User talk:Derex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Am gone for a break. Tired of the crap at this place. Not healthy. Please see Stanford prison experiment

---

What is it that bothers you enough to stop contributing? I know you've expressed problems with issues such as Essjay. I know you don't particulalry care for the political views you disagree with that are inserted into articles. Is it that? Something different? My biggest issue is that it's a giant time sink that is less rewarding than other endeavors but I don't consider it particuarly unhealthy. I've developed coping strategies to deal with disagreements over political articles. The beauty (and bane) of this place is that there is always tomorrow. Everything is transient. --Tbeatty 17:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's just a break. My current irritation stems from the utter disfunction of the ruling class as a whole (though there are many exemplary individuals). I have not been directly impacted at all, but I have a very high aversion to capricious and self-congratulatory exercise of authority. (There was a time long ago when your party would have been the good guys on that score.) In short, I think this place is 'governed' horribly, with the general exception of arbcom, precisely because it has none. De facto power thus devolves to those most desirous of it and most inclined to use it and this self-reinforces into cliques. It irritate me, and when I'm done with break I'll stay completely away from policy pages, ANI, RFC's, DRV's, MFD's. Those, and (the thankfully powerless) Morton Devonshire who is ironically the biggest conspiracy theorist I've ever seen, universally attributing nefarious motives to anyone and anything he disagrees with. Derex 21:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi D, sorry if I missed you. You're right, I find that Huffington thing hilarious. Funny, I never saw you at any of the VRWC meetings... Also, I hope you find your way back. I too wonder if WP has jumped the shark, but without people like you it certainly will jump it. Best regards. Kaisershatner 16:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Enjoy your break Derex, You will be missed! Ivygohnair 09:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Notability (films)

Wikipedia:Notability (films) has been unprotected and is being pushed directly to approved status by several zealous editors. I know that you have expressed concern about this before. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 21:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SBVT

I don't object to your content edit, but you blew away the citation referencing I did on the existing source. That's lazy editing. I spent a great number of hours formatting over 100 citations on that article so that it would have nice complete footnotes, and I don't appreciate having the sweat of my labor turned into an inline URL that might go dead in a month. Please take more care in the future. - Crockspot 03:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Lazy editing is removing factual information which you could have sourced in 3 seconds work. I'd say content is considerably more important than formatting a citation prettily. Derex 03:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I spent five minutes formatting that source, including verifying what was in the article. My edit was proper. It brought the claim in line with the source provided. Your edit removed a valid citation, and replaced it with a simple inline link, which works against the interest of the project. A cite is still valid with a dead link, if the publishing info is there. But when an inline link goes dead without that information, it is much more difficult to find again. I know, because I had to chase down about a third of the citations in that article over the past couple of weeks. So don't get snarky with me. Just have a little respect for the work of others, and be a little more careful next time. - Crockspot 06:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I spent 3 seconds finding a source for that, including reading the google synopsis of the very top hit.[1] Please don't remove trivially sourced content from Wikipedia, which works against the interest of the project. My edit removed neither facts nor citations. Pretty formatting is all very nice, but this is an encylopedia. There is nothing at all wrong with adding inline links, as I did, particularly when they support the facts in an article. My edit was proper. So don't get snarky with me. Just have a little respect for the factual content added by others, and be a little more careful next time. - Derex 07:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Not one of my edits removed the source that the anon editor provided. WP:ATT requires that the editor inserting the claim source it properly. The claim did not match the source, so I simply adjusted it during the primary act of adding actual citation information to to URL. According to WP:ATT, it is not my responsibility to further source every claim that an anon adds to an article. It is my responsibility, according to an agreement made on the talk page, to properly cite all the sources that were in the article, so that they may be further verified. A proper citation, with author, title, publisher, and date, is always preferable (even with NO url) to a simple URL. If some high school kid is researching at the library, and he finds a good citation, he can look that article up on microfiche, but if all that is there is a dead link, he's screwed. Now you can keep deluding yourself that you are right and I am wrong, but no one is going to buy that line of bullshit. If you continue to undo the improvement of source citations that I am doing, the you and I are going to have a big problem. - Crockspot 15:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)