User talk:FredrickS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, FredrickS, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. 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 me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Dr Debug (Talk) 20:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Year zero

Hi. Thanks for your contribution to Year zero. However for them to be valid contributions to this article you need to make some changes. Firstly, and most importantly, we need som verification. That means providing some sources - academic papers, books, ore reputable web sites, that confirm your statements.

Secondly once you have provided verification then you also need to adjust the article to show that it is only the RC church that counts like this. The impression we give at the moment is that all dates are taken from Dec25th (which is clearly wrong).

Please don't reply here, reply at Talk:Year zero where I have copied the above comment. DJ Clayworth 20:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Asked for arbitration by others 2/8/2006FredrickS

You can find a detailed description of the tools available for dispute resolution, and their suggested order of use, at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Also, if you're not logged in, you can still datestamp your comments easily by entering five "~" marks (no need to do the datestamping manually). --Christopher Thomas 02:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Empty nest

Hi Fredrick, welcome to Wikipedia. I think that your page Empty nest violates the no original research rules of Wikipedia, and I have accordingly proposed it for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empty nest). You may want to comment on that page if you disagree! –Joke 01:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Joke,
I am working on the rebuttal for such a request right now. The information has been published, and has been discussed in the media, though not extensively. Especially since the Empty Nest appears in the section of speculative physics beyond the Big Bang, I see not how deletion of this information would be appropriate. Wikipedia is not just the place for conventional information, published information is the core. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FredrickS (talk • contribs) on 02:03, 13 February 2006.

Linking this article from big bang also appears to violate verifiability rules, as self-published sources aren't considered reliable. Sources for scientific articles generally have to be from peer-reviewed journals that have sufficiently good reputations among scientists. Self-published sources are mainly only useful as references for articles about themselves. --Christopher Thomas 02:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I encountered resistance of others, and it looks Wikipedia's regulation is on their side (until I get furter in having the idea displayed in the media) and agree to have this page Empty_nest removed. FredrickS

[edit] Full Representation

Blame the Center for Voting and Democracy for introducing an alternative, marketing term for proportional representation. Feel free to edit the latter article instead. -- Dissident (Talk) 04:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at considering my turning Full Representation into a redirect. The content of your article at the time before is available in the edit history, as you can see here and can be reverted at will. See Help:Page history for more info.

Also, Full representation and Full Representation are two different articles; notice the different capitalization. Anyway, at the very least, one should be a redirect to the other and their contents should not just be duplicated. As capitalization is generally discouraged here, the former should become the main article.

To be honest, I'm not particularly thrilled with the changes you've made to the introduction of proportional representation, as I consider the changes you've made to the text to be more vague, subjective and filled with side issues, whereas an introduction should have the right combination of succinctness and generality.

I'll make you a deal. I'll revert the changes you've made to proportional representation and in return I'll ignore full representation for the moment. After a while, when its contents have settled down a bit, you can try and get a consensus that the two concepts are indeed different, because I, till this moment, never encountered this viewpoint and consider it an extreme minority one, if it's at all shared by anyone more than just you. If you fail, we'll try to merge the contents articles again to everybody's satisfaction, discussing it at Talk:proportional representation.

I also suggest you merge the contents of Political System in the Netherlands (again notice the improper capitalization) with that of Politics of the Netherlands. -- Dissident (Talk) 19:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your good answer. As an immigrant to the United States, I have been amazed how little Americans truly understand of the proportional system, and I am not surprised that you are not familiar with the term full representation and mistook it to mean one and the same thing as proportional representation. Thank you also for giving me some time and space her: I am not the best writer and need time (and possibly help) to get this page look at its best. And you are right: Politics of the Netherlands is a much better page. I will look how I can merge the information I have into that page. Possibly I will end up agreeing with you that it can all be delivered best on one and the same page.

FredrickS 02:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how one can immediately deduce someone's nationality based simply on the fact that that person is unaware of anyone differentiating the meanings of the terms "full representation" and "proportional representation", let alone sharing this assessment. Anyway, unless you can supply evidence there exists significant support for your view, it's bound to be classified as idiosyncratic on your part, resulting in the eventual, inevitable merger of the two articles. As far as I am concerned proportional representation refers to a class of voting systems as well as the effect of their use. -- Dissident (Talk) 03:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Female Parliamentarians

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Female Parliamentarians, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Importance). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Female Parliamentarians. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. - David Oberst 19:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

As you've removed the proposed deletion tag I'll see if I can find other editors to give an opinion, likely as part of an deletion nomination. I'm not sure if a phrase such as "Female Parliamentarians" is an article topic, but if it is the existing text is not it. - David Oberst 23:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emancipation

I've reverted the Emancipation disambiguation page once again. First, a disambiguation page isn't the place for mini-essays (see MOS:DAB). More importantly, the use of "emancipation" in your text seems to be somewhat unique - I'm not aware that it is standard usage to consider citizens of countries with proportional representation systems more "emancipated" than those without, for example. Unless you can provide some standard citations of this usage, I suspect that you have run afoul of Wikipedia's "no original research" requirements (see WP:NOR). Also (and my apologies if English is not your first language), but some of your wording ("can start to participate as they are without adjusting to the one or two parties in control", or "being able to be as one is") is both difficult to understand, and reinforces the impression that one is reading the writer's personal views, not an encyclopedia article.

Finally, it is considered impolite to cry "censorship" (as you have in both your revert summaries) to simple disagreements over article content. Regards - David Oberst 23:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I am the "Mr. Virgo" referred to in your cryptic edit summary[1], but I have removed the "proportional representation" entry from the Emancipation article once again. Before restoring it, please provide citations to this usage - textbooks using the term in this manner, significant use of the term "emancipation" by groups advocating PR, etc. - David Oberst 20:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Oberst,

I forgot whose quote it was, but it goes something like this: the problem is not that people lack knowledge about certain issues, it is the knowledge they have and consider correct when it is not correct, that is the problem. Please look up the explanation of the word Emancipation in the best source available to all: the dictionary (even the one provided by wikipedia should suffice). You will find, without any problem, that I have communicated very straight-forwardly with you all this time.

I cannot educate you any better than by pointing you to the dictionary. The Webster dictionary clearly states with the word emancipation: to free from restraint, control, or the power of another. All this applies to the political platform. You seem to have gotten the picture with 'suffragettes,' but, forgive me for giving my honest opinion, otherwise you are drawing a blank. I read that you are Canadian, and in the wiki Proportional_representation I read that several Canadian provinces are considering changing the system to deliver full representation instead of winner-takes-all. I don't know if that is why you want to erase the input (when and if you don't like that to happen), but please, educate yourself before you erase. Emancipation points to a process of ultimately becoming equals (an ideal we may never be able to reach, but the process of emancipation can go on for a real long time). I remember when women were starting to wear pants that that was considered a form of emancipation; that what was first considered not-possible (in fashion: not-done) has now become possible.

The pen-ultimate form of emancipation is that of political emancipation; the political platform is the platform that matters most in emancipation because this is where you (or your self-elected representative) are allowed to sit around the table of decision makers or not. In district elections, limitations exists collectively on who can sit around the table of decision makers, limitations that do not exist (to that extent) in proportional systems.

North-Americans often think of emancipation only as belonging to those people who were set free, not those who obtained equal rights. The Voting Roghts Act of 1965, for instance, was an important step that helped emancipate many African-Americans in the voting booth.

While colloquially one term may conflict in meaning with the same term used in another part of the world - particularly a problem in world languages like English and French - it should be considered a given for users of these languages that such colloquialism exists. In our world today, the Netherlands is considered the nation that politically delivers the most freedom to its voters [[2]].

FredrickS 23:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted once again. Instead of unneeded lectures attempting to educate, please provide citations of common usage of "emancipation" such that it needs a pointer to "proportional representation" on the disambiguation page. If indeed "the Netherlands is considered the nation that politically delivers the most freedom to its voters", and this is due to proportional representation, and the process is commonly referred to as "emancipation", I have no doubt that this important fact will be documented in numerous textbooks or other sources that you can provide. Any number of activities might be argued as constituting "emancipation", but if the term is not commonly used in that context there is no need for Wikipedia to disambiguate it. For instance, Canadian soldiers may have helped "emancipate" the Netherlands, but as the word is not commonly used there is no need for a link to the Liberation Day (The Netherlands) article, nor indeed to the Women's trousers article.

Forgive my skirting the borders of sarcasm, but I notice I am not the first "North American" whose knowledge you have deemed insufficient and attempted to improve, and I would suggest that you refrain from doing so in the future. Similarly the rather ridiculous speculation that my reasons for "erasing your input" is some sort of attempt to keep Canada bound in the shackles of non-proportional representation and, presumably, lesserly emancipated.

I will attempt to enlist other editors to provide their views on the entry. - David Oberst 00:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Dear Oberst,

Apologies, first. Your continued erasures of my input, and my attempts to reinstate what I consider vital and common knowledge (see suffragettes, which you left standing) has made me angry at you, and now I have made you angry at me with my language. Not a good way to continue a conversation. I do indeed find North-America a place of battle, even that of language, with words becoming the reasons why something is included, for instance in Wikipedia, and why some information is not included. And that battle makes me want to throw up my hands in the air and say: why battle about what is not important. I prefer to refer to the dictionary to make people open up their eyes to the real meaning of a word, often much broader than just the familiar context.

I have no objections to you asking others to help figure this one out. Since you now allow suffragettes as one of the entrees in this now very list-like looking wiki-page, I am already impressed that the concept of political emancipation has not been erased by you (not meant to be cynical, just an observation).

What I found in a half an hour search on political emancipation, shows me how much it is the paramount feature I consider it to be. If this wiki-page needs a remake, I suggest placing the feature of political emancipation back in the top again. However, I am not a must-win person, I want to find common grounds that hold truths everyone recognizes or can recognize.

[[3]] [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] [[7]] [[8]] [[9]] [[10]] [[11]] [[12]] [[13]] [[14]] [[15]] [[16]] point 2.6 [[17]] named in the same breath. [[18]] [[19]] [[20]] [[21]] [[22]] [[23]] [[24]]


I've copied over all this text to Talk:Emanicipation which seems like the best place. I will also add my comments. CaptainJ (t | c | e) 01:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

User:FredrickS response above also copied to Talk:Emancipation - please continue discussion there. - David Oberst 04:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Nomination Female Parliamentarians

I've nominated the article Female Parliamentarians for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Female Parliamentarians satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Female Parliamentarians. Don't forget to add four tildes (˜˜˜˜) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Female Parliamentarians during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. David Oberst 07:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/r/e/User_talk%7EFredrickS_ef80.html"