User talk:ABC
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear ABC, welcome! To answer that and others, you can post your question in Wikipedia:Village Pump. But i can tell you that the only articles deleted on sight by admins are the ones with obvious nonsense or offensive material. Cheers, Muriel 15:41, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Accidentally found this page... cheers for the welcome.. but my question is who decides what is 'obvious nonsense' or 'offensive'...? Must say tho this is a cool project.. I can see how it can get addictive... ABC
It is normally very obvious. I tend to work on the basis of triage - a new article that consists of 'My mum is a ****' gets deleted on sight. We do get a lot of that. Obvious nonsense is similar. If it is borderline I stick it on Wikipedia:Cleanup. Ones that are not clear cut I stick on Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion. You might want to look at Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators.
Oh - you can sign your name by putting three tildas afterwards. Four gives a date stamp as well. Secretlondon 15:51, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
Hey that is useful to know. Thanks! ABC 16:11, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)ABC
Oh - your article hasn't been nominated for deletion - but I wouldn't expect this sentence to survive "In politics it is the underlying assumption of Liberalism which has a naive conception of a self that is unhistorical and universal". Describing liberalism as naive and unhistorical is POV. Secretlondon 16:14, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
I am happy for people to improve the wording. I thought that was the point of this project. I used naive in the philosophical sense - not the polemical.. And describing it as unhistorical is descriptive again using standard philosophical language - you could hardly describe Locke's idea of the emergence of property rights with the individual as historical in fact he himself acknowledges it is an intellectual ideal. Think also about John Rawls and his Veil of Ignorance, that is hardly historical is it? And again he would say that is the point!! ABC 16:19, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)ABC
ABC - You are right on about the "system" appearing dreadful to the new contributors. I felt that way myself for several months, and concluded that it had to be the appearance or actuality of a clique of insiders that was the clearly serious fault of the whole enterprise. Several things changed my mind. First, true bullies are rare around here. I'm sure FT thinks I'm a bully, but that is because he is not used to having his ideas challenged (hey I was a very liberal college student myself once). But a challenge to your writing or having your hard work end up on VfD, is the way norms are maintained. It is not a call to have one ostracized for ones views or "kicked out", just a reminder that POV must be carefully presented. Sure, the NO-POV approach is impossible, but consider it this way: acceptable POV is middle of road. This only makes sense. If you write from a very leftist POV, someone with a very rightist POV is going to have to challenge the writing. Presenting both POVs is one way to resolve, but not usually all that satisfactory (who wants to read an article with wildly conflicting presentations?) Also, something that is clearly leftist (like FT's Manifestos) need not be deleted because it is leftist. If the Manifesto is a significant thing in Graphics Design or anywhere else, it should stay. But it should be explained in direct language and put into a proper context. It should be presented as document of historical significance and not as an attempt to preach a way of thinking. I found FT's presentation pseudointellectual; I found the Manefesto (on the web) clear, concise, and sensible. Style is everything, as it should be for a project writing a massive text for general distribution. If people criticise your style, take it as learning execise, not as an attack. In a few months you will either understand perfectly my attitude, or will likely not be around. Thanks for "listening" and hope you stay - and welcome to Wikipedia! - Marshman 18:09, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I have to say I do like the Dialogic nature of this Wiki project. Its good that people explain themselves and their reasoning. And I really appreciate that. I accept that POV is, and will remain, an extremely tricky area to negotiate. I am just a little concerned at the speed of deletions... I still think that if it looks 'dreadful to new contributors' on the outside then this should be taken seriously by those on the inside. Just saying it works might be pragmatic but doesn't make it fair. And regarding 'In a few months you will either understand perfectly my attitude, or will likely not be around. ' that is hardly a justifiable position for me. It is extremely authoritarian because in essense it exclaims I am right. I don't think that is what you meant but care should be taken in that that is what is conveyed. Anyway can't help my critical academic bent (I'm studying a PhD in democracy)... ABC 13:41, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
