User talk:76.226.207.182

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I eliminated this reference and picture from the Outhouse article.

*Although such judgments are personal, one of the most aesthetically pleasing outhouses was built in China. Its architectural design and harmony with its environment is amazing. [[1]] This is an extraordinary life-sized bonsai or penjing.

The reason is that I contacted the person who actually took the picture. He wrote to me that the picture was from Japan, and that it was not of an outhouse.

He also said that he is looking for interesting examples as he continues in his travels (he's currently in Thailand).

I would like to get some interesting examples that we could either use as links (or put the pictures into the article) from places that are not 'western,' as the article has an obvious geographic bias.

Additionally, in the article on "outhouse tipping" I find the insistence of some of the users that there not be any cross rerferncee to "Outhouse."

[edit] Suggestions

I appreciate all your work on outhouse. This is an important piece of vernacular utilitarian architecture. May I offer a couple of suggestions? 1) Get a username. Or everybody will become overly familiar, and start calling you "76" for short. 2) Don't save after every teensy edit. It makes a history trail that's really hard to get to the back of. DavidOaks 03:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Dear Dave:

Thanks Dave. I didn't intend to get a user name. This was just an avocation. However, I got sucked in. And I think I need to get a user name to deal with some of the related articles (e.g. excrement) that are locked out from edits and which are plainly (based on all the research I've been doing) inadequate and with little or no citations to sources.

So I'll get a user name.

I'm sorry about the choppy reedits. I've been giving this a lot of thought -- more than I should -- and I am in my work a professional writer (well, actually, I am a labor arbitrator, but a whole lot of what I do is analysis and writing). Reediting is a large part of what I do. To paraphrase Louis Brandeis, there is no such thing as good writing, there is only good rewriting. Every time I reread something, I can usually come up with a better way to say it. I've been really trying hard to make this a little pearl on what could have been an unimportant and easily dismissed subject. That was a big part of the challenge. When I come up with a thought (however small) it has been my instinct to make the change.

I had a real hard time figuring out the proper formats for footnotes. Actually, I largely prefer the instant click to the source. I would like to be able to do that, and still have my references also appear at the bottom of the article. Do you have a suggestion on how to do that?

Additionally, having a user name could be useful in getting involved in the Australian forum. I'm from Michigan (USA). However, I have the piece about the Kosciusko National Park (in Outhouse), and I've been unable to find out what happened to their dunny. If I got involved there, maybe I could find someone to find the answer to the hanging question inherent in that piece. Any suggestions?

As an aside, I would suggest that if you want to get a handle on what I did in Outhouse, the best way is to go to the "history" section and go back into the area of around 250 edits ago. All of the edits (except for the Kybo song) and a couple of minor editorial corrections were mine. I was trying to create an article that would be what I wanted a Wikipedia article to be -- with lots of citations and connections, and with an appreciation that the article is part of the entire encyclopedia. The writing came as I did increased research, and discovered other things on the internet and in Wikipedia itself.

One of my main criticisms (in addition to the lack of citations to outside materials) is that a lot of the writers don't seem to grasp the need for connections to other articles in the encyclopedia. So I went to a whole lot of places and put in cross references. Some of our esteemed contributors have a very narrow and parochial viewpoint on this, and eliminate them. This is a source of frustration.

Thank you for the positive feedback on the main article. If you go to my history, you will find that I started with "Outhouse" but that its effect has been to radiate into a whole lot of related articles, kind of like throwing a stone into a pool. When I started, I thought this wasn't written as an important article, and I believed I could do better. Actually, I think that my input on the Outhouse article is just about exhausted. (Although I keep coming up with new ideas, and stumbling across new information that suggests whole lines of inquiry and subjects for discussion in that and related articles.)

Please feel free to give me any suggestions, help or criticisms. I am used to being edited, and as a general rule that doesn't offend me.

You obviously know a lot more about Wiki than I do. So your counsel is very much appreciated.

Please stay in touch. 76.234.141.205 13:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

My new username follows:

7&6=thirteen 21:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)