User talk:Metamagician3000/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello Metamagician3000/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia

How to edit a page

Help pages

Tutorial

How to write a great article

Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Solar

Thank you. :) Metamagician3000 02:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Goth Article

There has been another edit to the Goth article. Although i know a lot on the subject, im extremely biased in my view and as such am not the best person to check it. Your recent activitys show a lot of editing on the Goth article, and as such i deem it most appropriate to suggest you add the article to your watchlist, and copyedit any contributions made to make sure they fit both the style of writing and NPOV. Leyasu 10:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look. I'm no great expert on it, but the article attracted my attention and I'm happy to watch it for copyediting issues etc. Thanks. Metamagician3000 10:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Transhumanism-related articles

You may have already noticed but I just wanted to let you know that I created stub articles for human enhancement and NBIC. We can work together on expanding them. --Loremaster 04:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I've done some work on the human enhancement article, and I see you've followed up. Metamagician3000 03:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That was good idea for the Criticisms section. I've done some work on it which I think you will like. --Loremaster 16:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Great work! For some time, I've had at the back of my mind that more structure was needed here. My go at it was pretty rough, but the work you've now done has turned it into something very good. Metamagician3000 22:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Cyberpunk and List of works thereof

Thank you for your edits to Cyberpunk and the List of cyberpunk works. I found that giving a general overview of that particular genre requires sifting through the thoughts of both postmodern lit-crit jargonists and role-playing game buffs, two of humanity's most impenetrable subcultures. (Personally, I'm a poser in both.) Extra brainpower is always appreciated! Anville 15:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

I actually have a lot of views about these topics, coming at it from the "pure" science fiction end more than from either of those places that you mentioned. I'll see if I can do some more work on the "list" article at some point, while not going overboard. Sometimes you have to restrain yourself when you know a lot about aspects of a topic, or so I'm finding. I'm a bit puzzled at the moment that some things are said to be "precursors" of cyberpunk, though they appeared after stories like "Burning Chrome".

I'm very happy with the cyberpunk article itself in its current form. Keep up the good work! :) Metamagician3000 00:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I have also noticed that I have to restrain myself on topics where I am opinonated and/or knowledgeable—the latter being even worse than the former, since I generally have the integrity to know when something is just my opinion. But when I'm full to bursting with arcane knowledge, sometimes I just can't shut up.

Way back when, people started adding a "laundry list" of books, movies and whatnot to the cyberpunk article. I branched it off to its own page when I first got involved in improving the WP's cyberpunk coverage. At the very least, I figured, this would help keep the cruft from overwhelming the content! Writing a good historical overview and definition of the genre seemed more important than arguing over the inclusion of this or that work nobody has heard of anyway. The downside is that now we've got a page which is nothing but disputable content and borderline original research. . . .

I've been trying to make sense out of the whole "precursors" thing for a while now. Such a designation seems to be a junk bin for all the things which people see as vaguely "cyber" and a little "punk", and which were written before 1980 or so. I don't like calling these "precursors", since that implies a causal connection which we don't verify. To me, a precursor is something which made William Gibson sit down and say, "I'm going to write about people plugging their brains into computers." Does Metropolis qualify? Maybe, maybe not. Like somebody said, "No man is the literary Adam" (quoted in Borges, This Craft of Verse).

Before I tried to become a scholar on the subject, my own recreational reading skipped past the cyberpunk canon. For some reason, my bookshelf jumped from the Asimov of the 1970s (like The Gods Themselves) to the Greg Egan and whatnot of the early 1990s (Quarantine and so forth). And I managed to meet postcyberpunk before the "vanilla" kind: Stephenson, Transmetropolitan, Stand Alone Complex.

Anyway, thanks again. Suggestions and further edits are always welcome. Be seeing you. Anville 09:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll return at some stage to the list of cyberpunk works article. This looks like an article where it would be very easy to step on people's toes, so I'll be cautious about any edits. Yes, it's a good idea to have the article to siphon off dubious material from the cyberpunk article itself. Metamagician3000 22:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Goth Article Revisted: Part 2 (The Satanic Accessories)

Despite my attempts at humour in the header, you hit the nail on the head with what i meant. Ive been distracted all morning so apologies if i messed up my edit. Ill go correct it now. Leyasu 12:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That looks fine to me, though some others might disagree with it. I'll sit back and watch. :) Metamagician3000 23:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Social construction

;-) Velho 17:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Pynchon FA and a question about deconstruction

Hello—me again!

I noticed you did some work on deconstruction, and since I'm currently nursemaiding the Thomas Pynchon article through the FA process, I thought I'd ask you about something. Under the "Recurring themes" section, that article says in part,

Along with its emphasis on loftier themes such as racism, imperialism and religion, and its cognizance and appropriation of many elements of traditional High culture and literary form, Pynchon's work also demonstrates a strong affinity with the practitioners and artefacts of low culture, including comic books and cartoons, pulp fiction, popular films, television programs, cookery, urban myths, conspiracy theories and folk art. This blurring (or deconstruction) of the conventional boundary between "High" and "low" culture is seen as one of the defining characteristics of postmodernism.

Is this among the valid uses of the term "deconstruction"? It seems a little borderline to me, but I'll freely admit I don't know all the ways authors have used that word. If it is valid, it's still a little kooky: if mixing "high" and "low" culture makes one a postmodernist, then even people who can't stand pomo deconstructivist babble are postmodern gurus! (I'm thinking of Bill Watterson here, primarily.) It's a great "heads I win, tails you lose", viral-meme sort of ideology.

Besides, I really dislike weasel locutions like "is seen as one of the defining characteristics". . . Thoughts?

Best wishes, Anville 08:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. I have removed the parenthetical bit. Anville 08:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The remark has been reinserted, in a more weaselly and qualified phrasing than before. Rather than fuss about it, I'm going to go work on something else. Anville 15:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to worry. I must have a look at the article later. Metamagician3000 23:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure I am being snitty about my "golden words" being mangled. . . You'd think that after 3 kilo-edits, I'd be more used to the Wiki Way! (-: Apropos something completely different, I happened to notice your essay on Brave New World. For an SFnal example relevant to your argument, you might like to check out David Weber's latest Honor Harrington novel, At All Costs (2005). Anville 13:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Random amusement in the knowledge web

I took a break from cyberpunk, Pynchon and so forth to do a little work on Biblical higher criticism. As I discovered, tracing the history of one disputed phrase takes one back to the first man in Christian history to be executed for heresy, then leads one through Erasmus, Isaac Newton, John Locke and a pope who might have been murdered by Fascists. Isn't scholarship a crazy and wonderful thing?

Anville 15:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

And now look what you've made me do! I've just expressed an opinion about merging higher criticism and historical-critical method. :) Metamagician3000 00:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a better use of time than what I spent the morning doing—see Talk:Comma Johanneum#My more detailed comments. Anville 11:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, I've just read this article and your analysis on its talk page ... I'm impressed by your scholarship! Metamagician3000 01:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! What a nice message to see over my breakfast of soda and chocolate. I was thinking of adding a "Context" section between the intro and "Origins", just a couple paragraphs to explain what 1 John 5 is doing and bring up the point on Greek grammar. With that, a little more in "Modern views" and maybe some touch-ups in the lead, I'd be willing to give it a run for FA. (The peer review doesn't seem to be attracting much attention, but then again, this isn't exactly a video of a naked celebrity. Although I was thinking of getting the movie rights and writing a screenplay, to be called Three Witnesses. My inside man in Hollywood says we can get Ed Norton to play Priscillian of Avila, Patrick Stewart as Erasmus and Sir Ian "Serena" McKellen as Isaac Newton. Helena Bonham Carter blew everyone away when she read for the Holy Spirit, but the grapevine says she's holding out for the role of the Beloved Disciple.)

Be seeing you. Anville 08:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply to your comment at Wikipedia:Userbox_policy_poll#Oppose

Please see. I look forward to your response. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

See my comments on your talk page and on the page concerned. :) Metamagician3000 10:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Flamarande

Look, if you don´t agree with the this unofficial and sneaky redirect/userboxes "burning campaing" then oppose it. Follow the oficial/legal channels and vote "Strong Keep" in Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. If you are too lazy or too afraid to do anything about it, then don´t complain about it. At least it will be debated and perhaps even defeated. Flamarande 19:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want oppose the whole "burning campaign" then go to Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll and vote! Flamarande 19:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC!

Actually, at the policy level I'm now content with the policy proposal as long as Pathoschild's project keeps going, but I'm happy to discuss it on its merits. I have been voting against some template removals, etc.., but I wasn't aware of "Redirects for deletion". I'm still learning here. :) Metamagician3000 23:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox.

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Pynchon (reply to comment on my Talk page)

I see this article has been awarded feature article status. Cool! Metamagician3000 01:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have a whole bunch of other things going on in my so-called "life" right now, so for the next couple months I'll be resting on my FA laurels. In May or thereabouts, I expect to come back and do some good things for The Foundation Series, which was recently de-Featured. Anville 14:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks like I'm taking a vacation from my wiki-vacation today, to play whack-a-mole with vandals on the Thomas Pynchon article. Oodles of fun! Now, the challenge will be to drag myself out again and work on all the things which really do need getting done. . . Who keeps lacing the Wikipedia with crack? Anville 12:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I appreciated your comment re the Transhumanism article, which is one of my babies. Metamagician3000 13:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Just trying to spread the good cheer around. I find Transhumanism a very interesting thing. When I read some of the stuff its critics have said, I want to shake sense into them, bodily and with great vigour; on the flipside, I find some claims—like Ray Kurzweil's trying to predict the exact year of the Singularity—downright silly. One of my goals for the coming months is to get my thoughts on these matters set down cogently and have them appear in the most respectable venue possible. Lots of other goals are getting in the way of this, naturally, but one day I too will appear in a footnote! Anville 13:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Good luck with it, and it's nice to have you back on deck. Hope you're enjoying the Pynchon article getting its day of glory. Metamagician3000 14:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Eras

I noticed you both voted on Talk:Common Era and Talk:Anno Domini with somewhat similar arguments; was your vote on Talk:Anno Domini at the right spot? In any case, I've copied it to Talk:Before Christ. If your vote was placed correctly, it would be helpful to see your arguments in some more detail as you seem to be the only person against merging, besides the original author. — squell 07:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I simply believe that Anno Domini and Common Era are very different concepts, even though they point to the same sequence of years, and that these phrases would be looked up for quite different reasons. "Anno domini" is the explanation of "AD", which people see frequently in many places from when they are children. They might wonder what it is all about, i.e. "in the year of our Lord", etc. But the general idea is widely understood by educated people.

OTOH, someone looking up "common era" may be totally familiar with the AD/BC idea (as I have been since school days), but then be puzzled by the use of BCE/CE/Common Era - a very modern terminology with a quite different purpose - in some academic publications etc. I could imagine someone asking, "Why the hell are they using this unfamiliar terminology?" The Common Era article should definitely refer to the Anno Domini article, and summarise some of its basic information, in order to explain the CE/BCE idea. By contrast, I see no need for the Anno Domini article to refer to the Common Era article. The Anno Domini idea is self-contained and was employed long before some historians thought of writing CE/BCE. Admittedly, a brief mention in the Anno Domini article that some people, especially some history academics, etc., prefer the new CE/BCE style does no harm, but it is not strictly necessary.

No disagreement there; (this merge request was an old abandoned one anyway) squell 10:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

As for merging AD and BC in one article, I don't care that much; it just seems easier to have two articles rather than one. What would one article be called that people would think of looking up? There's already an article on the Gregorian calendar. Merging just seems to create confusion. But, as I said, I don't care that much about this issue.

I hope that answers your questions. :) Metamagician3000 07:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep; I was simply checking if you were indeed against merging those last two. Before Christ until recently redirected people to Anno Domini, and most editors are at a loss what kind of information could be put in it that wouldn't fit in Anno Domini too. — squell 10:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, a redirect like that would probably work okay. The only thing that would really bother me would be merging AD/BC type articles with CE/BCE type articles. If that's a dead issue, it's all cool with me. Metamagician3000 11:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:Help, please

First off, I'm not actually an admin- I've just done some work on that page because it does seem to be remarkable avoided by most admins. I was actually tempted to remove that request off the page, however I wanted to just check for completeness sake that you hadn't done anything awful to the article (not that is an RFI'-able offence, but hey most aren't really to the letter). However I wasn't at home at the time and I didn't really fancy setting off the internet filters with the page title (the filters seem to only scan the URL). I'll take a look at it asap and see what to suggest (if anything). Petros471 11:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[Replied on Petros' talk page] Metamagician3000 11:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Quick scan through the page history doesn't seem to show anything dreadful, so I've removed the RFI as a content dispute. Quick suggestion (unrelated to the RFI), if possible you try and use the preview button a bit more to save a series of small edits filling up the edit history. That way you can put one good edit summary in, and easy to tell what you have done to the article. No big deal. Feel free to get back to me if you need any more help. Petros471 11:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[Replied on Petros' talk page] Metamagician3000 12:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Your copyediting

Thanks. Jkelly 01:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. It's an excellent article. Metamagician3000 02:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

"The Rewards of Being Goth"

I just thought I'd call this to your attention, for possible reference use after your Wikibreak. Via Mind Hacks, I found a discussion at Anxiety, Addiction and Depression Treatments entitled "The Rewards of Being Goth".

Anville 17:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

(Will reply on Anville's usertalk page.) Metamagician3000 06:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and via the same source, there's also "The Age of Neuroelectronics" (The New Atlantis, Winter 2006). The stuff most relevant to the H+ arguments and counter-arguments is towards the end. Anville 17:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Cat Lovers' Committee

Metamagician3000/Archive 1, I can see from your userboxes that you are owned by a lovable but demanding cat (like me).

Would you be interested in joining the Wikipedia Cat Lovers' Committee?

If you want to join, you can add yourself to the members list, and contact me, Sergeant Snopake, on my talk page, or the committee founder, GeorgeMoney, on his.

The Wikipedia Cat Lover's Committee has also been nominated for deletion.

Whether you join or not, please could you comment on the deletion page to help keep the committee going.

Please vote keep.

Thank You very much! :)

Sergeant Snopake, 12:30, 21th of April 2006 (UTC)

I have some concerns about how this is set up, and I'll decline the invitation to join, even though I do love cats. But I made a comment. Metamagician3000 13:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Is Xenu.net a personal website

I appricate your posting at the Talk:Dianetics page toward cooling tempers and editors thereby working better together. A word or two, here and there has been helpful in the past. Presently a big issue is whether xenu.net qualifies as a "personal website" or not because if it does then the WP:RS guideline applies, whereas if it doesn't, then it can be used more freely as a special interest, secondary source of information. The Xenu disclaimer appears at the bottom of its first, main page. If you felt moved and wished to, your reply to my question would be appreciated. Terryeo 05:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure. I suggest you find an experienced admin. or someone else with more expertise and clout around here than I have. I'm not someone to cite as an authority to help settle the debate, especially when there is some history of editors having discussed how reliable they consider the site.

But here's what I think, just for what it's worth. I warn you that it is wishy washy.

First, a guideline like WP:RS can't cover every situation. There are always likely to be grey areas, and arguably this is one. It may not matter whether it would be classified (by a court, say) as falling into one category or the other. The way I see it, the site may or may not strictly be a "personal website", but it is evidently run by a named individual who says in the disclaimer that it contains only his (?) own opinions. As such, and unless there is some reason to believe it is exceptionally authoritative and justifies bending the guidelines, it does seem to have the problems that cause distrust of personal websites. It doesn't look like a sufficiently reliable secondary source to be used to settle disputed matters of historical fact, for example. OTOH, I'd say it is a reliable primary source on what this person thinks and argues. I'd also say, from a quick look at its content, that it could be used pretty reliably to provide examples of typical criticisms of Dianetics, etc., to be used in such sentences as "Critics such as [the owner of the site] often allege that Dianetics causes mental illness [or drove a particular person to suicide, or is scientifically worthless, or whatever it is they allege]", followed by a reference to the page. Metamagician3000 06:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look, to form and make a helpful statement. Terryeo 13:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but I see now on your own userpage that there is already a lot of discussion about whether this site is authoritative in whole or part. If that's the issue under debate, the question of whether or not it is technically a "personal website" is not going to settle it. Good luck to you all in sorting it out. Metamagician3000 15:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

(I replied on Terryeo's userpage. Metamagician3000 15:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC))