User talk:Transhumanist/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 WP:RM
2 Alternative medicine
3 Slush
4 AutoWikiBrowser
5 Nootropic
6 AfD
7 Portal approval
8 Category:Life extensionists and Category:Life extension
9 opinion
10 Userfied
11 Lists and links
12 Account discontinued

[edit] WP:RM

I think all the articles about aging should probably be spelled aging, but take a look at Wikipedia policy about spelling. Note, though, that Wikipedia policy also includes the principle that what's best for Wikipedia is best. Making spellings uniform is in many cases best. If you want to change things, make a proposal at WP:RM. BrianinStockholm 07:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. --Transhumanist 10:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative medicine

I wrote that comment so long ago that I actually forgot about it. Thank you for being a one in a million and spotting that mistake. If you need help with that page (or anything else) give me a holler.

By the way if you're into that sort of thing, keep an eye on my talk pages. If I don't yet have links to what you're looking for, I probably will eventually. Dessydes 00:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slush

Sorry about the confusion. I didn't see your edits to slush itself. Deleuze 01:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I didn't want to disrupt access to the descriptions while I created the new pages, so I changed the original page last. --Transhumanist 01:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AutoWikiBrowser

The reason I did not approve you is that AWB requires 500 article edits, and although you have more then 500 total edits, you currently have 406 article edits. Since article edits make up most (72%) of your total edits, it shouldn't take long for you to reach 500. Please reapply then, and I will gladly approve you. Happy editing! Prodego ^talk 16:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I use an editcounter, which is available at User:Interiot/Tool2. It is a backup to a better edit counter (which is currently not working). Note you need Mozilla Firefox for it to work. (Firefox is a great browser, and it is free. You can download it here) Prodego ^talk 13:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nootropic

How do get Nootropics ?

other think.- On the German sektion it is very nasty. they killt the nootropikum artikle to make a Clean site only vor Doctors... Shit on it realy!

Antidementiva are not Nootropics becouse the one is again a desease and the other is stripping Doping tuning the brain.

and on the German site they killt the nootropic artikel for a Antidementiva Alzheimer desease killer site... Stupit realy!

Hey you make a very nice work on nootropic thx for doing this!

realy i learn more and more english, becource the english wikipedia is Much better *G* --Qaridarium 07:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

   * User:Transhumanist/List of life extension-related topics
   * User:Transhumanist/List of food topics
   * User:Transhumanist/List of nutrition-related topics
   * User:Transhumanist/List of thinking-related topics

This is realy cool :) thx you are so smart! --Qaridarium 17:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You posted this message on my talk page:

I'm glad you like them, but unfortunately, someone has nominated them all for deletion, as well as the Portal:Thinking which shares much in common with the above lists. If you liked the lists, you'll absolutely LOVE the portal. Have a look. --Transhumanist 15:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I'm so inspired of you, I'm so happy abaut your Work is simply beautiful waht do you do there.

I Vote for KEEP and i Hope Best for it!! its a crime which the people make there and which they do want to deletion.

Like in the German selected part of wikipedia there a lot off people where do not respect the work of other humans and want only a litle part of there minimalist thinking (those are the enemies of all-comprehensive thinking and still larger ones of enemies of nootropic ) because those are university graduates for something better hold themselves than normally humans and such know one the sides and materials such as nootropic are a war announce on their status of “Gods in white” “first class humans” thes are simply only humans where mean them seihen high-well-being-born and they thinking they eate the whiteness with spoons.

And Wikipedia brings the know off all things to the litle man and nootropics brings the intelligence to the litle man so that the small man also know understands to use the know.

Realy you are a Knight of humans ! --Qaridarium 06:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

I've put up the following nominations for AfD wrt lists you created:

The reason: the lists concern very broad and very badly defined subjects.

I've not nominated either List of aging processes or List of herbs and spices as they seem to on narrower subjects and, hence, have more potential. Especially List of herbs and spices when it is developed more in the direction of List of fruits. -- Koffieyahoo 04:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't move around articles in Article space and remove their tags while they are under discussion. If you want them moved to user space, please suggest so at the AfD pages. -- Koffieyahoo 08:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I moved Transhumanist/List of food topics to User:Transhumanist/List of food topics and Transhumanist/List of nutrition-related topics to User:Transhumanist/List of nutrition-related topics -- Koffieyahoo 08:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Transhumanist 08:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment you requested me to respond why I voted for delete on the 'List of food topics'. I believe that the original nomination and recent response by Koffieyahoo more than adequately describe the position I side with on this topic. I am unsure why you've decided to lobby myself, and presumably other nominators, on my talk page rather than under the AfD. Regarding a list concerning mathematics. I do not know the answer to your question and, IMHO, I think you are trying to compare apples and oranges. Just because they are two 'lists' I am not sure that you can make such a simple comparision. I mean, if I created a list to contains the names of all the people in the world, or who live in New York (etc.), would that be okay, just because it is a 'list'? If I've misunderstood your argument my apologies. Maybe the vote on your list will be a keep. Transhumanist, this is just my opinion. I might be wrong, I often am. I'm meaning now offence in this comment, please don't take it that way. WP has a good process and if your list deserves to keep, then I am sure that that will happen. Rob 08:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- I was informing you that I had replied on the AfD page, partly out of courtesy, and partly because I truly wished to understand the reasoning behind the objections to the page. Knowing why the lists were inappropriate will help me to avoid making the same mistakes in the future. Thanks for your feedback, it has helped a great deal. --Transhumanist 14:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it will help you, but List of human clusters of differentiation is a well-accepted list of demonstrable benefit in Wikipedia. But the acceptance of your List of herbs and spices and List of aging processes indicates that there is not an inherent objection to lists per se. Concerning the latter, you could take the chapter headings of my Mechanisms of Aging essay to expand that list quite a bit. --Ben Best 09:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal approval

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Portal approval process counter to Wikipedia's aims? Discussion opened. SilkTork 08:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you pinged me concerning the village pump discussion on this page, I thought it only courteous to return the favor concerning the page deletion nomination. You can participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals.

--Transhumanist 03:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you did. I thought about it, but wondered if it might be considered disruptive. Anyway, whatever happens, the Portal guys might decide to alter their approach. They appear to be genuinely well-meaning, and hadn't considered the implications of what they were doing. SilkTork 12:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive only to a disruptive page, the page being disruptive to the portal creation process, and potentially to the page creation process in general. I posted the MfD in accordance with the prerequisites listed on the MfD instruction page. Thanks for your observation. The important thing is to address both the preservation of Wikipedia's spirit and the need for portal maintenance. That way, we can make everyone happy. --Transhumanist 14:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what portals were you thinking of creating? Are they the type that usually gets bogged down on that page? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 18:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to expect from that page. Note the 4 lists cited above. I was quite surprised that any of them got nominated for deletion, and therefore I can't expect to predict when a small number of people (3 has been enough to oppose portal creation) may come forward to "bog down" a new portal concept. I see the portal approval process as an additional deletion process, added to the beginning of a page's life-cycle, the result of which is that portals are sandwiched between 2 chances to get axed. This doubles the overhead of the deletion nomination process, in my opinion and is unnecessary. I also believe that Wikipedians should be encouraged to jump in and help construct new portals rather than merely render judgement upon them. Simply renaming the approval page to Portal creation assistance may accomplish this --Transhumanist 18:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up concerning the Portals Proposals. It seemed silly to me that any portal would be opposed, since it's just a way to compile related information, and facilitates research on a given topic. I'll be creating my portal soon, after all. Godheval 15:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Good to see that common sense has prevailed and that people are now free to make portals without approval. SilkTork 14:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Life extensionists and Category:Life extension

You are a bundle of energy! You have done an excellent job in creating Category:Life extensionists and Category:Life extension, at least from an organizational point of view, in terms of the categories and subcategories. The one exception would be making Category:Biogerontologists a subcategory of Category:Life extensionists rather than vice-versa, although even vice-versa is not a good fit. As I mentioned to you previously some biogerontologists are not only not life extensionists, but are vehemently anti-life extension, the most notable example being Leonard Hayflick. Category:Life extensionists would more appropriately be a subcategory of Category:Biogerontologists were it not for the fact that those who practice or aspire to life extension are not necessarily scholars or researchers in the field -- many decidedly are not! As Aubrey de Grey would tell you, the subcategory of biogerontologists who are interested in applying biogerontological research to life extension are most appropriately described as biomedical gerontologists. These distinctions may seem hair-splitting to you and may even be too hair-splitting for Wikipedia, but having Leonard Hayflick contained under the rubric Category:Life extensionists is a terrible "gear-grinder". His attacks on every form of life-extension are vitriolic, he denies that it is either possible or desirable. Your putting Category:Life extension under Category:Anti-Aging medicine was a good fit, as were the other aspects of the category organization.

Your flattery is stunning. I would not call the chores of creating categories and classifying pages within categories the work of "wikignomes". As you can see from my contributions, I do a lot of work trying to add peer-reviewed journal citations, but I get involved with some conflicts over page deletions, mergers, etc. I created Category:Biogerontologists, Category:Cryonics and a number of others and feel that the clarifying value of these contributions was no less than scientific citations. I challenged some of your initial edits to Life extension but backed-off and have not even examined the page for quite a while (I will eventually go back and revise some of the revisions you and others have made).

At your suggestion I have created the account User:Ben_Best and have made one edit (to my TALK page) under that User and may add some more. Thank you for looking after my interests in this regard, that was very solicitous of you. I have recently had a strong taste of WikiNastiness from User:CRANdieter who created that identity -- as a paradoy on my practice of Calorie Restriction with Adequate Nutrition (CRAN) -- for the specific purpose of attacking me as a means to the end of imposing his POV on Alcohol consumption and health. His first two contributions (and his most recent Special:Contributions/CRANdieter) were attacks on my character designed to discredit preceding more aggressive moves in putting his POV in the article. I suspect that he is also using the sock puppets User:Happy Savage and possibly other IP addresses -- main account possibly being User:Medical Man. This is mainly speculation on my part, but apart from the actual issues involved the tactics are the worst I have yet seen on Wikipedia. It symbolizes all the worst that the critics say about Wikipedia. I prefer discussion to fighting, but there seems to be no grounds for discussion in this case. Anyway, that is a long digression on one of my least scholarly wikipedia experiences. Being a "wikignome" is far better than being involved in this kind of crap. It does at least demonstrate what nasty people can do. Thank you again for your suggestions on my behalf in this regard. Your contributions to Wikipedia have been stunning and I am sorry that our relationship began on such a sour note. --Ben Best 07:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you have to watch out for that unsigned bug in Wikipedia. If you leave off in the middle of a post to have dinner and then come back and finish the post, you may have been automatically logged off in the meantime, even though the top of the page indicates that you are still logged on, even after page refresh. --Transhumanist 17:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that I never stated that classifying pages for categories was wikignome-level work. I pointed out that could (and should) be done from a work list using codes (which is much faster). I did state that placing category tags on pages is wikignome work. The placement of the tags can be made by wikignomes from the codes you have placed on the work list. I view classifying and tag placement as seperable tasks, and the latter is much more tedious than the former, but also requires no expertise on the part of the taggers if they are directed by experts (as in the case of a work list). --Transhumanist 17:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As for splitting hairs on the categories, life extensionists include non-researchers and activists, and therefore is a broader category than a researcher list, and so it doesn't strictly qualify as the subcategory of research categories. But we are looking for a best-fit, rather than perfect fit -- in this regard I treat the category system as a big see also reference list (there are thousands of instances in which the cat system is used in this way). If part of a category fits under another category, and there is yet no subcategory representing that part, then the whole cat can suffice. I was considering creating Life extention activists, and life extension researchers and life extension authors as subcats, but the list of LEists isn't big enough yet to warrant that kind of support. The important thing is that readers can browse the cats and find everything on a subject. But due to the quirks in the cat system, it can never be complete. Thus my preference for lists. But between cats and lists, together they do a pretty good job. Cheers. --Transhumanist 17:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] opinion

As an editor of Lists of topics, I'd like your opinion at Topics redesign. Thanks. --gatoatigrado 15:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userfied

Please note that I userfied User:Transhumanist/Categories vs lists. If you'd like it in project namespace again, I'd recommend to keep it better in line with the Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes guideline, weighing advantages AND disadvantages. Also it shouldn't be presented as if the choice between Categories and Lists is exclusive, as if you can't have them both for several topics. See intro of Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes.

Alternatively, instead of having a separate essay on "Categories vs lists", you could cooperate with Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, of course. Some of your ideas seem perfectly compatible with that guideline. --Francis Schonken 09:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)