User talk:Ethan a dawe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Welcome!
Here are a few 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, or ask the people around you for help -- good Wikipedians don't bite the newcomers. Keep an open mind and listen for advice, but don't hesitate to be bold when editing! If you'd like to respond to this message, or ask any questions, feel free to leave a message at my talk page! Once you've become a more experienced Wikipedian, you may wish to take a moment to visit these pages: Best of luck to you, and happy editing! Luna Santin 10:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC) |
[edit] Rand
Admittedly, my edits do show that I dislike Rand, but nonetheless the fact that I try hard to add criticism to the article is not because of mere bias. What I am trying to accomplish is a npov balance. When I first came to the article, it was a sparkling pro-Rand junkpiece, devoid of any criticism. Rand's fans were trying to push it as feature-article-ready, and I had to stop them from getting such a glaringly biased article to that status. Since then, I've been trying to balance the articles out, which is difficult to do with bias pro-Rand editors (not you; Laszlo and a few others who have been banned at various times) deleting and warping things to put it back to the way it was before. This does cause me to focus more on criticism than anything else (as I'm one of the few people who adds any), but I assure you it isn't an attempt to make the article biased.
As for the use of the term "lay," it is because I see a need to distinguish her from a trained professional. Her skills, as I've pointed out before, are far from professional (both in a lack of skill and a lack of scholarship), and to not point this out would be both underinformative and misleading. The term "lay" is not biased, but simply points out that she was not professionally trained nor professional in the academic sense (i.e. never got academically published). -- LGagnon 22:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
To defend myself from the misleading claims of LGagnon, my "bans" were for reverting the edits of a well known vandal in league with LGagnon, the User:Alienus who is blocked for a year, but uses anon sockpuppets to evade. LaszloWalrus 19:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- I see your point Laszlo. I've been trying to convince people to stop the silly edit war. I'm all for balance and having criticism included, but it's gotten really petty on the Rand article. I looked up some of the editors favorite people and they often lack any criticism despite being often criticized. Rather than editing to the point of stupidity I wish some clear consensus could be reached. Otherwise I'd be sorely tempted to start doing unto others favorites. :-) Ethan a dawe 20:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Ethan Dawe
you'll want to be aware of wp:point since you stated that you are going to act this way to get your way and to make a point. It is one thing to argue vociferously and to make appropriate changes to an article in order to bring it closer to verifiable truth. it is a whole other thing to do what you've proposed on talk:ayn rand. --Buridan 14:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Actually Buridan, you've all convinced me that this is the proper thing to do. All Bios should be carefully checked for npov and proper citing of controversy and criticism. I'm starting with the favorites of several editors to the Rand threads, as they listed them on their pages and it seemed like a good place to start. I assume you agree that this is the proper way to proceed right? You do think all Bios should be treated equally and be strictly npov right?~~Ethan Dawe~~
[edit] Warning
With regards to your comments on Talk:Ayn Rand: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. -- LGagnon 02:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- There is no personal attack that I've made. Please cite it or remove this.Ethan a daweEthan DaweEthan a dawe 03:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Look at your last comment on that page. -- LGagnon 11:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- That is not an insult, it's an opinion of your action based on what you have said or done. I didn't call you a name, I simply pointed out what I see as your reason for taking your actions. Please remove the warningEthan a daweEthan DaweEthan a dawe
-
[edit] Ayn Rand
Hello Ethan! I unprotected Ayn Rand because it's been protected for quite a while (since last October). I figured it was time to give unprotection a try. We are, after all, trying to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Also, in case you didn't know, the {{sprotect}} tag doesn't actually protect the page, it's just to notify users of the protection. Cheers! --Fang Aili talk 18:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
