User talk:Freddie deBoer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Unwritten rules
Try not get get too discouraged... yes, there is a bit of a learning curve, but in the end just do what you think is right. Usually, somebody will be happy to gently nudge in the right direction, if it's needed. If anybody is outright rude to you, do your best to ignore it: it's they who are wrong, not you.
If there's anything you need, feel free to ask me or anybody else. We're here to help. – ClockworkSoul 18:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- By the way, the quote on your user page is fine. Just relax, it's not as restrictive here as I think you think it is. – ClockworkSoul 18:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Go ahead and be bold, and don't worry about stepping on toes: nobody "owns" anything here (though some may feel a bit territorial). If you go a bit too far, somebody will simply undo it and leave you a little note. Honetly, it's no biggie. – ClockworkSoul 18:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Just a few first impressions
I saw your contribution at the subsection "the community" at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales wondered exactly what you were going on about, so I read your user page (which is a great deal more coherent) and was left feelingthat what you believe is what all thoughtful scientists and objectivist philosophers believe only you seem to feel you are the only one that realizes the limitations of current methods. As you note, it doesn't matter if a method is not perfect, only that it is helpful. Specifically, a better method than known alternative methods. Only an idiot throws away the imperfect because it is imperfect and replaces it with something even more imperfect. Nothing real is perfect, so even bringing it up is beside the point when one is trying to actually do something rather than mathematically or philosophically analyze something. Anyway, next I check your user contributions and note you are editing talk pages rather than improving actual articles and wonder if you are trolling. So I check your user talk page and it seems you are new here and just getting your feet wet seeing what its all about. Newbies make lots of mistakes. We expect that. It's even a rule to not bite the newbie. If anyone gives you a hard time just say "Hey, I'm new here. Gimme a break!" You are allowed to be bold and do almost anything ONCE. If you are reverted or told to stop, then don't do that anymore. Simple. What is not allowed is being disruptive. Some people do the same thing over and over again even though they are reverted and many others tell them to stop. This is disruptive. Some people are very very insulting. This is dealt with by admins (aka sy-ops). If anyone gets nasty enough they make you want to not contribute to wikipedia, tell an admin, they will be dealt with, we won't allow them to drive away people who want to help. The best way to get to know wikipedia is looking up something you know a lot about and improve articles on that subject by making small chages that delete incorrect assertions (politly request a source to verify what you delete - its their job to provide a source - but actually read related articles and external links and sources indicated before deleting anything that may be true - don't just go wild deleting stuff) and adding sourced information with the source. Wikipedia has many different styles of sourcing. We are still evolving in that and many other ways. Have fun. Help us make the world better. You know something verifyable that you want everyone to know? Here, you can make that happen. WAS 4.250 16:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Counterpoint
www.aetherometry.com/antiwikipedia2
[edit] deconstruction article
Freddie -- I saw your comment on the deconstruction. I'm eager to do a little a work on the article myself, beginning with edits for clarity. Do you have any interest in splitting up some of the sections? --M. Maas 00:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Freddie deBoer on postmodernism
I have really enjoyed your article. I can't fully take it in currently as I have a headache, but it seems pretty balanced and resonable to me. I have long felt that a reasoned debate is the way people learn about things with which they are unfamiliar and people will surely only change their minds or perceptions if they are treated well and arguments are put forward without venom or attack of opposing thoughts. Thank you for your writings, I'll refer back to them. Sharedfastlane 12:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)sharedfastlane
[edit] Please do not spam articles
Please keep comments to the discussion page.
