User talk:Frescard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Disillusioned Experts

Thanks for the advice - I had a sort of premonition of this, but then foolishly posted a message on the dianetics page. You can see what happened. On the other hand, I'm interested in case studies, so disaffected cranks are as interesting as any. Dbuckner 07:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You posted it on the Dianetics page??? Foolish indeed...;) That's just asking for trouble!

And while I'm flattered that you put me onto your disillusioned experts list, I don't think I belong there, and that putting people like like me on there would only water down your argument.

I may be an expert in computer science, but that's not the subject I worked on, here on WP. I pride myself on being rather open-minded and skeptical, so I figured I could be the most useful in balancing out controvesial subjects like Religion, Animal Rights, Nazism, etc., trying to maintain a neutral tone in those articles. But, unfortuntately, I utterly failed, getting screamed down by the masses in every single case.

So, while I am equally frustrated with the system as you (and the other experts) are, I don't really belong into that group. (And I don't think I want to be in the same group as the Scientology guys either.)

Perhaps a group for "failed neutralists" would be appropriate...;) --Frescard 15:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I welcome your participation, nonetheless. It was a mistake to use the word 'expert' at all. (a) because it's a bad word in this community (b) because I'm not sure I believe in it myself. My view is that there is a certain class of editor who writes good articles (and I have some evidence that these are not always 'experts' in the sense of having qualifications, or even subject matter expertise). However, the existing policies, mindset and culture of WP is such that these editors are becoming disillusioned and leaving in droves. Do you fit into that category? Dbuckner 09:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't personally have a problem with the word "expert". They certainly exist. They would be very valuable for WP. And they definitely have their own, unique problems to deal with. I just wanted to avoid watering down that issue by putting non- or self-declared experts into the same category. I felt that the argument would've lost a lot of its strength if that would've happened.

I see two big issues facing WP: Accuracy and Neutrality. The experts are mainly concerned with the problem of accuracy. They submit what they know, and can prove, is correct, but then someone else comes along and wreaks havoc with their submissions. This is one problem.

The other problem is neutrality: On subjects that have a somewhat equal distribution of proponents for conflicting positions the articles normally end up fairly neutral, even if it is only after long struggles and time-consuming edit wars. In cases though, where one group of supporters of a specific POV is either more dedicated, obsessed or populous, that side will end up controlling the content of the article, and will try to suppress any kind of dissent. It may throw the opposing side the occasional bone or two, but overall they decide what ends up in the article. This issue is quite independent from the accuracy issue. After all, both sides may own correct data, but if only one side gets a chance to present theirs, NPOV flies out the window.

The main reason I got disillusioned with WP was because of the neutrality aspect. Most articles I dealt with did contain correct information; the problem was that the information presented was very selective. Trying to include content that goes against the majority opinion is pretty much impossible if you're outnumbered.

Of course, the exact same argument would also come from any "suppressed crank". They would make the very same complaint, about how their viewpoint is not being accepted anywhere. But I guess the way to separate the cranks from the neutralists is to look at their actual contributions, and to see whether they are only promoting their own outrageous POV, whether they can hold rational and calm debates about the positions they're championing, or whether they endlessly get into trouble.

(If you look at my history for example, you will see that I fought for weeks to keep a criticism section included in the Islam article. But then, recently, I also submitted for deletion a 'List of critics of Islam' , as it seemed that it had to rely on original research to determine who's a critic and who isn't.) So - I hope that I would qualify as a fairly neutral editor, and that it should be nearly impossible to judge my personal POV from just my submissions and edits. I am definitely disillusioned, and I have stopped editing on WP because of those issues above. So I guess that I would fit your new definition of "uncranky" and "unhappy" editors who have, for now, given up on WP. And if, after all this, you would like to include me in your new list, then I'd be honored to be in such respectable company... --Frescard 04:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invalid AIV report

Thank you for making a report about 129.15.127.254 (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Generally, final warnings on IP addresses do not count after around 48 hours after issuance, especially if it is a school IP. This could be a computer in a university computer lab. Jesse Viviano 00:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Hicks Wildlife thingy

hi bud, yes it's an officially endorsed place.. Bill was involved in it's creation (i believe) and probably helped fund it's start up. On youtube you can find clips of Bill at the place talking with the women who work at as the animal vets. I remember seeing one (and reading about) a wolf that was taken in by the place, as a very young injured/orphaned/abandoned cub.. and it was still with them years later (it looked like the had decded to keep it and the wolf was happy to stay), it would bark and get excited when the woman were taking in a new injured animal and they'd have to shoo it away.. haha. I seen a clip with Bill tuning his guitar at the place, and the wolf is sitting next to him and starts howling to the guitar.. haha! I read somewhere else that, years later, when Bill was close to death he said he could see and hear him (Wolfie, or what her name was.. i forget)

[1] <--- Kachina, the wolf kisses Bill.

The wildlife place has a myspace account, they'd be happy for new members if you have an account there. [2] <----wildlife place myspace account And there is a NYC comedienne (Luchia) who arrange, holds & is executive producer of an annual tribute to Bill show - she holds it on Bill's bday. [3] <----- NYC comedienne Luchia

hope this is of interest / help bud.

-a bill hicks fan

[edit] Links to and promoting attack sites

Hello, per Wikipedia:Harassment#Types_of_harassment/posting of personal information, links to Wikipedia Review are disallowed. It is an attack site that cannot be linked to, advertised, or promoted, supported by previous ArbCom decisions. I've removed this link and promotion of a hostile site that attacks and attempts to out the IRL identities of Wikipedians from your user page, per this:

"Posting information on, or implying how to find, or simply posting the address of a website which publishes such information is also harassment, regardless of whether the posted link is live or just a bare URL. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor.""

Thanks for your understanding. - Denny ^(talk) 17:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you do NOT have my understanding...

Unless you show me an official list of which sites are allowed to link to and which aren't I would suggest not to edit my user page without previous discussion.

Just because you do not like a specific site, or a site may have specific pages that violate WP rules, that by no means makes it illegal to link to the site as a whole. --Frescard 04:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Fatality666 profile.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Fatality666 profile.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. – Gurch 10:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, I deleted the image because there's absolutely no way it could qualify under fair use. Is it possible for you to upload a much smaller screenshot? Thanks, – Riana_ऋ 11:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)