show preview and Show changes
  • Pasting formatted text, e.g. from MS-Word (including tables)
  • Conversion of formatted text to wikicode
  • Single-click fixing of common mistakes
  • History and presets for the summary, search, and replace fields

wikEd is a JavaScript program that has to be installed on your monobook.js page. For detailed installation instructions see the wikEd homepage.

What do you think about adding wikEd to your Tools page. Cacycle 05:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll definitely take a look at it. Sounds cool. Thanks for the heads up. The Transhumanist
I've got it installed. I'll use it for awhile, and if it becomes something I can't live without, then I will definitely post it to my tools page. The Transhumanist 19:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At first all those colors are a bit much. But I'm starting to get used to them. Oh, and I really like having search and replace right in the editing window. Is there a way to "replace all"? The Transhumanist 21:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found it. I like how you can limit the replace all to just the selected text if you want to. Very useful. The Transhumanist 17:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Transhumanist/Archive_2&oldid=1256324491"