I'm back from wikibreak, although I won't be editing as much, I can still slightly participate in the VC. Nol888_(Talk)^{(Review me please)} 12:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I'll start posting in your section again. The Transhumanist 18:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extranet ^talk 20:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. Thanks. The Transhumanist 18:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Transhumanist,

I am trying to start a new category:"Intelligent Adaptive Systems" and link it to "Artificial Intelligence", "Transhumanist" and "Technological Singularity" .

I have registered myself. And now, how do I creat the category, link it with related categories and post my article?

Please help me out!

-Opulent123

Hi TT. Can you do me a flavour? See ALoan's comment at the foot of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bill O'Reilly (cricketer). I suspect you're not a cricket expert... am I right? If so, a review from you (warts and all) would be excellent. --Dweller 15:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. Glad to be of help. The Transhumanist 15:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I presume you're "in progress" and the appearance of your sig will show that you're done! Glad you mentioned you're cricket-ignorant. Helpful. --Dweller 16:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Added another observation. Done for now. Cheers. The Transhumanist 16:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thagyoo. Sorry for edit conflicts. Too eager. --Dweller 16:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, mate. By the way, do you have a virtual cold or something? The Transhumanist 18:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wondering could you move User talk:The Transhumanist/Help me to User talk:The Transhumanist/Help me 2 so that all the info/discussion is kept together? Thanks :) --Quiddity 19:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'm glad you caught that. Instead, I've created the new version's talk page, and provided a link to the previous version's discussion. I believe that all of the objections in that discussion have been addressed in the nature of the new version, but if you believe otherwise, please feel free to bring up any points you may have on the new talk page, and I will be happy to address each and revise the page accordingly. Let me know if it is NPOV enough. By the way, I've tracked down the discussion resulting in the new version, in case you are interested. It's at User talk:The Transhumanist/Archive 3#Community Portal Notice. The Transhumanist 19:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for my barnstar. that's my first award, and i'm rather pleased with it (and the article). Thanks for your input on tidying it up! Owain.davies 20:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know that I'm impressed, and that your efforts did not go unnoticed. Keep up the good work! The Transhumanist 22:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		Dweller's RfA Nominator Award
		Thank you to my three original nominators for their kind faith in me. I've already started getting everything wrong, so feel free to point out my horrendous errors. RfA was far less gruesome than I expected, thanks to your lies fullsome praise of me. I am mopped. Vandals look out. Thank you. PS When did you guys meet up... and which one is you? --Dweller 09:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)}}[reply]

Anthony was in on it from the start. I'm afraid it was my fault that he was forced to tack-on his co-nom. The Transhumanist

Template:LBT backlink has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Quiddity 17:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me. If you think the backlinks are awkward, then I guess they should go. Perhaps we can work on another approach some other time. The Transhumanist 22:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well as long as I am on Wikipedia, I humbly accept your offer..----Cometstyles 21:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you'll stay, you're a Wikipediholic! Welcome aboard! Your training will take place at the User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom in the coaching section. I'll set up a subsection for you, and will meet you there. Be sure to say hi to everyone and get started on the general assignments. In the meantime, we'll analyze your contribs and will ask you questions. Good luck, and have fun! The Transhumanist 21:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I must warn you that I'm not Alcoholic but for now I must leave but I will be back in around 15 hours..Cheers..----Cometstyles 21:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That cinches it. As for alcoholism, well, drinking and editing Wikipedia don't mix well, so I'm glad to hear it. And by "stay", I meant in the long-term sense, like, I bet you're still here in a month! The Transhumanist 21:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TT! I was just wondering if you could give me an adminship assessment. I saw your comments on Cometstyles's page and I thought that your analysis was thorough, and was wondering if you could do the same for me. Real96 01:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to...

Real96,

I assume this is your first username, and that you haven't run for adminship under another username. Is that correct? Well, looking over your contribs, I'm impressed that you are virtually upon your 10,000th edit. That's quite impressive, especially since you've only been here 5 months! If we had a bottle image Wikipediholic award, I'd give you one.

Starting with your talk page, I see that you act on your own independent assessment of a situation (which means you are quick on your feet), yet you learn from your mistakes rapidly and admit when you are wrong without hesitation most of the time. This is a very good combination of traits, worthy of an admin.

Browsing through your talk page archives, I spotted a couple posts concerning WP:PROD, one of which was an argument, which could have been resolved by your reading the policy before answering. I checked the dates, and the policy supported the other person's claims at that time. You need to practice due diligence wherever possible. Though based on your overall approach and willingness to learn, I'm sure you won't make that mistake again. I see that you generally and appropriately refer to policies throughout, pointing people to where they can check your actions. Very good. I'm impressed that lot's of people come to you for help, and even more impressed that you bend over backwards to help them. All in all, I'd say you are right on top of things. From your email, it is hard to tell you from an admin, and I spotted one instance in which you were mistaken for one. You act like an admin already!

I see you are using my editing nav header on your user pages. Out of curiosity, have you been getting much use out of it?

Looking over your contribs, I see that you are deeply immersed in Wikipedia administrative chores. I like that you participate in more than one area (checkuser and anti-vandalism). You are a proficient and prolific vandalism hunter, including proper user warnings. But I'm already convinced by your talk page archives...

My assessment is that the community would benefit by granting you Admin status, if only to remove the extra step of you reporting things on admin boards so that admins can do them. Better to just let you take care of it. Keep up the good work, and if you'd like me to nominate you, I'd be happy to do so.

Sincerely,

The Transhumanist 02:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your assessment, TT. I will keep that option open. I am wearing my glasses (reading) while I type this message. I probably won't run for adminship quite yet, because of the whole {{helpme}} ordeal on ANI, mixed in with IRC drama. Because of this, I will consider running in the near future (such as June). I am not a sockpuppet of anyone. I am just an energetic editor in this encyclopedia. Thanks for the assessment, and if you know of any tips in answering questions in RFA, please let me know. Real96 12:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can, but it's not those kind of questions you need tips on. You need to acquire an appreciation for what just happened to you, walk away from it (when it's over) with a lesson learned, and show everyone what you have learned from this experience.

See WP:COOL and http://www.wikihow.com/Handle-an-Irate-Customer-on-the-Phone. There is plenty more on how to communicate with difficult people and their difficult questions all over the web, and most of it can be applied effectively when communication difficulties surface. The main thing is not to get frustrated. Just relax. Keep in mind that diplomacy is your goal. You win if you remain the Nice Guy. I've had a couple steamblowing episodes or meltdowns of my own on Wikipedia, and it's taken a long time to live those down. Though it may seem silly, the method I use these days to stay calm is to visualize the cucumber man. He never gets riled. And his answers are always perfect. So I simply imagine what he would say, in his super deep voice, and base my answers on that. Though it can be tempting to just let it rip and tear a stubborn SOB a new pie hole, it doesn't serve anyone, it doesn't serve the project, and though there might be some immediate gratification, it isn't worth all the flack you will take from the community, nor all the lectures you'll receive (like this one).

Since you've asked for coaching advice above, I guess that makes me your defacto coach. Want to make it official? You know my terms (having read them in my offer to Cometstyles). Let me know if you agree to those terms, and I'll gladly be your coach (along with the whole team, of course).

In the meantime, here's an assignment intended to explore what just happened to you and provide yourself and Wikipedia with a benefit from it. There's very little in this encyclopedia on this type of thing (heated arguments, defusing arguments, the specific methods of dealing with assholes, irate customers, catfights, etc.). The closest topics I could find were conflict resolution, interpersonal communication, and stress management. Your assignment, should you take it on, is to identify and create more specific articles in this general subject area. I hope you are game, and I look forward to reading whatever you come up with. Good luck, and have some fun with it. The Transhumanist 17:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honored, and gratefully accept your offers. Thank you for the instructions. I'll see you there. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 18:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - sorry about adding the extra formatting, but seeing templates all crammed up next to one another drives me crazy ;-) awaiting your acceptance, then we'll transclude it to WP:RFA ~ Anthøny 19:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys, I had to jump on board as well - I'm still in shock! Ryan Postlethwaite 20:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've got my support mate. Best of luck, Dfrg.msc 06:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was just having a look around the virtual classroom and am largely impressed. Looks like a good resources. However, I've temporarily removed a few paragraphs that concerned me: [1]. Given that many users may be looking for guidance as to our policies from that page, I felt those paragrpahs were problematic. Edits to Wikipedia need to remain attributable to those who made them to conform to GFDL. If people save copies of deleted articles, improve them and repost them the original edits stop being attributable to those who made them, that why we have deletion review. The point of userfying content is that an admin can undelete the whole history and move it to someone's userspace, rather than only having a copy of the last revision. This really needs to be addressed rather than giving the impression that deleted articles can be recreated without undeleting the old revisions.

I do appreciate the irony of censoring a discussion of censorship but given that they are your words, I didn't want to change them myself. I do suggest you adjust them to make the statements more compatible with GFDL, epecially in light of the nomination I now see above. Dweller can no doubt tell you how tough I am on admin candidates who don't get the importance of GFDL :) .... WjBscribe 18:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur - WJB is tough on pretty much all Admin candidates ;-) all in the interests of the community ~ Anthøny 19:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, and for the clarification. I've fixed the passage for attribution. Please take a look and let me know if it can be improved further. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 20:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine. WjBscribe 21:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have just nominated Template:ARTICLESPACE/ and related templates, some of which I believe you created, for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:ARTICLESPACE.2F. Your comments would be welcome at that page. Thanks. Mike Peel 21:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of it. The Transhumanist 22:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As User:Go for it!, I believe you created Template:ARTICLESPACE/Portal and Template:ARTICLESPACE/Portal talk back in early 2006. Mike Peel 22:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like some sort of typo. You can speedy those. The Transhumanist 22:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I almost put this into the article, but I felt that it would be unseemly and too combative. I'd like it if you could deliberate on this outside of public glare; I sincerely want you to succeed and throwing this potential bomb out there right away is not going to help you. Now that that's said:

If you don't spend more time continuing the good work and less time trying to coddle/play with/sway the oppose votes, I will end up changing my vote to an oppose as well. This is a good example of an area you could improve on: wasting time with procedure and formalities when you don't need to. Trying to demonstrate to people that you hear their concerns and will work to change them is laudable. Trying to press the flesh of every person who raised a concern is another, especially when you have dealt with those opinions elsewhere. The votes will either come out in favor of you or against you, and being sarcastic with those giving oppose votes will not win you any allies that can help you in your adminship. I hope that doesn't sound snarky; I'm dead serious about this. I keep seeing your name pop up in my watchlist for this issue and that dismays me. Too much blather. I won't argue against your substance, as that wouldn't be warranted, but still: TOO MUCH BLARNEY! :D

Also, the line of smileys at the top of this ridiculously over-engineered page is blocking out other elements in Firefox, and maybe other browsers as well. --Edwin Herdman 05:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One problem I'm having with the RfA is that reasons from the previous RfA are being presented as unaddressed. Most of them have to do with the way I perceive or think about ambiguous or subjective things. The only way I can think of to address those items is to answer them. And if I don't, they'll simply remain unaddressed to crop up in the next RfA. Besides this, something seems amiss, because the reasons given cover the spectrum from too formal/bureaucratic to too experimental/radical. And those are polar opposites! And none of my friends tell me I'm formal or bureaucratic, and they aren't shy about speaking their minds. They generally lean toward the experimental/radical assessment intended as constructive criticism. :-) Which is why I know Quiddity is being sincere. It also means either that some of the participants don't really know what bureaucracy is, or... Well, your guess is as good as mine.

But, your vote reads more like an oppose vote than one of support, and above you've threatened me. How am I supposed to respond to that? Also, though it may appear that my intention is to answer all the opposes, I'm mainly interested in answering the suppositions that aren't repeated. Because others are citing those as their reasons. This RfA isn't over yet, and I would like those yet to visit the page to have the option when they do to read a rebuttle to each of those suppositions, upon which they can better judge the facts presented, now and later when this page is referred to in future assessments of me, made during RfAs or otherwise.

Your opposition to my addressing the issues presented concerning my potential effectiveness as an admin appears to be a variation of the magic bullet. By threatening discussion of the issues, you are interfering with the very purpose of the gathering: to discuss the issues to reach an informed decision. That's uncool, as it sets up a Catch 22 for nominees, in which they can't speak on issues pertaining to their suitability because that is defined as being unsuitable. It is a pernicious form of rhetoric that suppresses information which may help others assess them accurately, rather than merely upon spurious or unsubstantiated claims made by possible detractors. I believe that answering the concerns raised is the right approach, and in addition to this sets an example for others so that the RfA process may be reformed, and the number of unnecessary retries reduced. The reasons given in RfAs should be backed by concrete examples, and the participants should demand no less before making a decision based on the views presented by others. And nominees should demand no less while being subjected to the process. Otherwise, the process becomes subject to manipulation based upon personal feelings (such as grudges) rather than upon the ability and trustworthiness of the candidates. I feel very strongly about this, and though I appreciate your advice and have considered it at length, I must defy your threat and follow what I believe is the right course. I seek a fair discussion based on facts and concrete examples.

Sincerely,

The Transhumanist 07:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was afraid that an ultimatum would undermine my purpose. Be that as it may, the crux of my argument is that you seem far too interested in sanding away all the opposition with a fine grade of sandpaper. While you're certainly allowed to do that, it seems to me that you're wasting your considerable talents in what is a fruitless, and in this case counterproductive, endeavor at winning "hearts and minds."

I'm continuing to leave off revealing my change of heart in the thread so you can have some breathing room in which to consider this (which is why I didn't dump my retort in there as well, although the wording of what I have put it in was just bad enough that this wasn't apparent). --Edwin Herdman 08:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you shouldn't have posed it as an ultimatum. Though it hardly matters where it has been posted, here or there - it still comes across as part of the RfA, and as an "oppose". It will be read by some of the participants, and may even be referred to by someone. Therefore I had to treat it as if it were posted in the RfA itself. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 08:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon (GMT time) TT; as far as I can gather, you occasionally use IRC, and I was wondering if I could have a chat. Just type /msg anthony_cfc hey ;); if you're not registered, you won't be able to so just find me at #wikipedia-en and I'll set up a private chatroom.

Regards,
Anthøny 15:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't. I'm away from home and don't have install privileges. Sorry. Can do email instead. The Transhumanist 19:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - could you explain the reason for this edit to me please? Martinp23 20:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to... The div container was added to prevent the template from breaking the occasional table when inserted into them. The Transhumanist 18:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An offering of chocolate...

Hey TT, sorry your RfA isn't going too well. I confess I'm still rather sitting on the fence myself. I wanted to clarify- is [2] a withdrawal and request for your RfA to be closed? WjBscribe 01:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Others seem to agree that's what you meant so I've gone ahead and closed it. Feel free to shout at me if I was wrong. Sorry about the outcome. I offer some chocolate and my best wishes, WjBscribe 02:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see this. Please consider another RfA sometime soon, TT, because I really think you should be an admin. A lot of people do. G1ggy! 02:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try not to let this affect your desire to edit Wikipedia as your contributions are appreciated. GL. the_undertow ^talk 08:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the virtual chocolate. I took it as a cue to go out and buy some real chocolate. Thank you for the treat! It definitely lifted my spirits.

Whether I become a sysadmin or not, I will continue to do my best.

I appreciate your kindness and encouragment. Sincerely,

The Transhumanist

I'm so sorry about your RfA, you really should be an admin - I truly believe it. My opinion of the opposes wouldn't be welcome here so I'll stay quiet. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next time in an RfA, be it mine or someone elses, please feel free to express your opinions. But keep them WP:CIVIL.  :-) The Transhumanist 18:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I invite your presence on IRC or by email ~ Anthøny 08:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to catch up with you in email. The Transhumanist 18:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ryan. You totally deserve adminship, and it's a tragedy that the community won't give it to you. Walton^{alternate account} 09:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's always next time. The Transhumanist 18:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smiles are contagious, and I've definitely caught the bug. Thank you! The Transhumanist 18:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TT. I'm disappointed that your nomination was unsuccessful, and feel bad that it became somewhat gruesome at a time I wasn't around to help in any way. In some ways it reminds me of Budgiekiller's failed RfA - some of the opposes could be viewed as misconceptions, opposes based on out of date issues or opposes based on responses to opposes. I hope that the experience hasn't soured your views on the Project or adminship. I would suggest you stick to what you currently do well, maybe undergo editor review and then find a way to address remaining issues in your next RfA before !voting begins. Your friend. --Dweller 10:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I learned a lot, so I don't regret a moment of it. Thanks for the tips. The Transhumanist 18:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TT. I do hope you bounce back and avoid any hard feelings. RfA can be quite difficult but put it behind you and help us develop the project. Many people mentioned your helpfulness which is a huge plus for anyone. I'm sure you will analyze the issues and find a way to overcome in the future, to make whatever changes or adjustments are needed. JodyB _talk 11:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks coach! I'll give it my best. The Transhumanist 18:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey TT. I'd like to reiterate what Dweller said above. My first RFA was the most stressful moment in my Wikipedia experience. I took the next four months to work on everything levelled at me during that RFA and the next RFA was a considerably different experience! Keep up your great work around here, don't be disheartened, there are a good many of us who value your contributions enormously. All the best... The Rambling Man 11:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it. One thing I'd like to work on, is the stressful nature of the RfA process itself. This will entail setting an example for others in the various RfAs one participates in, in the way one responds to nominees and those judging them. Opposers are allowed to bend the rules a little too much in RfA, I believe, and get away with personal attacks veiled as reasons, flingling insults, etc. My recent experience has sensitized me to that, and if I notice it in an RfA I'm !voting in, even if I'm a fellow opposer, I won't stand for it. Then we'll see just how well I know policy. The Transhumanist

Well, we did the best we could mate. Although, I don't think the result was right, there's a lot to be leaned. Although I haven't yet been through an RfA, I am considering one very soon. It looks a harsh process. You'll always have my support, and if you need second nomination, I'd be honored. You've handled it extremely well. Admin or not, you are a true Wikipedian. Regards, Dfrg.msc 01:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem like a nice person. Can you help me with something? A few months ago (January), I created an article called the Swiss-Canadian war which got deleted. The people at AfD said they moved it to bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. In fact, you can find the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swiss-canadian war. Could you help me locate the article in BJAODN? Pahomeboy1992 00:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way would be to use Google's advanced search page' to search just Wikipedia. Go to Google, click advanced search, and fill in the appropriate fields (like the URL, which you can get from the address box of your browser when you are at Wikipedia's Main Page, or any other page). Note: if the page you are looking for is new, it will take a few days (and sometimes as long as 2 weeks) to be included in Google's database. But since this was way back in January it should be in there. So, go to Google advanced search to search Wikipedia only, and enter "Bad Jokes" "Deleted Nonsense" and any specific words or phrases that you can remember from the article - including the quotes as shown. If it is a BJAODN article, it should show right up in the search results. Try a few times using different phrases that you can remember from the article.

Another thing you can do is contact the person who reported that it was posted to BJAODN, and ask where it was placed. Or search their contribs, and then contact them if you don't find it.

I hope you are able to find it using the methods above. Good luck.

The Transhumanist 23:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to find the article. I search through contributions of the users and googled it. I was unable to find it. Could you be of further assistance in helping me locate it? Thanks! --Pahomeboy1992 00:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your support at my RFA. It ended successfully and I am now a glorified janitor. If I can be of any assistance please don't hesitate to contact me through my talk page. Happy editing! —Ocatecir ^Talk 18:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that your RfA was closed early and that you had made a comment regarding several oppose votes, mine included. Our prior interaction did not go very well, it was indeed the basis for my opposition. But I want you to know that it was not meant as an insult. It was only an attempt to point out what I perceive to be a serious flaw in your method of contributing to the wiki. The RfA seems like it meant a lot to you, I am sorry that it turned out to be a negative experience. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I learned a lot, and that's a good thing. If you wouldn't mind pointing out the interaction and examples to which you were referring, I'd be most grateful. Thank you. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 22:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The interaction is documented here. You brought up a concern about page protection and I directed you to WP:RPP. However, instead of waiting to see the result of the RPP request, you posted to both the Administrators' noticeboard and the village pump. While I have no objections to others discussing protection policy, I found it a bit unnerving that you chose to escalate a relatively straightforward interaction by involving the entirety of AN and VP readership. You appear to have a very thorough method of dealing with disagreement, but your relative lack of discretion may only incite disputes. Administrative duties require one to make tough decisions and go out of one's way to show respect for opposing viewpoints, I am not sure that you are capable of handling that. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Though I'm not as familiar with admin procedure yet as I'd like to be, because I've had no practice as an admin. So what you see as "relatively straightforward interactions" and corresponding examples of "lack of discretion" from an administrator's point of view, I'm ignorant of them as such, as I haven't gone through the admin learning curve yet. Though I'm willing to learn from each experience. Thank you for the feedback; it has helped me to see things from your point of view.

To shed light on my perspective, let me explain how I arrived at the approach I used. I helped attract 1000 people to the main page redesign discussion to generate consensus there, and have used a similar approach ever since, and have come to resort to the shotgun approach (by posting notices to all relevant pages) in attracting people to projects, policy discussions, and article content mediations, because it can be rather unlikely to attract the necessary input from a notice on a single page. So the more pages the better.

I naturally applied the same approach to this situation, not realizing there was a difference - until recently, I've viewed all discussions the same - believing the consensus-building process to be the same everywhere on the wiki. And it is, and it's not, depending who you talk to. The Wikipedia community is nothing if not highly dynamic.

In the future, I'll be more conservative with how I approach situations that have a formal request procedure. Thank you for pointing that out. The Transhumanist 03:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly believe you owe The Transhumanist an apology for using his failed RfA as an example in a current RfA. This user has actually been present in the current !voting process, and I applaud that as he is not taking a much deserved break. To opine at the expense of another is wrong in so many ways. the_undertow ^talk 10:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry if I've caused any offence, but surely we reflect on previous consensus or disagreement all the time on Wikipedia, using it to define policies and procedures. By citing a previous RfA within another I can only see this as valid and useful to a discussion, even if others view it the other way. I therefore feel unable to apologise for anything. I'm sorry if you, The Transhumanist or anyone else has construed this as offensive. Pedro |  Chat  10:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copied to you sir for information. I apologise if you have taken offence by my referencing your RfA within another - see here.

Thank you for your concern. Please allow me to clarify how I feel about all of this... Past behavior is certainly relevant to the RfA proceedings, and certainly the observations and opinions of that behavior is likewise relevant. I have no objections to bringing up past RfAs or to referring to past contributions, of mine or anybody else's, whether these be conflicts, helpful edits, harmful edits, or content. The activities of each of us here is an open book, which helps the community run more smoothly. The Transhumanist 02:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud you for your candor as well as your good faith. As you and I have never conversed, it should be well clear that I did not assert such an opinion out of loyalty, nor some editing kinship. I did so out of what I construe as a sense of duty. I clearly wanted your RfA to succeed. However, I would have acted as such, no matter what my opine. My intention is not to split hairs, but I do not act, nor have ever acted as if every written keystroke would go for, nor against my own RfA. I did so because it is in my nature. The weakest defense is to assert that others have not been offended. YOU may not find a grievance with those the actions of another, but please realize that I may. On a personal note, 'skinheads' does not offend my homeboys, however, I take offense of the term, regardless of where it is being directed. I may have 'Cracker' tacktooed on my person, but I do no tolerate the oration towards me personally. I am just that weird. the_undertow ^talk 10:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have received your message on my Talk Page. First, let me thank you sincerely for your kind offer of assistance. I am finding, unfortunately, that that is quite a rare bird on Wikipedia. Needless to say, I have many questions and issues with which I would like some help and/or clarification. But, let me begin with my initial question, which seemed to spark such controversy. There is an article on Wikipedia entitled: List of Black Academy Award winners and nominees. For the longest time, its title contained a lower case "b" in the word "Black". One day, out of the blue, an editor changed the lower case "b" to an upper case "B". I was just about to revert that change, when I thought it would be best to first find out for certain which is correct. Appealing to the Wiki community through "Help Me" requests, I received contradictory answers. The first response was lower case, the second response was upper case, etc. Rather than relying on one editor's interpretation of whether or not the "b" should be lower case or upper case, I then asked for someone to point me to an official source that delineates some rule / policy / preference of style in this matter. So, basically, if you can assist me -- at least initially -- with this request, I would be most grateful. My first question is: should the letter "b" in the title of the article List of Black Academy Award winners and nominees be a lower case "b" or an upper case "B"? My second question is: in light of your response to my first question, can you refer me to a source / policy / manual of style that supports your answer to my first question? Once again, thanks for your kind offer of assistance. It is sincerely appreciated, and I hope that we can work together to help improve and expand Wikipedia. Thanks! (JosephASpadaro 19:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

For Wikipedia's style guidelines on capitalization, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Capital letters. When a situation isn't covered in Wikipedia's MOS, usage defaults to the authoritative style guides for the English Language: The Chicago Manual of Style and Fowler’s Modern English Usage. Chicago provides an online guide, the Chicago Manual of Style Online. Style guides available at no cost are the Mayfield Electronic Handbook of Technical & Scientific Writing and the CMS Crib Sheet.

Basically, this is an issue of English grammar. The rule involved here is the capitalization of proper nouns. The phrases "Academy Award Winner" and "Academy Award Nominee" are registered trademarks, making them formal titles like the British Prime Minister, and therefore proper nouns. Proper nouns, that is, nouns that signify a specific thing are capitalized. For example, dog isn't capitalized, but "Scruffy", the neighbor's dog, is. The term academy awards would refer to awards given out by any academy, but Academy Awards signify the Oscars. But Academy Award is also a proper noun in its own right, so it is also grammatically correct to refer to an Academy Award winner using common English rules.

Being capitalized, "Black Academy Award" would be a proper noun, signifying the existence of an award known as that, or which implies the existence of a distinct ceremony called the "Black Academy Awards". But there is no such complementary award to the Best Actor Academy Award known as the "Black Academy Award", and there is no competing organization to the Academy Awards called the Black Academy Awards. A black man is not a Black man, just as a white man is not a White man, but to Native Americans, all white men were collectively known as White Man. Anyone can live in a white house, but only The President lives in the White House. Will the first black President of the United States be elected during our lifetimes? Maybe so.

Black is an adjective like any other. To test its usage here, substitute it with any other adjective. "List of three Academy Award winners, List of male Academy Award winners, List of canine Academy Award winners, List of deceased Academy Award winners, List of hospitalized Academy Award winners, etc. There's no way a general adjective like black or any of these other examples is part of a proper noun in this situation.

I hope this helps.

The Transhumanist 01:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt and thorough reply. I have read your response to my question, and I have reviewed the reference sources that you cite. Thanks once again. As background information for your consideration, I tend to be very linear, concrete, specific, and precise in my thought processes and, thus, in my communication as well. This is a result of both experience and training. So, you are ultimately saying that the letter "b" in the word "Black" from the title of that Academy Award article should not be capitalized but, rather, should be lower case ... is that correct? I have many more questions and comments, but I find it easiest and least confusing to proceed one-at-a-time. Thanks. Please let me know if I correctly understood your previous response. (JosephASpadaro 19:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, it is an adjective which is modifying a proper noun, and is not part of the proper noun itself. Therefore, it should not be capitalized -- as long as the consensus matches this conclusion: if not, the consensus holds sway. Manuals of style merely provide guidelines, and the consensus is not bound by them. Good luck. The Transhumanist 20:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC) (the IP I'm currently at is blocked, so I can't reply on any other page but this one. Sorry. I'll copy and paste this the next time I'm on another connection. -TT).[reply]

Thanks again for your reply. I appreciate that. I went ahead and made the change to lower case "b" in the title. Next on my list to ask you: Is or is not that question an appropriate and proper use of the Wikipedia "Help Me" function? By "that question," I mean the question concerning the correct usage of the upper/lower case lettter "b" in the word "black" in the Academy Award article title. Thanks. Please advise. (JosephASpadaro 03:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

First let me show you how to find that kind of information. Pagenames (without a namespace) that are enclosed within double curly brackets are known as templates. Templates are stored in the template namespace. The complete name for a template is the page name preceded by "Template:". Therefore the complete name for the helpme template is: "Template:helpme". To get there, type that into Wikipedia's search box (without the quotes), and press Go.

Now for the actual answer to your question: Yes, if you are a new Wikipedian. Here is the defined purpose of Template:helpme as posted on its talk page: "{{helpme}} is designed to provide help for new Wikipedians in building the encyclopedia. This excludes userpages and signatures." However, anybody can use it, and the person responding to your call for help is unlikely to refuse help based on your new vs veteran status. Though the more sophisticated your question, the less likely the responder will be able to answer. I've used it on a couple of occassions when I needed an answer right away (I never used it when I was a beginner).

Besides display a notice, all the template does is contains a category tag, which by virtue of being on your talk page, places your talk page in that category. That category is Category:Wikipedians looking for help, which is checked from time to time by people who wish to help newcomers to Wikipedia. Once you are up to speed on Wikipedia's basics, please be sure to return the favor and spend some time helping others who place {{helpme}} on their talk page. To do that, visit the category to see if anyone is on there. Generally, helpers make it a habit to check that page at least once or twice during each of their sessions logged on to Wikipedia.

Another help resource that is checked much more often by many more people is the Wikipedia's Help desk - volunteers sometimes even compete to be the first one there to respond to the next question that is posted. We also have the Wikipedia:Reference desk to help answer real-world questions. Your grammar question could have been asked at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language - that's where some of our grammar and linguistic gurus hang out.

The way I learned all this stuff was by exploring Wikipedia's help pages and departments. This is a lot easier now than it used to be, because now we have directories and better menus. The Transhumanist 20:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your prompt and thorough reply. I particularly appreciate the referral to the grammar and linguistics reference desk, as I anticipate that being quite beneficial. As a preliminary matter, how shall our conversations continue ... on my Talk page, on your Talk page, or alternating between the two? I am not sure how this process "normally" works. It seems easiest (for me) if it were on my Talk page -- since I would get that orange "You Have New Messages" banner alert. If it's on your Talk page, I assume that means that I periodically need to check your page for a reply. (Of course, the reverse of all of this is true for you.) Alternating between the two Talk pages seems the least desirable way and most confusing way -- as that does not lend itself to a consistent thread of conversation and imposes the extra burden of one of us having to constantly "cut and paste" the previous entry onto the other's page. That manner seems most inconsistent and hardest to follow. So, what say you on this matter? Thanks. Please advise. (JosephASpadaro 00:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It's important to utilize the orange alert in both directions. I like to keep a complete thread of the conversations I'm in. I recommend you do the same. With respect to our conversations, all you need to do is watch for the orange alert, reply on my talk page, and I'll do the rest. No worries. The Transhumanist 00:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that sounds good ... I will check for my orange message alerts, reply on your Talk page, and you do the rest. Thanks. Next concern: We have established that lower case "b" is correct for the Academy Award article title, and you have indicated that asking such was an appropriate use of the Wikipedia Help Me function. When you have a moment, please review my Talk page. What in the world is all the hullabaloo over such a minor, simple, and straightforward matter as to my asking a grammar question about the upper/lower case status of the "b"? Why did (or would) my simple and straightforward inquiry over such a minute matter cause such an uproar? Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 00:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It was nothing more nor less than a misunderstanding. No one bothered to check the definition of the purpose of Template:helpme, which is located in a notice at the top of the template's talk page. (It's for helping beginners to build the encyclopedia, so yes, writing according to Wikipedia's MOS is certainly included within that scope. To complicate matters, you are relentless/driven/determined, and that frustrated the other side as much as they frustrated you. Somehow it got heated, your actions were initially misinterpretted, it got taken to WP:ANI (see: [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive247#Trouble_with_User'''), and that's where I came in.

Let me explain how it apparently spiraled out of control, so you can see things from the other side's point of view. Wikipedia is bombarded by thousands of vandals every day, many of whom ravage the encyclopedia as many times as they can as fast as they can. To protect Wikipedia from them and to repair the damage they do, Wikipedia has a cadre of dogooders to counter this threat. Unfortunately, these heroes are greatly outnumbered. Therefore, they have to make decisions quickly, and if they occasionally mistake a user for a vandal, or mistake a good edit for a bad, then it is a small price to pay for the sake of fixing hundreds of instances of vandalism per day. Related to vandals are trolls. Some are simply maladjusted, but there are those who go around masquerading as Wikipedians and get into conflicts on purpose just for kicks and grins. Warped? Yes. And they are very harmful to Wikipedia, because they often take up the time of the very same people who protect Wikipedia from vandals. The tendency is to turn trolls over quickly to our sysadmins as soon as they are spotted, so they can be dealt with quickly to minimize their damage to Wikipedia.

You just happened to encounter one of our heroes taking a break from the battle on the front lines. He apparently wasn't as familiar with the details of operation of the helpme department, but wanted to help people personally for a change, and mistook you for a troll. I hope there are no hard feelings. It was an innocent misunderstanding, and unfortunately unavoidable given the constant threat Wikipedia is under.

The more you learn about the Wikipedia community, the more you will appreciate its multi-faceted nature. There are usually more than one way to get something accomplished, find the resources you need, hooking up with people, etc.

I highly recommend that you familiarize yourself with our directories and help pages. That will help you find your way around and to find the right people for the right task much more easily. And then sooner than you think, you'll be helping others just like I'm helping you right now. The main ones can be accessed from the pages on the main menu (see the Community portal, Help, and Contents). Good luck, and have fun, and by all means, keep asking away. I look forward to your next question. The Transhumanist 01:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your thorough and thoughtful reply. I have read and understood and can appreciate all that you have stated. And I can certainly appreciate the constant threat of -- and vigilance towards -- vandalism and trolls. Nonetheless, administrators on Wikipedia and those who opt to "help" on Wikipedia (i.e., voluntarily reply to posted Help Me requests) have a duty, responsibility, and obligation to newcomers. This includes: no biting, assuming good faith, no unfounded accusations of vandalism/trolling, civility, and having patience and understanding in dealing with questions and issues posed by novices. To not fulfill these responsibilities to newcomers is both harmful and counterproductive to Wikipedia. Not to mention, it is quite a turn-off to newcomers who are ready, willing, and able to contribute meaningfully. What say you regarding this issue? After your reply to this particular message, I will consider this particular thread resolved --- and will be ready to move on to some of the other threads / conversations that we have initiated. Thank you. (JosephASpadaro 18:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I agree. And as you would no doubt agree, nothing is perfect, including Wikipedia. I'm glad you can appreciate that Wikipedia is embroiled in a war with those who would do it harm. One unfortunate consequence of wars is the occurance of casualities, including those by friendly fire - the most tragic kind. While such are harmful and counterproductive to Wikipedia, there is no way to completely eliminate them - they are the price we have to pay for fighting vandalism and trolls. I apologize on behalf of Wikipedia, and will personally do my best to smooth out this current situation to the satisfaction of all. I also look forward to answering further questions you may have about Wikipedia, the Wikipedia community, and their operations. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 01:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As I stated in my last message, I was hoping to resolve this particular thread and move on to another. But, of course, the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry. Let me summarize: (1) You are aware of my concern with whether or not the “b” in “Black” is capitalized in the Academy Awards articles that I mentioned. (2) You are also further aware of the “Help Me” problems that precipitated your intervention and offer of assistance. (3) I assume that you are also further aware that a Wikipedian by the name of Real96 was involved in the “Help Me” issues and problems that I was encountering. Once you intervened, we (you and I) discussed and concluded that the “b” in “Black” is indeed lower case rather than upper case and I then went ahead and made that change. Since then, further developments are as follows: the Wikipedian by the name of Real96 has subsequently reverted my edits and changed the “b” back from lower case to upper case. I could go on and on about what my skeptical side is presuming, but I will take the higher road and adhere to assuming good faith. Please see List of Black Academy Award winners and nominees. Also, please see Academy Award. In both articles, if you look in the History tabs, you will notice that I changed the “b” to lower case … and rather promptly, Real96 reverted my edits, changing the “b” back to upper case. At this point – and in light of your offer of intervention and assistance with the “Help Me” problems – what is your suggestion regarding this issue and these edit changes? Thank you. (JosephASpadaro 05:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Communication is the key. Being a community, where it is inevitable for its members to work at counter purposes to each other or to disagree from time to time, Wikipedia by necessity operates by consensus. When there is a disagreement, the procedure is to just keep discussing the matter (and posting neutral notices at relevant notice boards and other pages to bring in more discussion participants) until a mutually acceptable solution can be found or overwhelming majority is reached. Repetition of arguments is usually futile, and progresses nothing. Instead, dynamically express the issue in different ways. Disagreements often reside in misunderstanding. Better explanations, and empathy, help to resolve this type of problem.

In this particular case, I've gone in and moved it back, with another explanation in the edit summary.

Other things you could try if there continues to be a dispute are:

1. Copy the grammar-relevant portions of this discussion to the article's talk page.
2. Provide quotes from the specific guideline that covers the issue (if any).
3. Present specific relevant examples from the authoritative guides or any good grammar resource (textbook or web site).
4. Explain it better, or just differently.

Obviously, every editor lacks knowledge of some grammatical rules. It is up to those who know the rules in a specific situation to politely educate the others involved. And that takes patience.

Everyone is a teacher here, as well as a student.

I hope that helps.

The Transhumanist 17:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Transhumanist. I wonder if you could please have alook at this page, and see if this would be a discussion that you would be willing to take part in. I look forward to your reply. Pastordavid 21:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have less time to spend on Wikipedia than I used to, but I will take a look. The Transhumanist 00:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting page. I think my problem has been with making assumptions about the RfA page, rather than with a specific editor. RfA is unique, and it is clear that some rules are not in affect there, or are at least are not consistently enforced. It is therefore easy to make the assumption that those same rules are not in affect for nominees as well. On closer analysis, no rules are rescinded for that or any other page, for any of the participants. The rules still apply, even the ones that don't appear to be applied there. I won't be making the same mistake again. I respectfully decline your offer of "informal" mediation, and will address Killer Chihuahua's objections in my next RfA, if I'm ever nominated again. Thank you for your concern. The Transhumanist 20:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly understand, and appreciate your thoughtful reply. If there is ever anything that I can do for you, please do not hesitate to ask. Pastordavid 20:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered the questions. Don't wait for me to do the assignment given to me. I can't do that because all I know and all that I don't know is there; then how can I do anything! thats doing a bit problem for me. I have got nothing to do in wikipedia except copyediting etc. I am saying this to make you expect a lot of edits in the article namespace--JasZZZ ^{Talk · Sign here} 18:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'd like to improve your copy-editing skills. Gotcha. No prob. The Transhumanist 20:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just started User:OhanaUnited/Local Events and Culture and I need some support to help kick start the page. See if you can help. OhanaUnited 04:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You supported my candidacy in my recently completed request for adminship. The debated ended 40/4/1 and I'm now an administrator. I'd just like to say thanks for taking the time to consider me, and thanks for the confidence in me. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified. Regards, WilyD

Hi. When you uploaded Image:Wikipedia one word logo.png, you did not specify complete source and copyright information. Another user subsequently tagged it with {{GFDL-presumed}} and, for some time, it has existed on Wikipedia under the assumption that you created the image and you agreed to license it under the GFDL. This assumption, however well-meaning, is not legally sufficient and the tag is being phased out. Images using it are being deleted.

This image has been tagged for deletion and will be deleted in one week if adequate copyright information is not provided.

If you, personally, are the author of this content, meaning that you took the photograph yourself or you created the chart yourself (and it does not use any clipart that you did not create), please retag the image with a free image copyright tag that correctly describes your licensing intentions, usually {{GFDL-self}} or {{PD-self}}. Please also make sure if you have not already done so that you write a good description of what the image depicts, when you took the photo, and other important details. This will allow Wikipedia to continue using the image.

If you did not create the image or if it is derived from the copyrighted works of others, please keep in mind that most images on the internet are copyrighted and are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others and does not use images unless we know that they have been freely licensed. Any creative work is automatically copyrighted, even if it lacks a copyright notice. Unless the copyright holder has specifically disclaimed their rights to the image and released it under the GFDL or another compatible license, we cannot use it. If you did not create the image, and cannot make the image compliant with Wikipedia:Non-free content, simply do nothing and it will be deleted in a week. All other non-free images must follow these rules.

Please feel free to contact me on my talk page or leave a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions with any questions you may have. Thank you. Aksibot 21:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image is a crop of a GDFL logo of Wikipedia, and therefore GDFL also. I've updated the tag. Thanks for the heads up. -TT 20:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		I award you this Brilliant Idea Barnstar for helping others to earn Barnstars and awards through your Award Center! • The Giant Puffin • 13:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Reedy Boy taking off! Hello The Transhumanist, Thankyou for voting in my RfA. You will be pleased to know that it has been successful!! Meaning that I, Reedy Boy, am now an English Wikipedia Administrator. It passed with a suprising 47/0/0, and I really am grateful of all your support, and I hope that I live up to your high expectations! If there is anything I can do to help you out, please, do not hesitate to contact me! Yours, Reedy Boy 16:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not thoroughly understanding now to use User talk, but I wanted to comment on a previous discussion regarding capitalizing "Black" in the article, List of black Academy Award winners and nominees. It's just as well that I start anew... Is it not correct to capilaize peoples' race? In one of your examples, you yourself use (correctly) "Native Americans." In this article title, of course "Black Academy Award..." was not referring to a proper name of an award. "Black" is not an adjective modifying "Academy Award," but rather, "Academy Award winners and nominees." It is identifying, by race, who is on the list. It is not "an adjective like any other." It is a proper name, "Black," when used here, like "Caucasian." Unless he just took a bath in black paint, no, a Black man is not a black man, but he is and always will be a Black man. From what I have been taught, and have been able to gather before writing this, race is a proper name, and should be capitalized. (it's not specified at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Capital letters but I did get this confirmed on the Chicago Manual of Style online guide Chicago Manual of Style Online.TienTao 21:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. FYI ... I posted the following message on the Talk Page of Tientao. As I stated to Tientao, I posted the question about capitalizing (or not) the word "Black" (race) at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language under the June 15 entry entitled "Question about capitalization." If interested, check that out. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 21:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

This is what I posted at Tientao's Talk Page: Hi. You posted the above on my Talk Page. Thanks. I am sorry that I was not able to reply sooner. You also posted the above on the Talk Page for a user named The TransHumanist. I was (sort of) waiting to see her reply, but as of yet, there has been no reply from her. In any event, I posted this very question on the Wikipedia Help Page that deals with Language. You can see here: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language under the June 15 entry entitled "Question about capitalization." Perhaps you might be interested in that conversation on that Help Desk page. Ultimately, I guess that whether or not to capitalize "Black" (race) is merely a matter of style and preference. But it seems that capitalized is better than not. Thanks again. (JosephASpadaro 21:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Uh, I thought it was obvious from my user page that I am a guy. That's not a girl flying on the magic carpet. Cheers.

Wow, that's strange. I never actually read your user page, perhaps just glanced at it quickly. I'm not sure what led me to the assumption that you were female?!?! Well, we all know what happens when we make assumptions ...  :) Sorry for the mix up. And thanks again for all your help. (JosephASpadaro 19:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The caps issue seems to check out. Black, Caucasion, etc. are generally capitalized. The Transhumanist 02:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, E ^talk 06:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our paths haven't crossed before, but I'm aware of your efforts of userspace design etcpp. As I can't think of a valid reason to post here so as to make you stumble upon my place, I'd love you to ^{(read: take your time)} take a look at my page and give me your opinion. BR, —AldeBaer 00:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

On your welcome page, the icons show up on the screen in the wrong place, overlapping with the footer. I don't get the point of the footnotes, nor of the emergency shut-up button. The Transhumanist 20:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you using IE? Someone who does told me the same about the icons. If there are any possible syntax improvements to make it work for all users, please let me know.

The point of the footnotes is to brag a little about knowing how to correctly format inline references, and - just like in an article - they look nice. The footnotes also give my welcome page a little more text to read than just the icon text. With the first footnote, I'm trying to encourage visitors to read my talk page. The talk page footnote is self-explanatory. The faux Emergency bot shut-off button was an idea I came up with a while ago and was reminded of on user:Luna Santin's userpage. I just like the idea of having a "hard-wired" belly-button. —AldeBaer 20:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using IE at the library lately. Your welcome page is appearing fixed. But on your user page, the giant flower seems to be covering up text. The Transhumanist 02:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's that image overflow code IE can't swallow. I've made an "IE compatible" subpage and linked to it. from my welcome page (in the footnotes). —AldeBaer 02:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you alter the page at User:Go for it!/table tests to prevent it from showing up on the Portal:Philosophy category (at Category:Philosophy portal). Alan Liefting 22:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The Transhumanist 02:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Are you still out here? I have not heard from you in quite a while. Please let me know. Thanks! (JosephASpadaro 23:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Not much these days. The Transhumanist 02:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be my admin coach please? Crunch13 01:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC) PS: Respond on my talk please! :) Crunch13[reply]

I currently have as many students as I can handle right now. Sorry. The Transhumanist

It looks like Black should be capitalized, because it refers to race. I've been finding examples all over the place. The Transhumanist 02:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for replying. It seems capitals work best for races. Thanks! (JosephASpadaro 02:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not logging-on to Wikipedia much these days. I'm taking an extended Wiki-break to write a book, learn a language or two, etc.

Though I'll try to pop in once or twice a week to field questions.

The Transhumanist 02:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, not a problem. I will post questions as needed. Thanks for all your help! (JosephASpadaro 02:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Erm, I'm having difficulty organizing my userboxes into boxes and making them look neat. Any suggestions? Caterfree10 19:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look, and it looks okay to me. What's up? The Transhumanist 02:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking over the help desk, and couldn't find any posts from you on there. I'm looking forward to awarding you a barnstar when you reach 200 users helped. To get you started, I'm posting a question there about the assessment drive. The Transhumanist 02:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your concern. In fact, I have not yet helped anyone. The help desks and reference desks that I could possibly help in were in my watchlist for a while, but several things came in my way. First, there was the assessment drive, which took a lot of my time and attention, and most importantly, I did not have access to the internet for about two weeks. Therefore, I could not contribute to Wikipedia as much (apart from some little apparitions during my free time at school). Now, my internet is back, and I am not spending too much time on the assessment drive, so I will see if I can help any users on the help desks and other pages. However, I will probably not reach 200 users helped after a long time. My point is to see how I can help users, not trying desperately to get a barnstar. ^^ Thanks a lot for reminding me! ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 12:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good attitude. And you'll be surprised how fast your help count can rack up. I look forward to seeing you at the help desk. The Transhumanist 21:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion, and by no means necessary or required... Please consider creating a user page for yourself - it need not be fancy, a paragraph or two about yourself would do - to help the rest of us get to know ya. You could tell us about your background, areas of interest, anything about yourself you wanted (as long as it's rated PG or G).  :-) No hurry, but your signature turns up red because you don't have a user page, one indication to others that you are a newbie. The Transhumanist

Hi, there. Yes, I agree. This is on my "to do" list. Hopefully, when I have some free time, I can create a user page. That I constantly show up as a "red link" is certainly not my ideal. I will get to this -- it's only a matter of time. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 19:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Some users start out with a single sentence as their user page. Or a paragraph. It need not be more than a 2 minute chore to get started. It's very easy: just click on your red user name and start typing in the edit box provided. "Hi, I'm Joe, and I think Wikipedia is the greatest thing since sliced bread." Or whatever. You can always add more or change it later as you come across interesting stuff or think of things. The Transhumanist

Point well taken. I have (finally) created a User Page ... if you can really call it that, at this point. Take a look. Thanks! (JosephASpadaro 16:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Yaaaaaay! The Transhumanist 00:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you're taking somewhat of a Wikibreak. I added my name to the lists and such because I thought that was what the page implied to do. However, I think I may have acted in haste by not coming here first. Well, anyway, I am interested in participating in your program. I'm in no hurry to become an admin, but it is a goal for the future. When you have time and begin accepting more students, I would like to participate. If it's not a bother, just drop a line on my talk page when that time comes. If I need to remove my name from the project lists, just let me know. Thanks for your time. LaraLove^T/_C 21:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of coaches associated with the project, so don't worry about it. You are more than welcome to join in and participate. I and the other coaches would be glad to take you on. We don't turn anyone away who is sincere in their desire to improve Wikipedia. And one of my students is about to graduate, so no problemo. The Transhumanist 00:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! Thank you. LaraLove^T/_C 06:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Joseph. You are being discussed here, in case you'd like to join in. Regards, Bishonen | talk 10:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No, but thanks. (JosephASpadaro 20:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, I am curious to know ... what was the "end result" of all this? Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 21:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The discussion was its own result. This happens fairly often on WP:ANI. Bishonen | talk 23:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

So, in other words ... "much ado about nothing" ...? (JosephASpadaro 23:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Nope. It simply ceased to be a problem. The misunderstanding was straightened out, with no need for follow-up at ANI.

By the way, how have you been doing on Wikipedia these days? Is there anything that perplexes you, or which you are having trouble acclimatizing to? Have you got a handle on our consensus-builing process yet? And have you read my lesson on Learning the ropes yet? I'm curious whether or not you found that useful, or if it needs improvement. Suggestions welcome. Sincerely, The Transhumanist

Hello, there. Thanks for your message. Sorry that it has taken me so long to get back to you. I have been doing great on Wikipedia, thanks for asking. I am learning my way around, so to speak. One important note is that, rather than asking questions with the "Help Me" template, I have found that it is more effective to ask at the various Help Reference desks. So, thanks for pointing me in that direction. I am still in the process of reading through all of the materials / lessons / tutorials / etc. that you have sent me. There is a lot there, and I have not had a great deal of free time as of late. But they are all still on my to do list, at which I am slowly chipping away. I will provide some feedback to you at some point after I have read through them all. My constitution is such that I would rather do things right than to do them fast. Thanks for all your help. (JosephASpadaro 18:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

No problemo. Yes, the desks are cool. I'm glad you have found them helpful. I'm glad to see you are finding your way around okay. If you need anything, just holler. The Transhumanist 20:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TT. I was going trough E's contribs and I think he's ready for adminship. I've been having a series of conversations with E via e-mail, and I gave him a few suggestions. I was going to nominate him for adminship, but I just found out you're his admin coach, so I need your approval to nominate him. Please let me know if you haven't finished coaching him, and I'll gladly back off until you're finished. Yours sincerely, Eddie 18:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TT! You're the only person I had left to pop in and say hello. Well, regarding the RfA offer, I believe I have the knowledge and determination to become an administrator. I've carefully read most of the virtual classroom, administrators reading list and many other pages about sysops, there's just too many to mention. If you're up to approving Eddie's offer, I believe the RfA will go pretty well. Anyway, leave me a message and feel free to chat on IRC. Have a great day! — E ^talk_bots 20:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hell yes. I give my complete support and would be honored to co-nominate if Eddie doesn't mind. I'm impressed with your participation in administrative and help departments (bots, help desk, various reporting pages, etc.). It would serve Wikipedia better if you were made an admin so you could directly handle the problems you encountered rather than refer them to another admin. The Transhumanist 00:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much TT. It's much appreciated. Eddie should leave you a note soon. — E ^talk_bots 02:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you're on board, TT. Get started on the statement you're going to make, and, when you're ready, we'll get this thing going. Happy editing! Yours sincerely, Eddie 03:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to denigrate your efforts, but your additions to the already large 'see also' section don't seem that helpful. Most of the links are already in the article (such as life, which is in the first line), and Wikipedia guidelines say to avoid repeating links already present. Some of them are also drifting off topic a bit, such as meaning of life. Please see the manual of style for information on this. Richard001 02:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to discuss this split both on the philosophy project pages and on the meaning of life page. No one gave any good reasons not to make the split. 'The meaning of life' is a genuine philosophical topic - one that I lecture on. The existing 'meaning of life' page is a nightmare, and any attempt to turn it into an encyclopedia article is likely to fail. The new 'meaning of life (philosophy)' page offered an opportunity to develop a well referenced philosophy entry on the topic, with a talk page that actually related to the encyclopedia article.Anarchia 11:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the article might be considered a nightmare (due to how often it is edited?), the philosophy section was quite stable. Removing it (splitting it off) unbalances the article, which some visitors are likely to read straight through without hyperjumping to another page. The Transhumanist 21:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Meaning of life. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. --L^augh! 19:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted in-text tags that were beginning to choke the article. If there's that much that needs to be done, put a single tag at the top of the page, and clarify it on the talk page. Otherwise its just a big mess that's hard to read. Meanwhile, please do not delete content (an entire section) from pages on Wikipedia as you did to Meaning of life. Your edits were not constructive, and your reason (that the list was random) does not apply (because the list was indeed anything but random, and was right on-topic). The Transhumanist 22:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm interested in joining. How do I do that? I put my name in at admin coaching, but it's completely backed up :) Smokizzy (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my analysis of your contributions, you would benefit more by being a coach rather than merely having one. You know how to find things on Wikipedia better than most, and therefore, you would be great at answering student's questions, and applying Wikilogic to an analysis of their performance and how to improve it. Having students / leading others would also provide you with a strong context in which to rapidly assimilate the portions of Wikipedia you (and its policies) which you are not yet familiar with. So yes, please join, but please do so as a coach. If you would like me to coach you in your coaching, I'd be happy to do so. Your first assignment is to sign up as a coach over at admin coaching, adopt a couple of students from the requests list, and invite them to the Virtual Classroom. Be sure to read the coaching instructions at admin coaching. I look forward to working iwth you at the VC. The Transhumanist 21:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm flattered, dunno about the coaching thing though. I wouldn't know how or what to tell adoptees, being as I'm a pretty bad communicator. :) When are you on irc? Smokizzy (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. My system is down, and I'm using library computers to access Wikipedia for the time being.

Based on your contributions and talk page posts, I'd say your message writing ability is first rate. As for what to tell adoptees (all previous coaching posts are right there on the VC), it is simply a matter of finding the answers on Wikipedia, and passing them on - and my guess is that you are adept at finding answers (that's one of the main things administrators do). Besides, that's the whole point of this assignment: to provide a context in which to learn Wikipedia better. Administrators are expected to know Wikipedia like the back of their hands, and coaching will speed things up for sure. There's nothing like questions from another person to get you diggine. Consider it a challenge.

Do you accept this challenge?

Besides, one of the first things the coaches at the VC do with new students is grill them mercilessly: with questions, many not unlike those which users ask admins or at the help desk. So you'll be asking and answering questions one way or the other.  :-)

You have acquired some specialized knowledge about Wikipedia (in departments I've never been involved with), and you know your way around Wikipedia well enough to be of help to others.

Also keep in mind that the coaches on the VC work as a team. We all share students. Any students you bring there will have all of us as coaches.

So, can I introduce you to your co-coaches?

The Transhumanist 19:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, you've convinced me. I accept the challenge. But first, can you tell me how you see all the good things you've said about me? :) Where do I go from here? Smokizzy (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the left, in the toolbox menu of the sidebar (for those using the default "monobook" skin), is the "User contributions" command. It shows up on the menu when you are on another user's user page. Also, I analyze your contributions using Interiot's "wannabe Kate's tool" edit counter - there's a link to it at the top of my tools page (see my menu system on my user page).

Glad to have you aboard! The Transhumanist 22:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed that this article be deleted. You may wish to comment. Banno 07:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't. I'm sure it can be fixed, or placed somewhere else in context. The Transhumanist 20:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of philosophy component types Please comment. Banno 00:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How you doing? --Dweller 11:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a user who's unilaterally pushing his changes on Meaning of life against the current consensus, inciting an edit war with me. I keep revert his blanking of an entire section there, but he won't listen to reason. Other than that, I'm fine.

We've got another student at the VC, and I've invited another coach above. The VC team could probably handle a few more students. Feel free to invite some (be sure to see the coaching instructions at the admin coaching page). The Transhumanist 20:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please see my interfering, but well-intentioned post at Talk:Meaning_of_life#Popular_beliefs. --Dweller 13:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You snipped an edit war at the bud. Nice job. The Transhumanist 07:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thagyoo kindly. Sometimes it's helpful to have intervention from someone who doesn't really know/care that much about the topic! --Dweller 08:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Good to hear from you. The Rambling Man's a good one to ask re GAC. There are definitely differences in quality required (otherwise there'd be no point in differentiating between FA and GA) but process-wise, I'm unsure, as I've never worked on a GA. On your other point, I'm happy to help. Just a thought... how about adding yourself to the "students"? Can't hurt, can it. And shows a nice dash of humility, to take the flak, not just dish it out, lol! --Dweller 08:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always up for learning more about Wikipedia. Thanks for the idea! The Transhumanist 08:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are too sophisticated in the ways of Wikipedia, Transhumanist, for me to be sure how to communicate with you without tromping in the wrong place, but I will place here my alert that I have answered your question in the Reperfusion section of my Talk Page. --Ben Best 05:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Took me awhile to come across this, but I'll be sure to read your response. Thank you! The Transhumanist 08:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]