User talk:SlimVirgin/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Fairport Convention 2 Thanks for helping out on Waterman article 3 Rachelle Waterman as FAC? 4 Arafat-Black September links 5 On systemic bias 6 Bernard Williams 7 Style guide 8 Bernard Williams 9 HistoryBuffEr 10 Bernard Williams again 11 "Original research" 12 Canadian references 13 Schiller Institute 14 Bernard Harris on FAC 15 Turing image PD? 16 Thanks 17 Paragraph length 18 Paragraphing 19 Bernard Williams FAC 20 Page protections 21 "No original research" 22 Gmail 23 Krusty the Klown 24 Adminship 25 Fairport Convention 26 Thanks 27 Hiya 28 CheeseDreams and Historicity of Jesus 29 Rat Park 30 Jimbo's talk page 30.1 Thanks for your explanation 31 Thanks mate :-) 32 Blackface 33 Rat heaven

[edit] Fairport Convention

Well spotted, Slim, and thanks for reverting the article. Given your listed interests (and the topics above), I was mildly curious about how you came across the Fairport vandalism? Regards, Andy F 18:42, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for helping out on Waterman article

I appreciate your copyediting on the Rachelle Waterman article.

We could sure use someone with your talents over on Wikinews. (If it ever gets out of demo mode.)

I hope you found the Waterman article's overall content to be written from a NPOV, even if it was ripe for your copyediting improvements.

--DV

There was some pushback from another editor on one of your changes, concerning the omission of her birthdate from the beginning of the article.

Giving her age at the start of the article without the birthdate makes the article have a short shelf life, as she will be 17 next year.

I looked up the article for a famous murderer, Charles_Manson, and his birthdate was listed right up front, so I did the same in this article. (Not that Rachelle Waterman is convicted yet. :)

As a compromise, I changed the text to include both her birthdate and the fact that she was teenaged. --DV 10:38, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By the way, this is sometimes a matter of editorial style, but because her writing style is somewhat unique, I make a friendly request that you not fix the spelling in the verbatim quotes from Rachelle Waterman's journal.

I think it is important to protect their integrity and leave them exactly as they were written, typos and all.

If you agree great. But if you don't agree, please at least use an "ed." or "sic" insert, or some other indication that you've corrected them. --DV 10:47, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No need to apologize. All of the quotes are still verbatim. I was only passing along a friendly request I posted on the article's talk page for any future authors to consider.

Thanks for the Anne Perry reference - I saw a few comparisons made to that case in some of the commentary I've read, it's interesting to see how many aspects of this case already have articles on Wikipedia. (I'm still following up on the Johnny the Homicidal Maniac link, it kind of threw me that the author had my same last name!)

I doubt I will be pursuing this category of article much more, it went by on one of the news wires that I follow and seemed a bit odd, so I checked it out.

It's encouraging that I was able to put together almost as much information from primary sources on the web as some of the mainstream media. I'm becoming more and more hopeful about the concept of "citizen journalists". --DV 10:58, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rachelle Waterman as FAC?

Please see the Featured Article Candidate nomination for the Rachelle Waterman article.

1. If you approve of this article, write "Support" followed by your reasons.
2. If you oppose this nomination, write "Object" followed by the reason for your objection.

Thank you for your contribution!

Cheers,

--DV 11:59, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Arafat-Black September links

Regarding your recent edits to Yasser Arafat, you might also want to check out Black September (group) and see what can be done with it. Jayjg 15:44, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ignore the insults, and do your good work. The editor who attacked you has been quieter these days, though it's unclear how long that will last. :-) Jayjg 15:59, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] On systemic bias

Joe, what you say is very interesting, but I have one objection and one query. The query is: how do you know that most editors are men? How do you know that most are white? Are you inferring this from the subject matter covered or not covered? If so, you're begging your own question.

It is (barely) possible that a disproportionate number of the Wikipedians who give no indication of their gender or ethnicity are female and/or non-white, but it seems very unlikely. Look at the makeup of any of the more visible committees: the ArbCom, the Mediators group. Look at the photos from any Wikipedia meetup. Consider how many self-identified Jewish, or Serb, or even Ukrainian or Romanian editors we have and how few self-identified African-American editors (among the hard core, BCorr is the only one I know) or sub-Saharan African editors. Look at Wikipedia:Wikipedians#Listing_by_country and you will notice that even English-speaking African countries typically don't have even a single entry and there is exactly one person listed for Jamaica. Anyway, this is a strong impression after a bit more than a year of very active participation. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:40, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

The objection is that I'm not sure I agree with your use of the word "systemic". There's nothing about the way Wikipedia is set up that discourages certain groups of people from joining, or that treats them differently if they do join -- unless you mean the fact that it's online discourages people with no access to computers, but then you'd have to argue books portray systemic bias because not everyone can afford equal access to books. But if you're not referring to the online nature of Wikipedia, what do you mean by "systemic"? Slim 09:11, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

For starters, outside of the issue of gender and ethnicity, I think the online nature of this is part of why we have a disproportionate representation of libertarians and of science-fiction fans, but a relative shortage of people who write well about literature. I also think, though, that there are some subtler issues that drive away certain ethnic groups. For example, I've noticed that a lot of the pages relating to various ethnicities are hit with a good bit of bigoted vandalism. Many people from some groups (e.g. the Jews, of whom I am one, or the Serbs) are clearly undaunted by this and brush it away; I think this may be harder for people from groups that are currently undergoing a great deal of oppression.

Also, much subtler than the outright vandalism is that members of some groups (e.g. most Native Americans) really resent being written about at all by outsiders coming (at best) from an anthropological perspective. Living in Seattle, I probably deal with as many highly computer-literate Native Americans as one would find in any one place. I know from talking to some of the folks at Daybreak Star about Wikipedia that they simply don't want to get into what they see as the rough and tumble of debating their own culture with outsiders. They mostly feel like they receive a lot of disrespect from white people and don't want to set themselves up for more. I actually suspect that the only way we will ever get significant input from tribally identified Native Americans is to establish a separate wiki (or at least a separate namespace) specifically for Native Americans writing about Native American matters and releasing under GFDL, so that we can then integrate that material into Wikipedia, but leave their versions alone on their site. I realize that would be a project in a different spirit, and I'd love to see a less drastic solution, but I know from experience that it is going to be very hard to recruit them into the project as it stands. And I think that at some point we have to work out how to do so.

If you want to continue this dialogue, feel free. I'll watchlist this page, so you can reply here. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:40, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of what you say, Joe, though I suppose I still think there might be more women than you think. They may just be less likely to stand for election or otherwise make themselves known. I actually wonder how many single Wikipedians there are, as opposed to married, because it can become addictive very quickly, so it's easier to become absorbed if you're not in a relationship. That's something else that would hit women: the need to look after children and perhaps the home, though that's not partcular to Wikipedia. I do take your point about some ethnic minorities not wanting to be hit with bigotry, and others not wanting to have to justify what they write about themselves. But regarding Native-Americans, I wonder whether they would care about an online encyclopedia containing all the world's knowledge. That idea is very alien to their oral tradition and to their idea, as I understand it, that knowledge and information resources need to be localized and directly relevant to the community. It would be interesting to find out how Wikipedia would be received in those communities. Slim 02:41, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there may be more women in sheer number than I tend to assume, but I imagine you would agree that the very factors you mention still add up to why they might have less impact in terms of total edits. And, yes, it is easier for those of us who are either single (or in very good or very bad marriages!) to work on this sort of thing. I'm currently focused on it almost like a job; at some point I have to refocus on finding one that pays money.

On the Native American front: Seattle probably has as many urban Native Americans as any one place in the U.S. (except maybe somewhere in the Southwest), and certainly some of the most established. I can't claim this is a community I'm part of but I do have a respectful personal relationships with quite a few people from that community. I know at least one with a degree in history, another who writes for the Seattle Times, and several who I've helped out with on a Crisis Resource Directory that I edit (http://www.scn.org/crisis), not to mention a bunch of political organizers, etc. And if you move out of my personal acquaintance, there are people like Sherman Alexie and Lawney Reyes (and I see we don't have an article on Reyes, I'll try to get around to that; among other things, he was the Art Director for the Seafirst Corporation before they were bought out by the Bank of America).

The ones I've mostly talked to about Wikipedia are some of the people at Daybreak Star Cultural Center; I also talked to some people who were doing outreach to help Native groups set up their own web sites. The hostile atmosphere thing is what mostly came up. Sure, there are aspects of their culture they aren't interested in writing down, but there is plenty that they are interested in writing down, just not here as things stand. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:28, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bernard Williams

It looks like a good article, but I doubt it well get featured unless you put a brief intro first (one or two paragraphs), then follow up with the main text. People apparently don't like to have long intros. Jayjg 22:55, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, just a paragraph outlining who he was and how long he lived, and then the rest of the article is the detail. The Yasser Arafat article you are familiar might be an example. You could look at Ariel Sharon as well, which is (not surprisingly) currently undergoing the same kind of attack from the same editor. Jayjg 23:23, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Speaking of Yasser Arafat, you might want to keep an eye on the article. Not only is HistoryBuffEr inserting his personal version again, but an editor named Fabioburch is deleting large sections of it, apparently at random. Jayjg 23:32, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article looks excellent now. Brilliant work! Jayjg 19:30, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Response to your query on my talk page for continuity. - Taxman 23:54, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Style guide

Slim, thanks very much for your comments on the style guide. That was the source of my vent at the Standards Forum. :) Maurreen 05:21, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks again, Slim. Like JeffQ, I am less concerned with any given style than with one person who pushes too much. Maurreen 00:00, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bernard Williams

I just started looking over this article and it is one of the best-written articles I've seen on Wikipedia. Do you write for a living?

(I hate to tell you this, but I should acknowledge that I mainly edit random pages. But that doesn't take anything away from the compliment.)

I will support it for featured article. I think there are a number of fairly small things that could be done for improvement. More to come.

Maurreen 06:19, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I made about half a dozen suggestions, and will support the article when those are taken care of. :)

Do you write outside Wikipedia? Maurreen

Slim, you asked me what I meant by references: it a requirement of featured articles that their sources are cited (see Wikipedia:Cite your sources). Naturally, the books and articles written by Williams are references as well, but you must have used many other references, probably including some of the external links listed. If so, please list these under a separate heading "References", preferably using the style explained in the link above. I always prefer to have some offline resources listed as well, or as "further reading" if you didn't use any books for references.

Another issue regarding the images: it is not necessary to add the image source or usage on the article page, just add them on the image page (so that other articles can use them again).

Let me know if you have any further questions. Jeronimo 21:45, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Slim. Congratulations!

Did you get my e-mail? No biggie, I just haven't used that part of wiki before.

And, yes, Wikipedia was very slow for me too. That's why I couldn't answer when you asked. Maurreen 05:59, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] HistoryBuffEr

You won't see me disputing your comments. However, I have asked Jayjg to be more careful with reverting because, to be fair, there have been quite a few reverts coming from him also. HistoryBuffEr's edits, POV or not, were mainly objected to because he never explained them. So I totally understand why Jayjg kept reverting them, and that's one of the reasons why I haven't said anything. However, now that the 3RR enforcement is in place as a policy, I'm worried that he'll be blocked for reverting more than three times. My reasoning for giving the warning is that I must be fair to both parties. I would hope that if I was reverting too often that I would get a warning from an admin like the one I gave Jayjg! Not sure if that addresses your concerns. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:26, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have been more specific about the comments bit. I agreed with aspects of your comments, but I didn't read the vandalism bit carefully enough. My apologies if I mislead you, because I don't actually agree with this. I agreed that he had removed information and this was bad. He also didn't take the talk page, IMO. I didn't class it as vandalism, I class this as POV pushing and I think there is a fine line between the two. Again, apologies for not reading carefully enough. I had been dealing with a very irate HistoryBuffEr and consequently didn't read or respond carefully to your message. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:01, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin, would you mind if I used your responses to Ta bu shi da yu in my arbitration against HistoryBuffEr? Jayjg 01:48, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bernard Williams again

Hi, Slim, I think Bernard Williams is excellent, clearly all your own work, congratulations! I've just done a little copyedit, all very minor, except for linking up quite a few paragraphs, please make sure you review those. (Note that there were complaints about short graphs on WP:FAC, though).
About the refs: I do see why you'd want to include the years in the inline refs in this case, so the reader sees at a glance if the work is early or late, I agree with that. I've just been bold and done the "References" section in a more standard way (but not changing your own preferences into Manual of Style), please check it out and see if you like it, do feel free to revert or change at will.
As you suggest, it absolutely is fine to use any academic style for the refs. You might want to check out the "List of works" section for internal consistency of style, though (depends how much time you want to spend on these pedantries, it's not exactly the most essential part of an article). E. g., if you like to have the publisher + year in parenthesis (as I've assumed in formatting the "References" section that you do), they should all be done like that.
There's a guide for footnote-making at Wikipedia:Footnotes. Personally I like clean simple inline refs better, in a Wikipedia article. That's a matter of taste. But I think footnotes are more of a bother for the reader, and are positively unwelcoming to the non-academic reader. Anyway, great article! I'm on my way to support it at WP:FAC right now.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 18:16, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A comment also: the sentence "The utilitarian philosopher's main rival is the 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant." is not entirely clear and seems a pretty heavy POV unless cited to a specific source. Also, is that meant to be in the caption or as a part of the next paragraph in that section? Currently it is neither. - Taxman 03:54, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Response on my talk page to your response. Sorry. Also forgot to mention here that I made a few other edits I hope you don't mind too much. Refix my fixes if you like. - Taxman 04:22, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Original research"

Hi, Slim. A few of us are working on Wikipedia:No original research (draft rewrite). If you have time sometime, could you take a look, especially concerning the organization?

The current policy is apparently geared toward "scientific" theories, and we're trying to broaden and refine it.

I think another writer-type perspective could be helpful concerning how the draft reads. There are some things I dislike but haven't figured out what to do about.

But no biggie any which way. Maurreen 06:04, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian references

Just for the sake of curiousity, do you know whether any particular references are premominant among Canadian book and magazine publishers? Maurreen 06:23, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Schiller Institute

Sorry I didn't get to this earlier. Is the problem being resolved on the talk page OK? Incidently, I think a reference section is sorely needed. See cite your sources. I'd do it, only the page is locked :P - Ta bu shi da yu 06:35, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bernard Harris on FAC

Hi again, Slim, I started to worry about an NPOV issue on my way to FAC, so I haven't actually supported yet, technically, and now I seem to be getting into a discussion with Markalexander about what you meant to say in the final paragraph... Could you weigh in and clear it up for me, please?--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 15:19, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Turing image PD?

Hi! I just wanted to check whether image:ALAN TURING 1.jpg really is in the public domain; do you have a source? Thanks. — Matt 20:04, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sadly, copyright terms tend to last a while. I've tracked down the image, and it was apparently taken in 1951, which I think means the copyright still applies. We may be able to argue Fair Use, though. — Matt 22:49, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Glad you liked the Ingrown nails article. It seems my toe is quite popular among some ;) (at least someone likes it!) Reene^✎ 05:18, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph length

The principle of one idea per pagragraph seems almost universal. But I've seen little about paragraph length relating to numbers in other ways (such as x number of sentences).

This might be useful, from "The Careful Writer", by Theodore M. Bernstein: "A paragraph may be of one sentence or it may be of ten. An elementary-school teacher told her class that a paragraph could not contain only one sentence. ... That teacher deserves a sentence -- and a long one."

Wikipedia is the only place I've seen short paragraphs discouraged. Are you interested in changing that? Maurreen 16:52, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you start it, I'll help you try to change Wikipedia guidance on short paragraphs. Thanks for your work on "No original research." I'll have to get back to it. But I'm getting behind in various things (becoming a Wikipediholic and other poor excuses) and Wikipedia is also very slow for me today. Maurreen 18:04, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraphing

Hi, Slim, and hi, Maurreen, too, I think optimal paragraph length depends on the nature of the subject (whether it's narrative or not), and also on the amount of condensation (higher condensation appropriately leading to shorter paragraphs). For an extreme example of a request for longer paragraphs for a totally non-narrative subject, please see Taxman's statement on WP:FAC for Laal language that one-sentence paragraphs are intrinscially "bad writing style", no matter the nature of the subject, with my comment about the appropriate (and customary) layout for grammatical description. I could have put that a lot more strongly. That said, I think it is appropriate in many cases to encourage longer paragraphs. For my students, I try to get them to internalize the concept of rhythmic paragraphing (=a good mix of short and long, different for different types of writing). Wikipedia is the return of the molasses today. :-(--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 18:26, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bernard Williams FAC

Sorry about the confusion. Although I obviously did change the template, I cannot actually remember for what reason. Evil Monkey → Talk 20:43, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

---

i will have a look into it. Xtra 03:54, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Page protections

If I'm the one who unprotects those pages, I'll inform you. Since the three revert rule can also be invoked against edit wars, I'm not inclined to keep them protected too long. --Michael Snow 05:53, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the premise that NPOV and other similar tags should not become permanent features of any article. As you note, the policy statements with respect to these tags are not very specific, primarily because those advancing their use are mostly focused on adding them to articles, not removing them. It does tend sometimes to amount to a "Well, if I can't have my way with the content of the article then I'm going to slap this tag on it to protest the fact that I'm not getting my way, and the tag will stay for as long as I feel like it."

Personally, I find the tags useless and uninformative as far as reading and evaluating article content, so I never use them. The only real information they provide is to alert me as an editor that some kind of intractable dispute exists, which tends to decrease my enthusiasm for wading in to try my hand at improving the content. --Michael Snow 17:06, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

They've now been unprotected. --Michael Snow 19:56, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "No original research"

Hey, Slim. Thanks for your work; it's much improved. I disagree on a few points and hope to follow up. Maurreen 06:18, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gmail

I can't remember my gmail ID. Haven't used it for a while. Can you send me an email via gmail to oneguy_ks at yahoo.co.uk ? OneGuy 22:06, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I will try it. I am sure I am right though. There would be massive abuse if these free services allow people sending anonymous emails (that's why they don't). I know I have posted to USENET using google groups and the IP was there. I will test gmail and post on the talk page. OneGuy 22:30, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Krusty the Klown

I doubt I could add anything useful to the Krusty/LaRouche discussion other than my usual rant which everyone has already seen. I am happy to provide info on the LaRouche cult if that would help get Krusty kicked out of Wikipedia. Other than that I am confining myself to reverting all his edits on Australian topics. Adam 23:08, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Slim, I have a modest proposal: why don't you have your friend Jayjg unprotect Schiller Institute, and we'll both agree to let DanKeshet edit it. I think there's a fair chance that his edits will be acceptable to the both of us. --H.K. 17:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Slim, thank you very much for your kind words at my admin vote. Also, I see you changed the pictures of your dogs. They're cute. One of these days, I ought to put up a picture of my cat. Maurreen 07:07, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Fairport Convention

Hi, Slim. A few weeks ago you reverted some vandalism on the Fairport Convention article. I have worked on the article intermittently since then and put it up for peer review. I wonder if you would be kind enough to give it a look over? If so, please post any comments on my talk page.

Nice dog pics, BTW! :) Andy F 02:58, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Just saw the message on my user page. Mate, I appreciate the encouragement :) your comments mean a lot to me! - Ta bu shi da yu 20:19, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hiya

Hi, Slim, congratulations on your featured article, I look forward to seeing dear Bernard on the Main page one day! (Very sorry about calling him "Bernard Harris", I don't know what got into me—sleepiness, probably.) Sorry I haven't replied about the paragraphing. My feeling is that Wikipedia policy on that ought to be very broad, and not phrased in a way that it can be used to police other writers at all. Give people a chance to develop a feeling for what kind of paragraphs suits the logic of their own writing style; the subject; and the venue (=Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so short paragraphs ought not to be the orthodoxy any more than long ones).
The only advice I can give you for your next article, I suppose, is to just experiment more with the paragraphs: test joining up those short paragraphs that come naturally to you (I think you said) into various constellations and see how you like the rhythm of them that way. That's what I do, I don't really understand paragraph divisions, or, well, anything else either, in my own text until I just visually peer at it on the page.
So, what are you writing about, is it more philosophy? We certainly don't have anything like enough of that, especially not as Featured articles. Oh, man, it's worse than I thought, check it out: look under the heading "Philosophy" on WP:FA. See it? Now look at the big fat list under the heading "Royalty, nobility and chivalry", further down on the page. (My favorite FAC antipathy, and you can't ever object to 'em, because "Too boring" isn't an "actionable objection". Bah.) :-(--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 22:13, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] CheeseDreams and Historicity of Jesus

Firstly, thanks for kind comments on my user page. They were toally appreciated... I'm in a much better state now so I'll be reverting back. It's good to know that people are very kind on this site though :-)

Anyway, back to the point (I've posted this to WP:AN): Can I please get advise on how to deal with the extensive changes that CheeseDreams is making on this article? She's running roughshod over everyone on an extremely controversial article. It's already been stuffed up due to this user's edits and had to be protected by RickK (in it's highly POV and badly structured form: at one point there were essentially TWO articles on the one page). Now CheeseDreams is making a massive change without using the talk page, and it adding sections that don't even have any content in it! I've reverted back and have requested that she bring her changes to the talk page. I would appreciate advise on how to procede with this, I don't particularly want to engage in an edit war with her. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:47, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rat Park

I took a quick look, and I like it. Will try to get back for more. Very interesting. Maurreen 18:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

sorry I don't want to get into an edit war with MDF, but you are right to fight this one, dodgy grammar and his PoV are not sufficient reasons to place a featured article candidate on clean up. Sorry I can't support the article for featured article status, but its a long way from bad or poor or in need of a clean. Giano 20:59, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo's talk page

What happened? Was that a server glitch, an edit conflict, deliberate, or what? —No-One Jones 22:23, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think people expressing their sympathy for Jimbo is libelous. It's simply them being kind. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 23:05, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your explanation

Hi Slim,

I appreciate your desire to contain references to the aforementioned case, but given the widespread publicity over on Slashdot about the attacking web site, as well as the continued existence of the article in question on Wikipedia itself, I think your deletion action is self-defeating, largely at Jimbo's own expense.

The only way to stop the perpetrator of the attacking web site is through the legal system. Assuming the attacker will just go away is rather optimistic. The longer the attacking web site is left to fester, the more caches it will be archived in, and more references to it will appear on more and more pages on the web.

As for setting up a legal fund myself, that would be rather inappropriate. In case my original post left any confusion about the matter, let me be perfectly clear: I don't want to set up a legal fund - I think Jimbo should do it. Any donations should go directly to him.

The question of whether or not a proposal, for Jimbo to establish a legal fund, should appear on his talk page seems to me to be a case of ignoring the actual attack that is taking place elsewhere.

As for a private e-mail request - unless our fellow editors have somewhere to post positive comments to show Jimbo that they would support and donate to such a legal fund, I doubt that Jimbo will take a personal e-mail from one fairly new editor very seriously as an offer of tangible financial support.

I won't continue to argue over your deletion, because it's not my talk page.

Although I think you are directing your deletions in the wrong direction, I'll close by simply asking you to take a look at the elephant sitting in the center of the room, and ask yourself whether your deletion did anything to move it out of the room?

Cheers,

— DV 04:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks mate :-)

I appreciate the comment... sheesh... admining can be a tough job! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:34, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sure they did. I was promised a bed of roses, they just didn't de-thorn them. Yow! :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 14:02, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Blackface

Hey, Slim. :-) Thanks for your kind words about the article and for your support. I can assure you I have not personalized/internalized the criticisms of the article. I'm not at all thin-skinned, and certainly not when it comes to comments like "it needs references" -- which, frankly, IMO, is the only criticism of the piece that has merit. I simply take the business about how it or the subheads are POV as well-intended, but voiced by those who did so because of their unfamiliarity with the subject matter, or who are either unimaginative or just skittish about it. I really am pressed for time these days. (I'm up now crunching a deadline.) I'll probably get back to blackface when I have some time after the holidays. I've already spent way too much time on Wikipedia lately. (How cute are your pooches! :-D) Peace 2 u. deeceevoice 10:28, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rat heaven

Hi, Slim, it's an intriguing problem you've got there, with apparently no published criticism of the Rat Park study, and the FAC cavillers surely have to agree that you're doing what you can to find some. Still, in the meantime, I suppose you could go all out to summarize the other view—the canonical view—in a NPOV way. It would be something, even if it's not like summarizing actual criticism of Alexander's methodology and conclusions. There's a certain tone in the summary that you have, even if I can't point to anything specific. Hmm, yes, I can: the word "reductionist". It may be proper to use here, according to its definition, but it also happens to be often used loosely as an insult, and therefore it would be good to immediately define it, in a neutral way, as opposed to trusting the reader to click on the link. Even better to not use it at all, in my view, because it'll contribute to the "tone" no matter what.
Good point about Drug addiction, btw. (How about using their Nestler and Malenka ref. for an opposite POV? Being able to point to it being used for the POV (which is total, I agree) of Drug addiction might be helpful.) Anyway, I hope it works out. Oh, btw, you don't want to call Geogre, a dear friend of mine, "George". It's Ge-ogre, as in "Ze ogre" or "Gee! Ogre!" :-)--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 12:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If there's no published critism, why not just say so in the article? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:03, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)