User talk:Haptic-feedback

Welcome!
Hello, Haptic-feedback, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Longevism, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type help me on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: 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 Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Magnus Puer (sermo) 16:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Your contributed article, Longevism


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Longevism. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Longevity. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Longevity – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. --Magnus Puer (sermo) 16:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Longevism


The article Longevism has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * neologism, no third-party verifiable evidence of noteworthiness or currency

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. David Gerard (talk) 09:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello! Thanks for trying to improve this corner of Wikipedia. However, I have actually already addressed your concerns on the Talk page. Please note the following (quoted from me on the Talk page):


 * Wikipedia's general notability guideline states that the topic should be assumed to be notable. Thus, if the article is to be deleted on these grounds, the onus is on those who want to delete the article to make their case.


 * I said this because I had also demonstrated the reliability, neutrality, and independence of multiple sources on that page.


 * I would also like to mention that I reverted some of your edits. Please see my reasons in the edit summaries if you would like to know why.


 * If you have read my rebuttals and are not convinced, then please do make your case. I am open to the idea that this page does not belong on Wikipedia if sound reasoning is given.


 * --Haptic-feedback (talk) 04:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

In re Kenneth Cope's book
I don't want to reveal much RL stuff for obvious reasons. I met Cope at the South-Central Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies some years ago. His book was not published at that time, and he gave a lively talk on probablistic thinking that most of the scholars in attendance were politely baffled by. They understood it but did not follow the implications, I think, or share his enthusiasm for the implications. A few years later, when his book did appear, I picked it up at a different conference (about the only way one finds specialist academic books is via the academic publishers' tables at conferences).

It moved with me a few times. At a recent job, we established a departmental library. Several people put their own books in it for the students to check out at will. I put it, along with Fantasy and Childhood, Gardens and Eve, and a host of other cool specialist works in it. Someone came along, called up maintenance, and had the entire library of 200-300 volumes taken to the trash and thrown away. The department I was in was invited to hurry out to the dump and find our books, if we could.

This is only one of the genuine indignities that occurs. Longevity isn't all that inviting, sometimes. For what it's worth, I remember being a bit disappointed with Dr. Cope's book, because I really like him and really looked forward to the work he was doing bearing fruit. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to hear about your loss of literature. Probabilistic thinking sounds interesting. I've come across a bunch of interesting material in my research on longevism. I wouldn't mind a copy of 1650-1850, myself, as I'd like to see how attitudes about long life developed in this period. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Advocacy and single-purpose accounts in Wikipedia
Hi Haptic-feedback

We've encountered each other on the Life extension article and I have told you, as has Ronz, that your editing appears to be what we call WP:ADVOCACY (please do read that essay). I looked over your contributions more broadly, and they almost all fit in the transhumanist agenda; this makes your account what we call a single purpose account (please do read that essay).

The problem with edits by editors with SPA accounts, is that the edits end up violating the key content policy, WP:NPOV, most often by putting what we call "undue weight" (see WP:UNDUE) on content that supports whatever agenda the editor has carried into Wikipedia. Edits by advocates also tend to violate the policy, WP:SOAPBOX - again not necessarily due to explicitly colorful or other non-neutral language, but with regard to WEIGHT issues.

None of this is ad hominem - what I am writing about is behavior - the pattern of edits that you are creating.

It is great to be passionate about things - passion is often what brings folks to Wikipedia and is a key driver for content creation, which is what keeps Wikipedia alive and growing. But passion can also lead to skewing of the encyclopedia. People come here who are very intense about the joys of eating meat, or the opposites, vegetarianism or animal rights, or certain scientific theories... or some certain point of view on intellectual property rights, or how great the Chicago Cubs are... any number of issues - as many issues or things as the human spirit can encompass - and edit articles in a way that expresses their passion. Sometimes you read a WP article for the first time, and its skewedness just leaps out at you - -advocacy can be so, so glaring, and it is probably our biggest problem here, in this volunteer encyclopedia.

So please be mindful of your own agenda. When other editors tell you - "Hey that content is really weird here - what are you doing?" please have the self-insight to recognize that your passion may be running away with you in that instance.

If you keep going down this road, of being resistant to hearing that, you are going to a) get in a lot of arguments and b1) end up quitting, angrily, or b2) end up getting thrown out of here. Please remember that editing Wikipedia is a privilege - it is freely granted to all, but it is a privilege, and the community restricts that privilege when people cannot restrain themselves.

I hope you can hear all that. Good luck to you - I mean that. Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Jytdog,
 * Thank you for being so articulate and thoughtful in your message.
 * I appreciate you showing me those essays. Several parts of them do seem quite relevant here. For example, the advocacy essay has this to say:
 * "Something worth noting is that there is often a "fine line" between being an Advocate and being a Steward. While a Steward may have the best interests of Wikipedia in mind when editing an article, others may not view their edits and/or behavior in the same way. Be cautious when communicating with someone that might be an Advocate when they are actually a Steward or consider themselves one."


 * I indeed consider myself a Steward in this sense, because I do have an interest in life extension, and it has driven me to research the topic and share that research with others. However, I have never advocated it on Wikipedia. I do admit, though, that my account's edits are largely focused on the topic, which has attracted discrimination. The situation is put well by the single-purpose account article:
 * "Users who continue to work within a narrow range of articles may find it difficult to build credibility in community discussions, although extended improvement to a specific section of Wikipedia should not disadvantage an expert opinion. As with all Wikipedia articles, users need to cite the relevant verifiably published evidence from reliable sources to support their point of view. Inevitably, some experienced editors might not agree with cited interpretations during content discussions. Please do not be discouraged by such editors. Eventually, they will respect you."


 * Unfortunately, despite my citations of verifiable, reliable sources, I am still waiting for that respect. It seems ironic to me that the majority my edited pages are on the topic of life extension only because of my rebuttals to attacks that are presumably based largely on SPA prejudice. In fact, disregarding Talk pages, most of the pages that I have edited with this account have been unrelated to life extension.
 * I generally do not like to talk about myself, but I feel that I have to volunteer some personal information: I have no affiliation with the Transhumanist Party. I have never met Zoltan Istvan. I did see him talk once because of my interest in life extension, but I was thoroughly unimpressed. I feel that he abuses his connections in the media to spread messages that lack intellectual rigour. However, he has nevertheless succeeded in being recognized enough to merit mention on Wikipedia where relevant, whether I like it or not.
 * My agenda is to share my research on topics in which I am interested, such as life extension. I want to help others who, like me, use Wikipedia as their go-to source for information. Please do not mistake my intentions.
 * --Haptic-feedback (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * :(  What you have done above, is the very, very typical advocate move, of wikilawyering to justify what you are doing, instead of listening, and crying "discrimination" instead of saying, "yes I have a strong POV and that causes me to violate the NPOV policy - I get that, and will be more careful going forward."   You will do, as you will do.  It will not go well for you, but that is the path you are choosing. Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I have indeed listened to what you said. How else could I have responded to your points and quoted the essays that you recommended?
 * Anyway, I am not convinced that I have violated the NPOV policy. The edit that you reverted was not a viewpoint – it was a statement whose truth is uncontested, backed by at least a dozen reliable sources, which also establish its weight, as demonstrated on the article's Talk page.
 * Admittedly, I have violated policy before: I created a page on longevism, which was contrary to Wikipedia's neologism policy. (However, I was unaware of the details of this policy, which were not pointed out to me until the end of a lengthy debate.) Admitting this, though, shows that I do listen to reason and can admit my shortcomings.
 * Believe me: the path that I choose is to adhere to the policies and spirit of Wikipedia.
 * --Haptic-feedback (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:UNDUE in that article, as I have said many times already, and which you are ignoring even now. Above, I specifically said that advocates tend to violate NPOV in exactly that way. You are not listening, nor responding on point.  Which is also what advocates do. Please read WP:TENDENTIOUS.  Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I have not ignored these accusations. In fact, I have responded to them. I will demonstrate this for you by quoting the relevant Talk page.
 * The first use of the word "undue" in the discussion was by Ronz:
 * "Seems undue and well into WP:SOAP territory."


 * I responded thus:
 * "Does just one sentence really count as undue? The information has already received significant media attention, and it is displayed on other parts of Wikipedia."


 * Ronz replied:
 * "Yes, one sentence can be undue. [...] Everything we include in our articles falls under NPOV."


 * Note that the "UNDUE" policy is given on the NPOV policy page. After reading that whole page, I retorted:
 * "Since it does not express a viewpoint, the only relevant part of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy that I noticed is the small section on balancing aspects, which says to "strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." Let us then review the body of sources about the presidential campaign:"


 * I then listed 17 sources and followed with this:
 * "Is this enough for one sentence? I suspect that there is other information on the life extension page that does not have this much coverage. Of course, some of the authors of the above sources are biased, but they are still reliable for this information, which is not an opinion or contentious claim."


 * Ronz refused to look at the sources (albeit for good reason) but gave an air of skepticism about whether they were not much more than "interviews, puff-pieces, and human interest stories", so I responded again:
 * "There are articles that include interviews in that list, but they are not only interviews: they also include reliable background information. I did not notice any exaggerated praise in any of the articles, so I did not see any puff pieces. Also, I did not notice any of them describing Istvan in a way to bring sympathy to him or inspiration from him, so I do not think that any are human interest stories."


 * Ronz continued:
 * "Of those left from my question, which of them discuss life extension, the topic of this article, in any degree of detail? If none, then it's probably not worth mention."


 * I directly responded again:
 * "Excluding any interviews within the articles, 12 or 13 out of 17 mention life extension. The weight of the link between the candidacy and life extension looks clear to me."


 * However, Ronz displayed further skepticism without evidence that he had read the sources:
 * "If none of the proposed sources discusses life extension in any depth, then we've little or no context from which to determine what would be appropriate due weight."


 * In response, I had this to say:
 * "Regarding weight, the sources do discuss life extension at depth. Let me give you some quotes."


 * I then quoted three long passages from the sources, such as this one from The Telegraph:
 * "As you might have guessed, Zoltan will be running on a pretty interesting policy platform. First up – and a particular interest of Zoltan’s, who I’ve come to believe is genuinely determined to live forever – is life extension. This is the study of keeping people alive for as long as possible, either by slowing the ageing process or extending lifespan. "Few fields of study offer so much for civilisation," Zoltan tells me. "And we’re not far off the science being available so people can start living a lot longer – maybe even 50 years or 100 years in the very near future". I’m not sure how accurate his timelines are – others in the Transhumanist movement are a little more cautious. But as it stands he reckons there’s hardly any investment in research of this type – about $1 billion a year (and most of this is on diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's). In terms of what Zoltan considers life extension science – stopping ageing and eliminating death entirely – it’s far, far less. Because of that Zoltan thinks we’re letting people die unnecessarily. In a tidy populist touch, he plans to significantly curtail military spending in favour of research into all this. With enough resources, he thinks we can "conquer" ageing within a decade. The Transhumanist Party advocates spending at least a trillion dollars over ten years directly on life extension research."


 * You can find the other quotations on the Talk page.
 * I ended with this:
 * "More depth is reached in the interviews with Istvan. I agree that less weight should be given to his words, but they are not weightless, as the interviews are conducted and curated by professional journalists and published in reliable publications under editorial oversight – the staff choose what to publish. Even articles by Istvan him should be considered, because (for better or for worse) they still drive public awareness and conversation."


 * "Is this not enough for one mention in passing?"


 * Let me summarize: unless you are accusing my edit as stating a viewpoint, which it clearly does not, then your "UNDUE" and NPOV accusations are one the same – claims that there is undue weight in reliable sources for this part of the article when compared to other parts – which I have refuted.
 * As for your claim that it was off topic, I responded with this:
 * "I apologize if the information is off-topic. I honestly thought that it was on topic, since the candidate's main issue seems to be transhumanism with a heavy focus on life extension. Will you help me understand why this is irrelevant?"


 * Your next comment on the topic seems to be this:
 * "the presidential candidacy has nothing to do with the subject of life extension outside of POV-pushing for a Transhumanist agenda."


 * I then defended myself:
 * "Regardless of the motives, the fact that life extension is one of the main issues of an American presidential candidate is clearly relevant to life extension."


 * As far as I can tell, you said nothing further to strengthen your argument that my edit was off topic (though you did attack me ad hominem). Actually, I cannot discern any evidence from your words that the edit was off topic – only accusations.
 * --Haptic-feedback (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't refuse to look at the sources. I was and am busy. Please be far more careful with your accusations. --Ronz (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I am sorry if I offended you. I did not mean that you did not have a good reason for refusing to look at them. Actually, I think that you did have a good reason. I only meant that you were unwilling, whatever the reason. I will elaborate in my comments above. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest you stop making assumptions about others. --Ronz (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * To what assumption are you referring? --Haptic-feedback (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please just drop it. All you've done with this mess is make is appear you're not interested in working with others. --Ronz (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I think that I have shown that I am willing to listen to others and respond to their points quite thoroughly. Anyway, if you do not want to clarify your vague request, then I will not ask anymore. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
I've answered your question but I was in a tiny bit of a rush. I hope it helps – I usually would take my time when responding in the Teahouse but I was worried you were going to get ignored otherwise. Please respond on the Teahouse or talk to me specifically if you want any more help or advice. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 09:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

H+Pedia
Hi, I was wondering if you were interested in contributing to H+Pedia for transhumanist content? There is no point battling David Gerard over Transhumanist politics. :) Besides, the site has better coverage in this area Deku-shrub (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * That is a wonderful idea! There is indeed a bizarre amount of aggressive resistance to transhumanist content on Wikipedia – or, at least, content about Zoltan Istvan – no matter how well sourced and accepted by Wikipedia policy it is. It is unfortunate that this anti-transhumanist sentiment is hurting the quality of Wikipedia, but I will keep pushing to make Wikipedia better, even if there are those who wish to impose their bigoted bias. I suspect that I will have the opposite problem at H+Pedia – fighting those with a pro-transhumanist bias – but I will definitely take a look. Thank you! –Haptic-feedback (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You may not know, but David is the administrator / founder of Rational wiki, a site which has an anti-transhumanist trends which I've been working to deconstruct with some success. Deku-shrub (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And this from a RationalWiki editor! Tch! My interest at Wikipedia is to write stuff the Wikipedia way, elsewhere to write as for that venue - David Gerard (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Transhumanist DRN case

 * Just letting you know that I need some of the counter-claims concerning some of the sources as to why they are reliable. See here for the list of sources I gathered together from one of Dsprc's comments during the talkpage discussion. Some of these sources may have been resolved, but I have not fully read the talkpage discussion except to gather periphereal knowledge. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Fourth round of statements are now up. Discussing the IEET sources. Please respond in 48 hrs if you won't be responding to this section. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 03:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Liberal Party logo.svg
Thanks for uploading File:Liberal Party logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)