User talk:Blueelectricstorm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Just wondering . . . 2 Reply 3 RE: removing tags 4 Globalization 5 Librarians

[edit] Just wondering . . .

I'm wondering why my edits to Globalization didn't make the cut. I specifically edited the definition portion of the page. Not only is the existing page too much "pro-globalization", it uses incorrect grammar and is just poorly worded. Also, my edits were referenced to a scholarly definition, which the existing definition is not.

[edit] Reply

I'm sorry. I didn't know it was a work in progress. However, telling other editors to "get a life" is considered bad etiquette and may be considered a personal attack by some. Please, always act civil and assume good faith. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 00:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I when I proposed the deletion, I was in no way implying that you didn't know the difference between an encyclopedia and a dictionary. The article just seemed to contain a dictionary definition and that seemed to violate WP:NOT#DICT. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 00:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: removing tags

Hello Blueelectricstorm. I think that you may have slightly mis-interpreted the intructions on the help page & missed out the step before removing the tag - that is, that the issue flagged in the tag should be fixed first! Clicking on the wikilinks within the tag will lead you to a standard explanation but specifically with this article the issue is the style and tone of the article which is not encyclopaedic and reads more like a term paper or essay, it also appears to reflect a very particular viewpoint and sections of it read like original research. Particularly troublesome is the second half of the second paragraph. Encyclopaedic articles cannot talk about "time immemorial" or "the great irony of globalisation" and statements such as "these economic arrangements should be seen not as..." need to be counterbalanced with the opposing view, not presented as objective fact. The problems continue right down to the External links section where you describe one of the links as an eloquent critique, again this is not appropriate language for an encyclopaedia calling it a critique is fine but the word eloquent is your own subjective opinion. These are by no means the only problems I have just picked out a few examples to try an help you see what needs changing. On the plus side you have done a great job with the references so I have every confidence that you will reference the other side of the argument equally well. There is a really good help page on improving articles which you might find worth a visit - I certainly found it jolly useful when I was starting out. Good luck! kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 08:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have waited a day or so before I replied to see how your revision of the article progressed as when I initially looked you seemed only to have changed the specific examples I highlighted. I just looked back again and whilst you have added some more content there seems to be little progress on the original text so I am afraid that, in my opinion, the issues have not yet been properly addressed and I would argue that the maintenance tags should remain.

I have sympathy with your comments about the cultural bias in e.g. Globalisation but I think that the place to address this is within the Globalisation article itself rather than adding a counter-balancing article elsewhere. In addition your comments on WP:RFF add to rather than quell my concerns as you quite openly signpost the bias of Transformation of culture stating that that the article encompasses the work of Prof. Robert Hershey because I felt that this body of work deserved its own page. Whilst it is right that you should point out the lack of neutrality in other articles the answer is not to create a slanted article of your own - two wrongs don't make a right. Kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 18:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Globalization

Hi. I have started a discussion on just such issues on the talk page of the Globalization article. Please reply there. The article is a mess and need a general clean-up.Ultramarine (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Librarians

So what's your source for the Naknek, Alaska librarians being "friendly and knowledgable"? Can you cite a verifiable authority, or is it just a personal opinion? What if I go back to Naknek and find one of the librarians to be rude and ignorant, should I change the article to say that too? Let's just stick to working from authoritative sources. Stan (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)