User talk:Jb2ndr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Jb2ndr! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your characterization of my comment

I highly resent that you added the heading Author is a creep since I do not agree with him to my comment in Wikipedia talk:New proposal for alternative analysis. If you did not understand my reference to instruction creep, then I recommend that you become much more familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines before trying to change them. I might add that what you did could be construed as a failure to assume good faith. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 12:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My mistake.

Boy I did read that article and now let me respond to your original intent with apologies.

First, I have no idea how allowing alternative analysis is instruction creep since it is not based on someone doing something stupid and we must make rules to make that stupid thing stop. WP is filled with instructions like, say for example, don't allow instruction creep. I was trying to suggest ways in which alternative analysis can be had such that it does not turn WP into a blog. Instruction creep does not mean that all process is bad it means that we should not establish instructions for every little thing people do so that they become robots following a never ending list of Standard Operating Procedures. By the way in some cases you should be thankful of instruction creep. Think about it every time you board an airliner or occupy the 50th floor of a building.

If alternative analysis is to be allowed then it must be subject to greater scrutiny than original articles. The process for determining the difference between POV and NPOV contains instructions. There are rule based methods for determining analysis from opinion and analysis should be separate from the original article so that people can get a NPOV view of conventional thinking. AA should not be allowed to go on forever. It is a one shot thing. One has a premise, they support it by logic and fact and do not render opinion as to what it means or why the world would be a better place if we adopted it.

There are fallacies, inconsistencies, and outright disinformation out here which are taken as fact since they come from cited experts in the field - even when the experts seem to be disagreeing. Experts and professionas get wound up in their own culture and talk only to each other establishing rules about what can be said and what must remain unspoken. It is these unspoken rules, self-interest, status-quo, or the outright obsolescence of ideas that I am trying to address.

WP is a radical forum in a radical new world of information. Provide that information don't just be a paper encylopedia. But everyone so far has a knee-jerk reaction to my proposal. No one is thinking about alternatives. My way may not be the best way but no one is making suggestions as to how WP can expand to fill it's vast potential. I am not the only one who see's this but I can see it takes very thick skin to challenge your status-quo.

[edit] Comments of mine and your proposal

I'd prefer it if you didn't add my comments to your proposal regarding alternative analysis. This is because they deal more specifically with the article you'd written, rather than the general principle of alternative analysis that you're trying to push forward. At some point I intend to have a serious go at responding to your proposal on its merits, but until then I think it probably makes more sense to leave my comments where they are. BigHaz 03:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd also point out that the article in question still doesn't actually "cite sources" by throwing in a quote from de Tocqueville. I'm more than prepared to believe that he said it, but the point about citing sources is to actually tell us the book that he said it in - and preferably the page number of that book as well (or the website the quotation comes from if you didn't read him to get the quote in the first place). Again, my apologies if I've got historian-blinkers on, but a citation isn't a citation until I know precisely where I can find the original text. Regarding the rest of your responses to my critiques, I'd be more than happy to continue a discussion outside of the AfD listing - your talk page is on my watchlist if you want to post a response here, or we can pick it up on mine. BigHaz 03:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)