User talk:Buffyg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi, and welcome again! Thanks very much for the excellent work expanding the Jacques Derrida article. It might be nice, though it's no big deal, if you could make a few large edits rather than many, many little ones, just so people can more easily keep track of what's changed in between. Also, you might want to be a bit more careful to keep the article's point of view neutral: not that I don't agree with you about (e.g.) the "Heidegger affair" being no surprise, but if the article expresses an opinion like that, someone will eventually take issue with it. I hope you'll keep contributing such good stuff to the Wikipedia! -- Rbellin 22:27, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The best place to discuss concerns about an individual article is usually the Talk page associated with that article (click the "Discussion" or "Discuss this page" link from the article's page to get there). So, in the case of the Derrida article, that page is Talk:Jacques Derrida. Depending on how you work, the Wikipedia community can sometimes feel a little slow to respond (especially when dealing with specialized topics); don't be discouraged by this, but also remember that others will eventually come along and modify the article in the months after you "finish" your work on it.
You might also be interested in looking at the other articles in Category:Deconstruction and helping improve them, as well. (I and several others have put a lot of work into the Deconstruction article, which seems to attract occasional hostility; it is certainly not perfect, but is getting much better.) Thanks for all your work! -- Rbellin 15:09, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

So my next effort will be revisions on Deconstruction, Lacoue-Labarthe, and a few others. I was really put off by the NYT obit on Derrida please see my blog. Buffyg 01:57, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi, just to say that I've changed into to Krits if you want me! Kristy


Contents

[edit] James Jesus Angleton

I'm finding two different James Jesus Angleton pages, one that links off my User_talk:Nobs#Philby page, and another off Kim_Philby#Chronology_of_Philby.27s_career page which is up for peer review. Nobs 21:46, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blogs and whatnot

Hey, I followed your user page link from a CfD and was inspired to read your blog. Nicely written, and I completely agree. Thanks for putting the effort into saying something that needed to be said. -Seth Mahoney 02:59, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anschluss

Hey Buffy, congratulations to you and User:Themanwithoutapast on getting Anschluss to featured-article status. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:31, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Editing Arendt

Would you have time to help? I am pretty new to Wiki, just looking around - but coming across the Arendt article which completely ignores her philsophical background, training and interest suggests that work is needed and I would enjoy, with limited time of course, trying to develop a more systematic presentation of her writing. Do leave me a note when you get back, though I shall be away for a week then. Jeffrey Newman 08:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harold Innis

I agree that the article does not substantiate Innis as a Canadian philosopher, and he would not have considered himself to be one.--BrentS 30 June 2005 02:03 (UTC)

[edit] Post-structualism

Your note is kind and considerate, which reflects the judgement I had made of you in any event. Your frustration was understandable since I was trying to edge into your obvious domain of expertise quietly instead of launching into long texts that could have been misinterpreted as attacks, ad hominem or otherwise. Frustration is an emotion well understood by me as I decline into senility. My memory is failing and I can no longer rely on slippery words to capture anything like the meaning I used to grasp with confidence. My diffidence was my undoing. I should have produced a more general critique rather than leave silences for you to misinterpret. For the record, I have never thought that the generality of post-structuralism was an entirely constructive step forward, although I find some of the ideas interesting. I read all of Barthes, Foucault, et al as they were translated — my French was good but not that good — up to the mid-seventies. Then other interests supervened. That leaves me about 30 years out of date and, although your offer of co-operation is well-meant, I donated my personal library to younger colleagues when I retired, so my ability to contribute is now limited. I will look back into the page in a few days time when the dust has settled and, if it seems appropriate, I might venture a comment (but only if it is constructive, of course). -David91 4 July 2005 21:02 (UTC)

After my stint in the army (see the world, learn to shoot: or should that be the other way round?) and with a 2:2 degree that was considered good because one third of my cohort failed at the end of the first year, five received 2:1s and no-one got a first (those were the days), I relaxed for a few years and then, one bright morning in the late fifties, joined the staff of Dudley Technical College. I passed through U of Aston in Birmingham and Keele (or should that be the other way round?), an embarrassment to those marketing universities as a business to sell higher degrees as a doorway to success (the prospectus showed only my poor little Hons, yet I was running postgraduate programmes: now what kind of message does that send?!?). Retirement in a new blood package could not come soon enough. I then did some SME consultancy work, accepting the final contract when I was 58. I will be 70 in September, entering my post-somnambulistic phase here. -David91 5 July 2005 04:35 (UTC)

[edit] Inter-contributor relations

The policy-makers at this web site are working on some new guidelines for dealing with people who annoy you with personal remarks. One of them is, don't keep harping on it. Ask them once or twice to stop, then ignore it. Or ask for help.

We've found that "telling people the rules" doesn't work well and often backfires, especially when you're "in the thick of it."

I can help you, if you follow my advice. I'm unusually good at this sort of thing. That's probably why I've been put on the Mediation Committee. Uncle Ed July 7, 2005 00:03 (UTC)

By all means, please advise. I've already realised that my efforts to try to make things better have not met with success. Buffyg 7 July 2005 00:38 (UTC)

[edit] Reports removed from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

I saw you removed these with the comment "seems to have subsided". Not sure I understand the comment. Reported vandalism yesterday on Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress. User was warned (the user was previously warned for vandalising Santa Claus in January), but behaviour continues. I added report to the request for intervention because of the comment on the in progress page that says reported offenders who persist in behaviour after warning should be escalated for intervention. Wouldn't that apply here? In any case, I'm not sure why this should be thought of as subsided, as this happens about once a day and all edits from the reported ID appear to be vandalism. Buffyg 12:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

It is my understanding that its use is limited to immediate vandalism (example), and it has subsided. El_C 12:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't mean to be argumentative, but, as this does not the clear content of the code, I'm trying to understand your understanding. ;-> Neither the VIP nor AIV pages specify this. VIP specifies escalation of continuing vandalism after warning, and AIV specifies that an administrator check for continued vandalism after a warning. I don't have the clear sense that there is anything like prompt action on reports to VIP; where a user has been warned to cease and desist and continues with impunity, is administrative action not merited? Buffyg 13:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Those ips are on my (and others') watchlist now, they were warned and I wish to see if this warning results in the desired effect. And, regardless, I want to keep AIV clear for immediate, ongoing vandalism. El_C 13:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks and...

I've just read the Derrida article and discussion and want to thank and congratulate you. Hannah Arendt presumably doesn't particularly interest you (since you never replied.) I'm beginning to get to know my way around and would like to start to develop an article in the autumn. My reading of her suggests that her work was centrally based upon the relationship with Heidegger, the issues raised for her about philosophy by his memebership of the Nazi Party and his Rectorship. This led to her emphasis on the 'vita activa,' her rejection of Plato and her emphasis on 'people' rather than the individual, which I see as a particularly gendered and important contribution. That summary excludes her extensive knowledge of and reference to, Greek philosophy, where I have no competence (and I haven't mentioned Kant, either, wthough there I feel more comfortable) and the centrality of holocaust/shoah (which term is now used?) which, inter-connecting with Heidegger, was at the centre of her life and work, demonstrated most obviously by her reporting of the trial of Eichmann. Any comments appreciated. Jeffrey Newman 06:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vergangenheitsbewältigung

Sorry if the drive-by-edit seemed a bit rude. I added a slightly longer explanation to the talk page. Hope that helps.

Content-wise the article is okay. It's just not exactly user-friendly when it comes to delivering that content. -- Ashmodai 20:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tariq Aziz edit

Hello. I am sorry to edit with an RfC. I do not even know what that is but I am sorry for doing it. I cannot leave an evil person like Aziz in a category that has people of my faith when I know that he is not. Again, I am sorry. I do not know what an RfC is. -- Phatcat68 22:04, 28 July 2005 (US ET)

[edit] Hi Buffyg

Thanks for your comments. My purpose is to discuss the article not the subject in general. In the future, I will try to avoid getting sucked into side debates.

However, I have tried to make my point critiquing the article. I have repeatedly stated what should be obvious when judging or labeling anything as this or that:

For something to be characterized as 'anti-semitism' or 'anti-anything' it must first be UNTRUE. If it is TRUE than it can't be 'anti-anything.'

Further, to characterize something as anti-semitism/anti-semitic, we must establish (a) an objective criteria, (b) an objective adjudicative framework or process and deterimone (c) who the final arbiters of what is and isn't anti-semitism is.

I don't know what matters you would like me to reference to make this case. Perhaps a Business Law 101 book because that's what that is. Without those three components and a defense of "truth" the article is flawed and that should be mentioned in the article.

Moreover, the article should mention that if something said about a Jew is TRUE, it can NEVER be anti-semitic.

Without these acknowledgements, the article is immensely flawed and anyone who thinks otherwise is mentally feeble or intellectually dishonest.

Have a great evening.

--Titus70AD 05:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

moved from userpage ∞Who?¿? 05:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi Buffyg,

"Moreover, the article should mention that if something said about a Jew is TRUE, it can NEVER be anti-semitic": this isn't true of antisemitism or anything else. Anyone can take a true statement out of context and make it into a false or misleading statement. Misinterpretation by abusive contextualisation and characertisation are frequent elements of prejudicial remarks that are in no way limited to antisemitism; such may not be malicious, but it is always excoriable.

Truth is Truth. How can Truth be taken out of context? Again, this is :: an attempt to even discredit TRUTH as being the ultimate defense of
the term 'anti-semitism' (which it is). And the reason why Truth
is so important to this defense is because 'anti-semitism' is
primarily used as a weapon which isused to squelch dissention.

As to your requirement that "Further, to characterize something as anti-semitism/anti-semitic, we must establish (a) an objective criteria, (b) an objective adjudicative framework or process and deterimone (c) who the final arbiters of what is and isn't anti-semitism is", I'm not sure whether this works in any case of discrimination. Such criteria may applied in cases where a government decides to legislate against particular forms of discrimination, but I don't believe that any group that feels itself an object of pernicious discrimination will accept such a framework to evaluate all forms of prejudice against it. I would ask whether the same protocols can carried out for other examples of discriminatory behaviour that you cited, including Christophobia and anti-Teutonism (the latter of which would seem to be susceptible in principle if not in fact to same form of argument you've made about antisemitism).

This most certainly is a CRITICAL framework if you want us to take
charges of 'anti-semitism' seriously. And yes, it would obviously
apply to terms like Christophobia, Anti-Teutonism, Homophobia and
Xenophobia.
I really suggest you look in the mirror and consider why you and other
protected groups would never allow such an objective framework.
The reason is because that would mean that spurious charges of
'anti-semitism' would be batted out of the stadium and THAT means Jews
and other protected groups would not have this arbitrary power to
silence those they disagree with or that disagree with them.
I would generally encourage you to read other entries on discriminatory phenomena before you try to contribute. Buffyg 14:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm most educated on discriminatory phenomena. And, in fact, with
over two decades of this education, I've found it is normally just a
tool or weapon
for protected minority groups to kick around the majority, demand
funding and special treatment and squelch all dissent. It's so
laughable now as we have groups like Muslims screaming "racism!" when
the last time I checked, Islam wasn't a race but a religion.

--Titus70AD 21:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I replied at User talk:Titus70AD.

[edit] RfC

Thanks for your comments on Six Sigma. I think we're approaching a compromise, so I appreciate your input and help. --Spangineer (háblame) 13:05, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What is Enlightenment?

Fair enough, I will have another go when I get a chance. What I think needs to be done is just to divert to Enlightenment (concept). There is already a reference to Kant's Essay and I think that adds more value than this entry.

[edit] History of Arizona

Thank you for your commentary on the article I listed on FAC. I did my best to meet your objections and would like to know if my edits were satisfactory at the FAC. Thank you very much. Toothpaste 22:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary lack of response

I'm sorry for the lack of an immediate response; my ISP connection has decided to semi-crash for the afternoon; and I'm lucky to able to type and send a post this short. Back ASAP, not good timing. Thanks for your comments Monicasdude 23:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I'm a doormat

I'm a doormat. This I know. :) But I hate to see admirable efforts bulldozed by people without tact or grace. I doubt I'm the only one "encouraging" Toothpaste, I'm just a recent defender, but your point is well-taken. Thanks. jengod 01:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ken Mehlman

Is the fact that he has never been married not credible? Does that not lead to speculations? With Mehlman refusing to answer questions about the speculation, this leads to even more speculation, and this is relevant, and presented in a neutral point of view--Asbl 16:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Nothing in the post says that he is gay. Like it or not, politicians are held to a higher standard than private citizens (he was elected by the members of the Republican Central Committee, that does make him a politician). When a politician refuses to answer a question, especially a personal question, that is news, not gossip. It is the new standard under which we have to live, started in the Gary Hart case in 1987, and intensified during the Clinton Administration in the 1990's. Since the information is presented in a neutral point of view, I think it belongs in the article. Wikipedia does not exist in some ideal world, it exists in the real world. News presented in a NPOV belongs in the article. --Asbl 16:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on User:Monicasdude

Frankly, I think Monicasdude's question demonstrated that he was not interested in negotiating. He, in effect, demanded that I explain why I would have the audacity to suggest that he was doing anything wrong. The fact is, I said that I think his behavior was inappropriate, and I feel that any attempt to explain that to him would just let him drag me into an argument with him over it. He doesn't appear willing to admit any fault, which makes mediation pointless.

Second, on the issue of formal mediation, I deny the premise that one must be a member of the mediation committee in order to do any mediating. I also deny the validity of "formal mediation" all together. It's a different debate, really, but I think the whole concept is rather un-wiki. Anyone who can mediate can be a mediator. But in my view, the debate with Monicasdude is beyond mediation. He won't accept it, hence my recommendation that this go up to RfC and RFAr. If someone else thinks they can get something done here, they are welcome to try. But I seriously doubt it. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Buffyg wrote, in part (over on Ryan Delaney's talk page): ... I think it would be appropriate, for one, to indicate that you [Ryan Delaney] are not offering to provide formal mediation in the sense of Wikipedia:Mediation ... I don't think this is the case in fact, but read on about the implications taken away by Lulu and JDG ... The fact that JDG is posting on Lulu's page talking about a ban tells me that the situation is being allowed to run out of control. I would offer that you ought to intercede again with a mediation offer to forestall an RfC. Buffyg 21:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
FWIW, I never believed Ryan Delaney was proposing to act as a formal mediator. That's why I added a title to the Talk:Bob Dylan page of Informal mediation above his offer. I do not know how other editors perceived the offer, of course. I also do not think a ban is necessarily appropriate or likely for Monicasdude, except maybe a short-term one whenever the Dylan page is unprotected.
That said, I tend to think that given the really extreme belligerence of Monicasdude on several user talk pages that I've seen, an RfC is probably the best approach now. I think it carries more weight than an IM chat, whether that chat involved Ryan Delaney or some member of the Mediation Committee. I may misunderstand, but doesn't an RfC have to move to an RfAr before a ban can occur? If so, hopefully the dispute can be settled via RfC, without going any farther. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:46, 2005 August 28 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Dylan page dispute/mediation, etc.

I want to thank you for your helpful and constructive comments in several places on this matter. I believe you accurately identified my concerns regarding this, and restated them in a manner more likely to promote resolution of the dispute than my presentation of them in detail would have done. Unfortunately, it's now clear that the original proposal for mediation cannot be carried out, and in the absence of an appropriate substitute I think it prudent not to comment further in public until the initial stage of the process is completed. Thanks again for your contributions. Monicasdude 07:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] hi from Xah Lee

hi mask Buffyg, do you do nothing everday? Xah Lee 18:44, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Meetup

Heya,

Just a quick note to remind you of the London Meetup this coming Sunday (the 11th of September) that you signed up for (as 'possible', so you'll be definitely coming then, won't you? ;-)). It's at the Archery Tavern, just next to Lancaster Gate tube station, from 13:00 (BST) onwards.

Looking forward to seeing you there.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimania 2006 in London?

Nice meeting you! I checked Imperial College, which is probably too expensive, and they cannot accommodate the majority of delegates at "Biet Hall"... LoopZilla 19:56:44, 2005-09-11 (UTC)


[edit] History of the Jews in Poland

I would love to resubmit this, but you raised a few objections, including not including Browning's arguments, which you suggested that you would add. Any chance you could do that? Also, if that is an area of specialty for you, you may want to also add material to either Phases of the Holocaust or the appropriate areas Ghetto as well, since we are missing material on the origins of the Final Solution pre-1941. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] M-S

Hoax - yeesh. Thanks - Only got halfway down the article. :| -St|eve 01:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Derrida

Sure. My first priority is getting the article out of the densely academic language it's in - it's a good accounting of Derrida for a MA seminar, but it's a lousy one for a general audience. It makes no definition of deconstruction (Which is admittedly, according to deconstruction, at least somewhat impossible), and has no real account of the Paul deMan controversy, which is one of the most notable events in Derrida's life. It focuses excessively on the relation of Derrida with other thinkers - the entire Derrida/Heidegger section reads like it was excerpted from someone's seminar paper - particularly the reference to Deleuze, which is clearly in reference to something, but I can't find what anywhere in the article. So most of the work I'm doing is reorganization and cutting - taking out most of the Heidegger stuff, not because it's bad but because it's just way more detail than a generalist encyclopedia article on Derrida needs, and not in a language that's going to be helpful to most readers. Snowspinner 17:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm almost done, so you can respond in practice rather than in theory - my accounts of deconstruction and of de Man are nowhere near as long as their individual articles - but I do think that the Derrida article should contain capsule summaries of these. Right now, the Derrida article is unintelligible without reference to the other two. Mind you, it's not that I think it's a bad article - for an encyclopedia of critical theory, it would be superb work. But I think it's marked by a lack of clarity and readability, and by a failure to think about the uninformed reader. To my view, it's important for articles like this to be intelligible and helpful to an undergraduate who has stumbled upon a reference to Derrida, and is trying to figure out what he's all about. My revision is "gutting" in the sense that it is reworking the fundamental structure of the article to be more helpful in this vein. Snowspinner 17:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Before you spend a lot of time rewriting the article, I should warn you that if you bring it back to the state it was on October 7th, I am going to revert it. If you want to go to talk and hash out a compromise version, that's fine, but removing the definition of deconstruction and the Sokal reference is flatly unacceptable. Snowspinner 18:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The bulk of your objections - '"Derrida never used the term," for instance, are very small matters of recast sentences from the previous version. (It used to be "His work is often associated with post-structuralism and postmodernism, but the latter association cannot be fully credited. Jean-François Lyotard, rather, is the closest link between deconstruction and postmodernism.") It should probably be "Derrida did not generally identify as such" in practice. The problem with the version that I assume you favor is, quite simply, it's bad. It's original research, it ignores the most common conception of Derrida, it focuses disproportionately on Heidegger, and it's hopelessly slanted to what is obviously your personal academic interests.
From what I've read, I have great respect for you as a Derrida scholar - but you're letting your investment in the subject matter lead to a lousy article that reflects your view on Derrida and your scholarship, and is both utterly impenetrable and misleading for a generalist audience. I will be the first to admit that I am not a Derrida specialist (Although to so casually dismiss my credentials out of hand is offensive - both because I do know what I'm talking about and because it's well documented that subject expertise is not a reason to drown out the contributions of others on Wikipedia). But I know enough to recognize that the article was excessively reflecting the POV and interests of one editor.
Finally, I am floored that you've apparently spent all of the time since the 7th seething about the article without raising a list of basic objections on talk. To do so seems to me to speak of a great disrespect for your fellow editors, and a frightening sense of superiority. In accordance with the proper assumption of good faith, I expect you can now demonstrate this is not the case. Snowspinner 18:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of the Jews in Poland

I'd like to resubmit this article to FAC - I think it is really up to FA standard. Have you addressed your objections/have they been addressed? If not, please indicate so on the Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland#FA_Renominating. Tnx! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It should not. I was more worried with the article being turned down again due to the objections on those grounds. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ken Mehlman

Asbl seems to have decided to ignore the consensus reached that Mehlman's being asked about his sexual orientation and refusing to answer on principle was not encyclopedic and is trying to force it into the article. As you were a big part in the previous discussion and fashioning a consensus that didn't meet the standards for inclusion, I was hoping you could speak up about it on the talk page. It's identical to the discussion you had before, but I think it would be good if you said a few words to reiterate your position. Regards. Flavius Aetius 02:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] new collaboration project

You'd you be interested in participating in a new Collaboration project that aims at translating good and featured articles in the French Wikipedia to English (much like the Spanish Translation of the Week)? I'm trying to see if there's enough users interested in this project before creating it. Thank you. CG 17:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Meetup/Birmingham

This is just a reminder that the Birmingham meetup of UK Wikipedians that you have expressed an interst in is happening tomorrow. Sorry for the short notice. Thryduulf 15:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Derrida/deconstruction articles

Hi Buffyg -- I was curious about the status of the Derrida and deconstruction articles. Are you planning on returning to them anytime soon? There's some rumblings on the Talk page at the deconstruction article about starting edits again, so it's obvious that there are people who are ready and willing to put a good faith effort into cleaning it up a little. Do you have any plans on leading the charge? In any case, I've done a lot of work on deconstruction/post-structuralism, even published a few articles on the stuff, and I'd be happy to lend my services to the effort. Just let me know what needs to be done. --M. Maas 00:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sarah Kofman

Hi. I wanted to write to you about the entry on Sarah Kofman, but what I want to say is not that easy to express, so I hope you'll bear with me. Essentially I want to say this: just because it is possible to write about something doesn't mean you should write about that thing in an encyclopedia. Sometimes an issue is delicate, and one should not commit to print any words about it unless one knows very well what it is one wants to say and how one wants to say it. I think the biography of Sarah Kofman is such a case. This is not only a question of the painful details of that biography, but is also a question of the relation of this biography to the fact that she was a philosopher, and that her autobiographical works were also philosophical works. There are times when an encyclopedia absolutely must not substitute for the reading of a book, and should do no more than point the reader to that book. I think the entry on Sarah Kofman is such a case. It is my belief that an encyclopedia article on Sarah Kofman should refer to the events of her life, but it is not the place to describe those events in any detail. The interested reader should be encouraged to pick up the book, rather than to believe that they know something about a topic because they have read an entry in an encyclopedia. And even less should an encyclopedia have the potential to spoil a book by letting the reader know in advance of its contents, if the book is the kind of book we are talking about in this case. Obviously I am not accusing you of anything at all, or criticizing you in any way, but I am appealing to you to reflect on what I have said. I know this is not the way that Wikipedia editors usually like to talk, but I do feel sometimes that they can get caught up in their role as editor, rather than reflecting on the actual matter which they are writing about. And I do believe that this is, in some ways, a singular case, which is why, when I first composed the entry, I did so with a certain amount of trepidation. My preference would be to revert to something similar to the way it was, or at least something with a more measured approach to what should be told and what should not, and how. Again, this is not meant to be critical of you at all, and I would not even write it if I did not believe that you would give the matter careful thought. Thanks. Mtevfrog 12:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I just wanted to forewarn you that I have re-edited your edits to the Kofman entry, so that you wouldn't be too shocked when you discovered them. To be honest, I cut a fair bit out, only because I felt uncomfortable about the descriptions summarizing the content of Rue Ordener, rue Labat in such detail, for the reasons I mentioned above. If someone comes to the entry who has not read the book, it will severely dent the impact, and if someone comes to the entry who has read the book, the description is unnecessary. More fundamentally, I think the words Kofman chose to tell her story matter, because even if she wrote in an absence of style, that's still a style (as your very good sentence about this makes clear).
I am not somebody who gets involved in so-called "edit wars," so if you disagree with my reasoning, you will no doubt get your way. But I do care about the Kofman entry, as I can see you do too, so I thought I would take what you had done to the article into consideration, and try to come up with something that keeps what I like and avoids the problems I've mentioned. Even so, you might feel your hard work has been violently discarded; if so, I hope its clear at least that I am trying to balance the spirit of an encyclopedia with the obligations which derive from Kofman's work (and life) itself. Mtevfrog 06:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 13:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/u/f/User_talk%7EBuffyg_64bd.html"