User talk:Tbeatty
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- /Archive1 Created May 1. 2006
- /Archive2 Created August 24, 2006
- /Archive3 Created September 30, 2006
- /Archive4 Created November 19, 2006
- //Archive5 Created 05:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Please add comments to the bottom.
Contents |
[edit] My RfA
I appreciate your support during my recent RfA. I'm happy to say it closed successfully, and I hope I'll be able to make good use of the tools. Shimeru 16:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Really. But, I suppose the chances of a fraud getting hired to a research position are just about zero, because the interview/seminar process is truly brutal. What's you field? I've noticed you hanging out at the Science answer desk, so I had guessed you were an engineer or such. Derex 07:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Most of the research positions I've seen hired are more about social networking than proving credentials. Eved the first is from the PhD advisor and relevant publications/research. They want to know you are competent in the field. Teaching seems to me more rigid in determining qualifications through credential verififcation. My field is electrical engineering and I have an MS, not PhD. My graduate minor was in physics so that comes in handy on the helpdesk stuff. I work in industry on microprocessor design so I generally avoid articles in my specific field although I'll edit the basic stuff. I avoid editing areas of expertise just on ethical grounds and a very broad interpretation of non-disclosure agreements. Politics, policy and law are a passion so that's what draws my article contributions. --Tbeatty 01:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Ah, my brother is physics/EE; you two are a bit alike come to think of it. Connections certainly matter for research positions. And it ultimately is more about competence than credentials, but the credential usually comes along for the ride. I, for example, hadn't yet finished my PhD when I started professoring, but then they leaned real hard on me to wrap it up. It's amazing the number of people who avoid editing in their fields, myself included. .... I thought elements of your credentialstar proposal had merit, and would welcome your further input over at the page. I think verification for masters equivalent and above is basically a good idea and will (a) be good advertising (b) resolve Essjay PR issues (c) consume some of Citizendium's oxygen. Probably won't do it myself, but still a good idea. ... By the way, it truly wasn't a POV fork. I don't really care if the articles are independently spun off instead of aggregated, but there's no sound reason to delete the basic content (except possibly Bush, which I think is actually in his interest to keep). Derex 09:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- People didn't seem to latch on to my credential proposal. I wanted to get away from separate user boxes and also get away from having the person with the credential maintaining his own verification page. I might summariaze that on the talk page but in reality, Jimbo will make the call and it will be somewhat heavyhanded. I think there was a similiar policy reversal over at reliable source/original research merging. As for the rape allegations, I would rather see them on the accusers page. Even Clinton's accusation is such a small nit in his overall biography that it's only worth a sentence. However, it does belong in the Juanita Broaddrick as that is all she is known for. By having a separate article, including bios of otherwise non-notable people, they all get too much notice. Maybe a category of presidential rape accusers? I am much more of a deletionist with tabloid elements that relate to biographies and I think far too much of Wikipedia is spent on tabloid stuff. I also happen to think a sympathetic point of view would make for better biographies. It may even lead some people to vote for deletion on hatchet articles as they couldn't stand to have a sympathetic article written about their own perosnal enemy that is otherwise non-notable. I've noticed Wikipedia can have a pretty strong mean streak. Tbeatty 14:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have a fundamental philosophical difference with many who followed GabrielF's board. I understand the general feeling there is that having a Wikipedia article on a questionable claim is a way of promoting that claim. My feeling is that having a good article on such a weak, but notable, claim is an excellent way to debunk the claim, without ever taking a POV. I think the evidence on all 3 of the recent rape claims is really weak, but you'd never know that by web-surfing. Most any place that mentions any of these does so while promoting the truth of the claim. There is no place else on the web that uses NPOV policy; so this is the only place that actually aims to lay out just the facts without artificially promoting a certain interpretation. In that, I think we do a tremendous service by having such articles. My delete line is when the claims are not already notable. In that case, even a neutral article really does promote by drawing attention, and few 3rd-party editors are likely to be interested in keeping such an article neutral anyway. Cheers, Derex 23:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I understand. It's a tough choice. My personal belief (and the web is too new to see if it will hold out) is that these things will die out to the fringe of the web on their own unless they are propagated. Wikipedia is a high traffic site and by having the accusation listed here it makes it much easier to find these things. By being in wikipedia, they are immortalized forever and also given a high search engine hit rate as well as a ring of credibility regardless of how debunked they are in the article. If they only place on the web you find the Bush rape allegation is Democratic Underground, it says a lot about its credibilty. If you see it in Wikipedia next to the Reagan and Clinton rape allegations, it gets a credibility all its own regardless if what's written. --Tbeatty 04:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have a fundamental philosophical difference with many who followed GabrielF's board. I understand the general feeling there is that having a Wikipedia article on a questionable claim is a way of promoting that claim. My feeling is that having a good article on such a weak, but notable, claim is an excellent way to debunk the claim, without ever taking a POV. I think the evidence on all 3 of the recent rape claims is really weak, but you'd never know that by web-surfing. Most any place that mentions any of these does so while promoting the truth of the claim. There is no place else on the web that uses NPOV policy; so this is the only place that actually aims to lay out just the facts without artificially promoting a certain interpretation. In that, I think we do a tremendous service by having such articles. My delete line is when the claims are not already notable. In that case, even a neutral article really does promote by drawing attention, and few 3rd-party editors are likely to be interested in keeping such an article neutral anyway. Cheers, Derex 23:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- People didn't seem to latch on to my credential proposal. I wanted to get away from separate user boxes and also get away from having the person with the credential maintaining his own verification page. I might summariaze that on the talk page but in reality, Jimbo will make the call and it will be somewhat heavyhanded. I think there was a similiar policy reversal over at reliable source/original research merging. As for the rape allegations, I would rather see them on the accusers page. Even Clinton's accusation is such a small nit in his overall biography that it's only worth a sentence. However, it does belong in the Juanita Broaddrick as that is all she is known for. By having a separate article, including bios of otherwise non-notable people, they all get too much notice. Maybe a category of presidential rape accusers? I am much more of a deletionist with tabloid elements that relate to biographies and I think far too much of Wikipedia is spent on tabloid stuff. I also happen to think a sympathetic point of view would make for better biographies. It may even lead some people to vote for deletion on hatchet articles as they couldn't stand to have a sympathetic article written about their own perosnal enemy that is otherwise non-notable. I've noticed Wikipedia can have a pretty strong mean streak. Tbeatty 14:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, my brother is physics/EE; you two are a bit alike come to think of it. Connections certainly matter for research positions. And it ultimately is more about competence than credentials, but the credential usually comes along for the ride. I, for example, hadn't yet finished my PhD when I started professoring, but then they leaned real hard on me to wrap it up. It's amazing the number of people who avoid editing in their fields, myself included. .... I thought elements of your credentialstar proposal had merit, and would welcome your further input over at the page. I think verification for masters equivalent and above is basically a good idea and will (a) be good advertising (b) resolve Essjay PR issues (c) consume some of Citizendium's oxygen. Probably won't do it myself, but still a good idea. ... By the way, it truly wasn't a POV fork. I don't really care if the articles are independently spun off instead of aggregated, but there's no sound reason to delete the basic content (except possibly Bush, which I think is actually in his interest to keep). Derex 09:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] substing
When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. ST47Talk 12:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I guess that one will follow me around for a while
:-) —Doug Bell talk 09:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Holy cow! You made NBGPWS's head explode!
Check out his meltdown in his talk page history. Jinxmchue 13:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Now taking bets as to how long it takes FAAFA to start using a sockpuppet. Jinxmchue 06:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 'bout time
[1]--MONGO 00:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] User talk:AumakuaSatori
I was interested in your second warning template there. Did you mean Larry Silverstein? Larry Sanger is someone different! Please see if you can help me update the article, I think it needs it. --Guinnog 15:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- I invite you to discuss this at Talk:7_World_Trade_Center#Refresh. See you there, I hope. --Guinnog 15:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes I meant silverstein. I put the warnings there because the two progressive warnings about the problems with the edits were more descriptive than MONGO's test2 warning. It was to diffuse the situation as I think both the warning templates I left were appropriate for the edits.
[edit] WP:RFAR
Your request for speedy deletion has been declined. The process of arbitration supercedes CSD per Jimbo's orders, Cabal decree, and WP:IAR. For your actions, you will hereby be punished with the speedy obtaining of a shrubbery and the chopping down of the largest tree in the forest with a herring.
And yes, I know it's a joke. :) —210physicq (c) 05:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
